Ann: 2021 AGM Chairman's Address and CEO Presentation, page-30

Re difference with US / Aust investors, my take was that there were two deal types they were talking about:

1. US investors are more interested in doing deals with drugs, not necessarily just delivery. It seems delivery is just too small a payoff for US investors. So, they may be interested when PYC has drugs in, or very near, clinic. Then they may take equity. i.e. this may be 6 months off.

• As a side note it seemed the US investors were less interested in niche products like the eye, and more in the CNS / kidney type drugs, simply because of the size of market opp. i.e, again, too small for some if it's too niche?

1. But...RH also mentioned that there may be pharma deals to be had using the delivery platform and their drugs, more like the deals we're used to seeing, i.e. small'ish up-front and milestones down the track. There may be more interest in this in the shorter-term as the platform is becoming more and more obviously validated, but competition exists.

Australian investors seem more attuned to the 2nd type, i.e. partnership model, than the more comprehensive we'll take a PE stake in the business and really grow this out type of investment, as in the 1st type, which is perhaps more transformative, take longer and perhaps requires US listing.

For mine, maybe they can do 1-2 delivery deals, without equity dilution to get Aust investor validation and support and to give them a bigger cash runway. They can then use this to continue developing their own drugs as fast to market and good 'backbone' ones to carry, and all the while fill out the CNS/kidney/other drug opportunities that they can then do a PE/life science investor deal with.

If anything like this were to happen, Surges, not sure how that fits in with your theory of larger players positioning themselves and managing the price. I just think were too small and too early for that. Love to get other perspectives.... GLTA.