All right, so onto the presentation, which is a bit more interesting than the formal policy proceedings. Last year, Cadence Capital Limited returned 3.4% for the year. Really, for us, it was a story of two halves for the fund. We performed strongly in the second half of the financial year, being up 7.3%, reversing some of the first half's underperformance. And we really will go into this in a bit of detail in this presentation, but we really suffered a lot of underperformance watching PEs expand on negative earnings growth, which is not an area where we perform that well. And that theme reemerges in this presentation. The overall accumulation performance in 2025 was driven by a small number of large capitalization companies that do not meet our criteria, having very low or negative earnings growth and very high PE multiples. I wish I could tell you a better story this year in terms of those PE multiples and the earnings growth for the ASX sector, but of course, I can't. We've had the results now, and the earnings for the ASX were once again negative, and the PEs have expanded further. Commonwealth Bank, Wesfarmers, Westpac, Telstra, Brambles are five very good examples of this, and they represent about half of the rise in the ASX index last year and will, of course, once again feature in the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index performance this year. We paid a AUD 0.03 final dividend, franked at 50%. This equates to an 8.8% yield or, importantly, nearly an 11% gross yield based on the share price of AUD 0.68 at the time. After paying that dividend, the company still has AUD 0.12 of reserves to pay future dividends, which is about two years' worth of dividends. Here you can see the performance at the end of September. The fund has outperformed the ASX All Ordinaries Accumulation Index by a significant margin. And over the past 12 months to September, the fund is up 14%, outperforming the index by 3.5%. And the fund continues to perform well in October, being up around 3.5% as of last night. And if you go back to your desk now, you'll see, apart from this AGM, that we've also put out an NTA update as of last night to give people an idea of where we are right now because we're having the AGM right now. Since the 1st of January, after adjusting for dividends, pre-tax NTA is up 20%, while our share price is up 8%. That's a 14% difference in the share price movement versus our actual NTA movement. And that leads to us trading at a 21% discount to NTA despite that performance. Our pre-tax NTA is currently around AUD 0.87, and our share price is currently around AUD 0.685 or AUD 0.69 when I left the office. We currently hold around 38 positions. The important part of those positions, the bigger positions, are around 25-30 positions a nd 66% of those funds are in companies of AUD 1 billion and bigger. So what we're talking about is a pretty liquid portfolio at the moment, as of last night, holding nearly 20% cash. Currently, 75% of the portfolio could be liquidated within one week and around 80% within one month. As of the 30th of September, here are 20 top positions in alphabetical order, so not given to you in any particular order, but what you should be able to see there is a predominance of resource companies, gold stocks, and turnaround situations, which are actually presenting as cheap based on earnings growth and PE multiples, in contrast to other parts of the market, which are presenting as very expensive with negative earnings growth. And we release these positions every month in our newsletter, so it should be fairly straightforward to keep up to speed on what we're actually investing in. So here is a chart that we've started to put into the newsletter. And obviously, those blue bubbles represent when you're trading at a premium to NTA, and the green bubbles are when you're at a discount to NTA. And then the periods in between you're either moving to or away from NTA. I mean, in an ideal world without emotion, the stock would trade at NTA. But emotion plays a very strong role, obviously, in the premium or discount to an NTA in a listed vehicle like this. And it says again at the bottom there that post the Ex- date, we're currently trading at a 21% discount. In actual fact, we realized that the stock trades at a premium and discount, but what has been really astounding this year is to watch our shares rally AUD 0.06 into the dividend, the company pay out a AUD 0.03 dividend, and then watch the share price fall AUD 0.09. So there is a group logic or a group think that's buying a AUD 0.03 fully franked dividend and losing AUD 0.06 on their capital to achieve that outcome. On the surface of it, that appears counterintuitive. We were pleased to say in one of our newsletters earlier this month that our NTA was tracking in line with our performance, and that was, in fact, the case. You can see it, and then more recently, there's that divergence away from performance versus NTA performance versus the share price performance. Now, what can we do about that? We can do buybacks. I can show strength by going into the market to buy shares, which I do. Other directors can show strength by going into the market to buy shares, which they do. We can talk about it in the AGM. We can write about it in the newsletter. We can fly around the country telling people about it. But ultimately, there's going to be a group of people that if they saw a house valued at AUD 2 million and they could buy it at AUD 1.6 million, they simply wouldn't do it. They would prefer to pay AUD 2.4 million for it. Hopefully, that didn't make sense to anyone, what I just said then. But when you bring it back in housing terms, it's much more concrete. People generally understand it a little bit better. And this is the opportunity. It's the challenge and the opportunity in this fund. And it is, in fact, the third worst discount to NTA that this company has ever experienced, the other two being the GFC, which we all remember, and COVID, which we all remember, and then Liberation Day, which we're living or remembering or going through or whatever we want to describe the kind of Liberation Day developments. But of course, all these things represent opportunity ultimately. Turning now to CDO, CDO is up around 8% for the year. It had a lot more trading opportunities in it, so obviously did a little bit better. It's been set up to do that. It performed strongly as well in the second half, up 9.1%, and paid out a AUD 0.07 fully franked dividend. That's a 7.8% yield, 11.1% gross yield based on the share price of AUD 1.73. And after paying that dividend, we have AUD 0.31 of profit reserves, also around two years of dividend retained earnings up our sleeve. The fund's up 6.8% over a month, 21% over the year, and 23% per annum since inception. In September, sorry, for the 12 months to September, the fund is up 21%. And in October, the fund is up 2.5% as well. So you'll see that NTA update when you get back to your computer screens tonight. Again, since the 1st of January, the NTA is up 22%. And our pre-tax NTA is AUD 2.18 roughly, and the shares are trading at AUD 1.87. Similar situation here, very, very liquid portfolio. In fact, more liquid because it's a smaller fund than CDM and can be liquidated even more quickly than CDM. The top 20 shareholders here, top 20 shares here, you can see them. More specifically, some of the things that do not appear in the Cadence Capital Limited portfolio because they're not big companies or because there's not much liquidity. Other Guzman y Gomez short, t here's only a defined amount of shorting stock available to short this company, probably not enough to put into the big fund at the moment. That might change going forward. The Motorcycle Holdings turnaround, when we bought the stock at 5x earnings and now is at 10x earnings. We've actually exited that position now, and then some of the other positions. ClearView is a discount to NTA and discount to embedded value story. That's done very well for the fund, and as we approach NTA and embedded value, you would expect a trader like this fund to be exiting that position, but there's no rush to do that. We're not quite there yet, so similar portfolio with some stocks, but different in some of the trading and turnaround situations, especially in the smaller companies. Discount premium. You can see the situation here. The discount isn't as great, and the discount never got as great during COVID, but now that's just a statement of fact. There's not much more to say about it, except to say, going back a few slides, I'll remind you that this is a company that's done 23.2% performance per annum since inception and yields 11% or 12% gross, so here's that thing we were talking about and that thing that we're all rallying against. Three years ago, PEs across the index were around 15x-16x. We were ambling along at 2%-3% EPS growth for the index. Life seemed normal. Then earnings started to deteriorate, then they went negative, then they improved ever so slightly, then they deteriorated again, and the market bought those shares up on higher and higher valuations as that happened, to the point that we're now at about 22x PE across the index. And we still have displayed before us little to no earnings growth or some negative earnings growth across the entire index. And the constant reminder in the newspaper every day that the PEs are going to go higher and there's going to be a melt-up or it's going to be amazing and it's going to go to 25 PE and then maybe 30 PE and whatever is catching people's imagination on the front page of the news at the moment, that is the type of thing we'd be reading about. Now, we don't fight the market, right? We would love to be shorting stocks on 30, 40, 50 PE that have negative earnings growth. But some of those stocks are going up, so you can't short them. You'd lose money. But the time will come and we're patient. We're not going to worry about a revolt, and we're not going to run out of money because we're holding cash and we've got positions that are doing well, and we can change and liquidate those positions pretty quickly too. All right, so this chart, this is very special, and I've shown this, what did you say the other day, Wayne? 2022. 2022. I've been showing this chart at AGMs for three years. If you're a trend follower, you're looking for trend changes. They're the most important thing in your world, and sometimes they take a lifetime to happen, and you don't even know that you've experienced them. Since 1982, interest rates have been falling globally for decades, causing asset prices across the board to go up. No matter what you earned, if you bought a house, if you bought this, if you bought that, the wind was in your sails, and there was only ever one thing to do, and that was to buy assets and to leverage yourself as much as you could because you knew that the more you did that and the more they cut interest rates, the more your assets were going to be worth. And if you borrowed at 7%, you kind of knew that the RBA would cut it to 6% and then 5% and then 4% and then 3%. So they were working with you all the way. Until that day, they said that interest rates wouldn't change for three years, and then they started going up. And so this is the new world we're in. This is the rising interest rate world, and this is the changing trend world. And it's difficult to think about because it's not pleasant in a way. It's good for certain things. If you go back to 1990s since after the Second World War all the way through to 1992, you can see all the things that did well there: gold, silver, oil, copper, zinc, anyone with pricing power, anything you needed, you just had to pay for to get it. There were a lot of world skirmishes to get hold of things that people needed. There were battlefronts drawn to get hold of oil, similar to the battlefronts being drawn now to get hold of critical minerals and rare earths. We've just signed an agreement with the U.S., a company called Iluka. They're going to put a floor into the price of the product that they're going to be selling, funded by Australian taxpayers, that floor. And then we can deliver the things that we need to the U.S. And so it's a different world. This is a different world. I mean, we've just got to kind of invest in a different way. So I've been very surprised to watch PEs expand against this backdrop as interest rates have gone up. And of course, the paper keeps saying interest rates are going to go down as they go up. So there's that going on too. There's that kind of crazy. I mean, interest rates have come off. There's no example here where they don't go. But they go up in a straight line. They go up and come down, up and come down, up and come down. But they don't go up in a straight line. Nothing goes up in a straight line. But for us, this is the new chart. This is 220 years' worth of interest rates, and the average interest rate over 220 years is 8%. So if you've lived in a world below 8%, you've been a lucky person. And we've all been lucky. It's been fantastic. It's been so good. Okay, now for that. I've been talking about that for years. This is the short-term piece I was talking about where it just doesn't go up in a straight line. It goes up a bit, then comes off, then goes up, then comes off, then goes up, then comes off. And then the index divergence up there, which I'm struggling with. And you have to be open-minded enough to think, I mean, I'm open-minded enough to think I could be wrong about this. But if interest rates are going back to 0% and we're just going to have hyperinflation and all those sorts of things, I mean, anything's possible. Then, of course, the index could go, PEs could really go wild. But I don't know. I'm kind of thinking that economics is going to, the law of economics is going to play a role in all of this somewhere down the track. And that's the divergence of opinion at the moment. Some people are just saying, "Don't worry about it." Commonwealth Bank just announced AUD 2.6 billion of provisions on Monday, warned their shareholders about the changing big long-term trends that I'm describing to you. The share price went up. It's not something you should worry about necessarily as long as people are buying the shares. All right, this we've spoken about a little bit, gold versus gold. Gold stocks really underperformed the rise of gold for a long time. Gold is the opposite. Just going back here. When interest rates are going up, bonds are going down. American bond, 10-year bonds are yielding 4% at the moment. The U.S. currency has fallen 10% in the six months. You've lost 6% on your money in America in the first six months of this year. You're going to be selling the bonds. So the bonds are going to get cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. But you're going to buy something. If you're an overseas person, you're going to sell the bonds. And you're going to buy something to replace it with. Well, you're going to buy gold and precious metals, and you're going to buy other things. That's actually what's been happening. I don't have to, I mean, you would have read the papers as much as I have. Thousands of tons of gold have been bought by sovereign funds globally. There's a little bit of a lack of trust in the U.S. dollar as the preeminent dollar in the world with $37 trillion of debt and $1.3 trillion of interest year after next. Here it is in a picture. I always like pictures. They're easier. So in the 1970s, you can see the Reserve Banks held gold. They didn't hold bonds. Gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, and then as things started getting good again, as this line from the 1980s went down, as interest rates went down, there's no need to hold gold, so everyone sold all their gold. You actually do have a pointer. Oh, sorry. At the very top. So there, they sold their gold all the way down to the point that they didn't have much gold. So once everyone's decided, "I don't want gold anymore," what happens then? All the collective Reserve Banks around the world decide you don't need gold anymore. Of course, gold goes up. And they bought and along the way, they just bought lots and lots of 10-year bonds and reserves and Japanese, American. This is U.S. Treasuries, but the same happened all over the world. And look at that change. Look at that change in 2015, 2020. Just suddenly, all this buying of gold and all the selling of U.S. Treasuries. Very exciting. And all of this stuff, you've read it all. So foreign reserve banks, their holdings have fallen. And then now there's advice from the asset allocators and the planners and everyone. If 1% of privately owned U.S. treasury market were to flow into gold, gold would be $5,000 an ounce, according to Goldman Sachs. This quote I quite like. There's $300 trillion of global debt getting sold off. That's this green line. This debt's getting sold off now. And gold and silver are being purchased. Unfortunately, there's only $0.6 trillion of new gold and silver in the world. So it's 450 years' worth of global debt there if everyone decides to get out. They're not all going to get out, but it's a big number. And then I watched an interview from on Citadel the other day, which I thought was really interesting. And I'd just like to quote this. These are his words. "We're seeing substantial asset inflation away from the dollar as people are looking for ways to effectively de-dollarize." This is U.S. dollars, de-dollarize from the U.S. dollar. Or de-risk their portfolio vis-à-vis U.S. sovereign debt. Gold has a life of its own as you see sovereigns around the world, as you see central banks around the world, and as you see individuals around the world go. You know what? I view gold as a safe harbor asset in a way that the dollar used to be viewed." And he said, "This is really concerning me." He's mirroring Ray Dalio's thoughts. He's mirroring all - I mean, a lot of the big guys are saying this, whether it happens or not. I don't know. All right. That's enough. I'm going to let Kieran do a few of these gold stocks just to take you through the logic on gold and where they sit in cost and revenue. The income will be the problem. And then I'll come back. Thank you. Yeah, so Karl's done a great job, I think, framing the fundamental drivers for the gold price and why we see tailwinds for the sector going forward. It's also worth noting that not only, it's a bit of a boom period for miners. Not only is the underlying commodity price going up, but you've also got energy costs, which is one of the key input costs for miners in the case of oil at sort of five-year lows. So what that translates into is earnings expansion and plenty of free cash flow, which you'll see in the following slides. So first example, Equinox Gold. This is a company that was formed out of a merger between Calibre Mining, which we were shareholders of, and Equinox Gold earlier this year, and it is a multi-asset gold producer with two foundational assets in Canada. These assets collectively have got production guidance this year of about 800,000 ounces, and that's going to over a million ounces from next year onwards. So together with the rising gold price and the CapEx programs for these developments rolling off as they ramp up, that gives you a period of significant free cash flow. And that's spot gold prices on our numbers, as you can see there. We've got earnings growth over 100% and free cash flow yield of 19% for next year. So as a result of that, the company is targeting some returns to shareholders over the next sort of couple of years. And that's the share price chart there. And we entered earlier this year. Second one is New Gold. Similarly, you've got two producing gold mines in Canada. These are underground gold mines. Historically, there's been some challenges with New Gold under the former management team, and it basically led to some forced asset sales and some troubles with the balance sheet. Now you've got a new management team in there, and they are delivering on targets, and they had their free cash flow sort of inflection point late last year, and together with the rising gold price, we've basically seen that free cash flow accelerate through this year. I would expect another uptick into 2026, so likewise with Equinox, you've got earnings growth of over 100% and a free cash flow yield at spot price of about 23%, and they also have a strong balance sheet with net debt of only AUD 0.4 billion, and that's the share price chart there. I think we entered earlier this year around AUD 3.50, and I might pass back to Karl to talk through, [audio distortion]. Thanks. Thanks, Kieran. And those are two overseas stocks, Canadian stocks. And so you can see it's not any. There's a lot of stocks in the world that mine gold. And when we got into those stocks, they were cheaper than stocks here. And then just finally, I'll just do a quick one on Pantoro. When I first met, I love this story. When I first met the manager of this company, he was losing money mining gold. Something had gone wrong, and his inbound diesel was paying an extra AUD 1.6 million a month for diesel. And his staff, in the December month up north, they read about this call center down in Melbourne. One of the operators rang up there. Operator is about AUD 300,000-AUD 350,000 a year. And said, "I've got a sore throat, so can I get time off work?" And they said, "Well, how many days do you need?" He said, "Well, December's a 10-day working month, right? 10 days would be ideal." They did that. And all the other operators heard about it, so they all got the same guy from the tele-centre, and basically no one did any work in December. And then they had a long Christmas, I guess. So this man's business nearly went bankrupt. Things changed a bit after that. One of the main things that happened is the gold price went up. So the really interesting thing is you can have a bad company, a bad gold company. If the gold price goes up, your earnings explode. And that's what's happened with this business. We've doubled our money twice on the stock. This is our third go at it. We've exited a portion of this position already, and we're up about 70% on it. And you would have all read that Australia, the second largest export for Australia now is gold. Gold is our second largest export. So just as things were turning bad with exporting education and the iron ore price had gone down, and the LNG price had gone down, and the coal price had gone down, bang, gold shows up. And so the companies like this are printing money. And look at that, from AUD 0.80 to nearly AUD 6.50. And that's happening with a lot of gold stocks in Australia. So they are printing money. Some other quick ones. Robex Resources, a man called Matt Wilcox, we backed him in Tietto, got taken over. He came to us with this project. The family based in Monaco. They wanted to get it up and running. He convinced them to do it. And so this has gone extremely well. It's dual-listed in Australia and about to do a deal with Predictive. They're a very big company, AUD 2.5 billion valuation. This should go straight into the ASX 200. Company that no one's ever heard of. I mean, we talk about unicorns. Unicorns are these finance companies that get a billion-dollar valuation. Sometimes they don't even earn money. This is AUD 2.5 billion money that a gang will be printing cash. Endeavour Mining, that was a good position for us when it's done well. It's rolled a little bit. We've sold a portion of it. Consolidated Minerals has done extremely well for us. We've sold a little bit as it's rolled. And Soraco Gold[guess] is also a man that I've known for 20 years that we backed. It's a position that's done extremely well. We've got Capstone Copper in here. I'm going to talk about that a little bit, and more recently, rare earth, the Lindian Resources position, we helped raise money for this company. They've done a deal with Iluka. They'll be supplying product to Iluka, and it holds great promise, this company, and there's going to be ups and downs, of course, when they're so early stage in the project, but we know that some of these rare earths and some of these critical minerals, some of the companies are going to succeed. A lot are going to fail, but some are going to succeed. Just quickly on Capstone Copper, this has been, you may have heard me talk about this a few years back. This has been in and out of the portfolio. It's currently got 100% earnings growth, 11 PE, strong cash flows, and net debt of $0.8 billion on a market cap of $8 billion. So very, very conservative balance sheet. The goal here is to get their prices down to $1.50 per ton on cost. And then whatever their copper price is, they make that margin, which is phenomenal. It's a longer-term goal, which means that they're not in full production across all their mines. But as that does occur, they become a more and more valuable company. And you can see it hasn't been smooth. It's been a very good investment, but you've had to keep your eye on entering and exiting positions. It hasn't been a core position for the whole time. It's been quite a volatile story. And by the way, all these things that do well in inflationary periods, all these commodities and golds and silvers and everything, they are volatile. It's not like it's just not a smooth ride. So there are periods when you have to move in and out of positions, which is what our fund's been set up to do. So we do that regularly. Just quickly on turnaround situations, I've known Alan Taylor, who runs Clarity Pharmaceuticals for about 20 years. He started that company a long time ago. It's a biotech business, very, very good product. They've just done a trial at St. Vincent's that's going to be taken around the world with all the academics, and we'll hear more about it in the new year. But that share price went from AUD 1 to AUD 8 back to AUD 2, back to AUD 1.50, sorry, then recovered to AUD 2. And I've bought some and done a lot of work on the company and got to know him. And that position's done well for us, but we are actually, again, selling a little bit of this position because it's done well for us. And there's quite a long time now between the success on the trial at St. Vincent's and it being widely accepted globally. So these have long lead times, some of these companies. Samsung Electronics, one of Nick's stocks. The price fell 40%. That represented an opportunity for us. There's a cyclical downturn across their business segments. And we purchased it at a 20% discount to NTA, which sometimes happens with these Korean stocks. It just tends to happen from time to time. And when the share price started to recover and computer memory demand for AI started to recover, we bought this stock. It's not the one you're reading about. This is the one trading at a discount to NTA. It isn't that other one that's in the paper every day. Block, you would all know, is Afterpay. They purchased the Afterpay business at about $400 a share. Then their share price fell to $50, I think, despite the fact that the business was three or four times bigger, and of course, now they're doing better, and they're meeting our core criteria, and we've been adding to this position. This is a classic cadence style of investment, classic kind of cadence turnaround story, earnings growth recovery, much, much cheaper than it was when it was hyped, global business and globally relevant business, and finally, Podium is the story of Palladium. I don't know. There's a gentleman in the audience a few years ago who'd been in the motor industry. We spoke a lot about this, so there was going to be this thing where all cars were going to be electric, and you wouldn't need a catalytic converter anymore, and so you wouldn't need platinum and palladium, that was the theory, then there was a new theory that said all cars were not going to be electric, and so it was a bit unclear whether you'd need a catalytic converter, then there was an even newer theory than that, that hybrids were going to be successful, and ironically enough, hybrids need even bigger catalytic converters than pure fossil fuel cars, so platinum's back in a big way. The problem with platinum is that South Africa is one of the largest producers of platinum in the world, and their mines are extremely deep, and they become very dangerous to mine and very unsafe. People regularly get hurt or die in those mines. There's no corporate willing or able to spend the necessary CapEx to evolve and develop those deep mines. You're really looking at a situation where that industry will probably slowly wane. There's a lot of expertise in South Africa on this. There's a very large company, Heraeus, that's heavily involved in this. The gentleman that was on the Platinum Council globally for 25 years showed up in Australia running Podium Minerals, a tiny micro-cap company. Heraeus approached him and said, "We need you to get this platinum industry up and running in Australia." That's not a matter of like, "We need it." We think that previous management were making a mistake. Their process that they were going to implement is too expensive. The CapEx is too high. You can do it using traditional processes from South Africa. He went over, and he spent six months there working on traditional processes. Came back. He raised money from the marketplace about three months ago to do a pilot study for traditional processing of the ore for Podium. Of course, we all hope that that's successful because then we could potentially have a new industry, which is a value-adding industry, not just taking ore out of the ground, but also processing it. An end customer that's already chomping at the bit and telling him they want the product. This is another example of that rare earth critical mineral shortage kind of scenario that the world's facing. It's a bit conceptual at this stage, but on the other hand, it's also very real. It's a very interesting investment. Motorcycle Holdings, I spoke about briefly. I don't know. Every now and then, this just happens. You're going around. You visit companies. I know the man that found this business. I followed him for a long time. He himself had a motorcycle accident. He was out of action for six months. Came back. I went and saw him. We spoke about the business. He was on five times earnings. So I bought some stock. And then I bought some more, and then I bought some more. And then Peter Stevens Motorcycles went bankrupt. Well, that family had decided they were going to go into electric motorcycles in a big way with a product called Zero Motorcycles. A very expensive motorcycle. No demand for it in Australia. They spent a fortune on the showrooms and distribution network and everything. It was a complete failure. Sent them bankrupt. So Motorcycle Holdings picked up Peter Stevens for nothing. Effectively nothing. In actual fact, they bought the used motorcycles at a 20% discount to what they had purchased them for and were allowed to take whatever stock they wanted below cost, so this stock nearly tripled. On average, we doubled our money on this that we're at. Guzman y Gomez, just quickly, just because Guzman y Gomez floated in Australia. They sell Mexican food. I'm sure you'd see their stores if you went past them. They got up to 340 PE. Their plan was they were going to roll out in America. Australians were going to sell Mexican food to Americans. That was the master plan and in four years, they've managed to open five stores, so it's kind of going nowhere, and it's going there quickly and the company's earnings growth is around 4% top-line growth at the moment. The Australian business is not a bad business. Not a bad business, and the American business is non-existent, and there are some other international businesses that are slightly meaningful in their earnings, but not very meaningful, so we shorted this company, so now we're at 130 PE based on expectations, but actually based on current earnings, it's actually sitting higher than that, and on a good day, I can get this company to a 30 times PE, but that's it, so yeah, it's also very exciting because every now and then, just really weird things happen. I don't know if anyone here remembers Domino's Pizza. It got to 100 PE when it was AUD 160. It was earning AUD 1.60. I think now it's AUD 18, something like that. It's been in the paper today because Bain Capital is going to try and take it private, well, that's the rumor. And then Kingston Resources is a gold copper producer, small one that's also a turnaround story. And if it does turn around, it's incredibly cheap. A A very, very strong free cash flow. All right. So I'll just whip through this quickly so you can ask questions and we don't have to. So where are we? The gold upward trend is the inversion of that other trend that you've seen, which is as interest rates go up and as inflation kicks in and as we have world skirmishes and disputes and as the U.S. dollar de-dollarizes, sorry, as the world de-dollarizes and as we debase, which means selling U.S. 10-year treasuries, then gold does well because people use it as a store of wealth. And there's many factors causing this. And then, of course, there's the other one, which is the BRICS nations are just refusing to deal in U.S. dollars anymore. So they want to set up their own currency. And you would have seen in the paper last week, Rio did a transaction with China in their currency, not in U.S. dollars. That was a big news article. And the gold stocks are presenting as cheap. That's not to say they would stay cheap. If the gold price rolls over and goes down, of course, the gold stocks will not be cheap. So you need to be making sure that you are executing in a disciplined manner when gold does roll over, you're selling shares, selling shares, selling shares. But to say, on the other hand, that gold has tripled in price and when it falls 5%, there's been a calamitous crash, which has also been written about in the paper, is not really understanding what's happened with gold. And of course, we're talking about stagflation. I mean, we're not actually talking about stagflation much. Stagflation is a world where asset prices go up and there's negative earnings growth. That's the world we're living in right now. And it's not a great situation from a policy perspective. It's kind of considered the worst of all worlds. Dr. Neville Norman wrote a book on it 30 years ago. It's a tough environment. And the globalization thing, you've read as much as I do. We went full globalization, and now there's just that move backwards to protectionism and for people moving inward and looking after their own turf and forming different alliances and different allegiances and getting ready to protect their turf in different ways. That's kind of the world we're living in. And it's quite an expensive world to live in. There's a lot of extra costs that they weren't before. Net zero seems difficult, even impossible. Metals and rare earth shortages, how do you consume no energy? And that's been the thing I've always tried to get my head around. Net zero, how do you consume no energy? It's very difficult. Even one of the big players in the world, this Macquarie Bank, several years ago, Davos said, "It's all about green energy." And then the next year, in their keynote speech, they said, "It's a long and windy road." So the commitment is very, very expensive, and it's very complex. But some of it's happening. So it's not always one-way traffic. And the government's taking active stakes in mining companies to promote fast development in the area is interesting. Taxpayer money funding to do this. National alliances, obviously, AUKUS, Australia, U.K., U.S. versus Canada versus BRICS versus Europe, or maybe not versus each other, maybe just different alliances. And some of these are quite big, powerful consumers of stuff. They're big consumers of stuff, some of these nations. And Europe needs to spend on defense. So slow growth, political uncertainty, central bank policy easing against that backdrop. And the tariffs. That's the first of his three things was to introduce tariffs. The second was to lower interest rates, and the third was to extend duration on the bonds. That's the three parts of the Mar-a-Lago Accord. I don't know if that's going to happen, but that was some of the mooted suggestions. And RBA has reduced rates, and the Fed's going to reduce rates as well against this inflationary backdrop. It's going to be pretty interesting. And I mean, you've heard me say, I think the golden age of falling interest rates is over. But let's just wait and see. If we go back to zero, then I guess all bets are off. Extra sources, we continue to see evidence of PE expansion. We know that. All of us, we look at it every day. I just had to do a refresher. Chris just said, "Well, what is Wesfarmers on?" Just going to make sure. You just said it was on. I just checked. It was 37, and Commonwealth Bank's 27 PE, and it's approaching four times NTA. I've never seen that before. But that's not saying much. I've only been in the game for about 30 years, and just interestingly enough, Peter Lynch said something really interesting the other day, that bad companies fell first, and then the less bad companies, and then the less bad companies, and so on. So of course, if you've got a high fixed cost base, your revenue is vulnerable, it's low. You should expect to see at least some of those less competent businesses start to fail. And we're seeing the insolvencies go up a bit. Asset allocation, finally, it was going to be 60% equities, 40% bonds. That's how it was for the whole time. Then they're going to do 60%. Well, why would you own bonds? If interest rate's going up, the bond's going down. And if the U.S. dollar, if the government has said, "We want to make the U.S. dollar go down," that's not a good investment. So then you're going to be 20% bonds and 20% precious metals. Or Ray Dalio says 50% precious metals. Or Morgan, everyone's got a slightly different view on it at the moment, but that's the gist of it. And that changes things. That's that chart that I showed you. If anything else, maybe we just remember that chart, which is the move out of sovereign debt into something more stable, and then we continue to focus on implementing our process, so I hope I've been able to display that we're not doing what everyone else is doing at the moment, but then we never were, so you're not going to read about me buying Commonwealth Bank at AUD 100 and watching it go to AUD 180, watching the PE expand from 16 to 27 whilst watching the earnings go down. We're not going to be that company, and then we just can't be because we don't know how to do that. It's a skill base that other people have that we don't have, and that's it, so any questions? Just anything. Any concerns you may have or questions? Usually, the questions are better than the presentation. Yes, sir. Oh, there's a microphone there if you want to talk into that. My name's Peter McKillop. Thank you for your presentation. Just whether you and the board have considered just concerned about this discount to NTA, that consider quarterly dividends to be paid. That was the first question, and the second one is that hearing all your views on the market and individual stocks, just in the annual report, maybe it's there that I haven't seen it, is that you list down the names of the companies we invest in, but not the actual cost and the number, and then the market value. So we can see as shareholders our exposure to individual stocks and applaud you and whatever it might be. Because it's communication. I'm just trying to focus on what people, when they invest their hard-earned savings, quarterly dividends, knowing what we own and elaborating why we own it. And then another one, a curly question maybe, more on corporate governance, is that in this day and age that an executive chairman of a company who has potentially all these conflicts of interest, even a couple of directors who are on the boards of other listed investment companies, doesn't sort of sit well with me. So they're the questions. All right. So let's just go through them in order. The first one was the quarterly dividends. That has been brought up. Wayne has brought it up a number of times. Have we taken it to the board yet, Wayne? I don't think we have taken it to the board. Yeah. Yeah. No, we haven't. We were looking at, obviously, it does come at a cost. To be honest, I was most probably looking at monthly dividends to bring it more in line with some of these income funds. So I had spoken to Boardroom on that. It is quite a substantial additional cost, but it is something that we, yeah. But But again, quarterly and quarterly, I have noticed. I think there was one that I liked that was doing quarterly more recently, or are there a couple? I know it's a word, Sandon, I think. Karl will start doing it quarterly now. Can I say when Wayne presented the idea initially, I was like, "Oh, we're not an income fund." That was my first reaction. Because I think about my mindset, I'm an equities guy. I buy and sell shares. So if I tell you that I can guarantee you the amount of money I'm going to make buying and selling every year, then that's not true if I tell you that. Because I have no idea what's going to happen next. So we have, over time, over the nearly 20 years that we've been running, we've paid out very, very high yields, and we've made above-market returns. That's what we've done. But that next level where you say you'll do it every year, year in, year out, the LICs that I've seen fail in my time are the LICs that have gone on to say, in a moment of hubris, "I can do that." And then something I remember two LICs in particular who said, "I can do that," just before the GFC. And they couldn't. Actually, to your point, I think one of the things when we were discussing it, I would say 15 years ago, we didn't have the money to pay dividends, but we realized the importance of the actual flow of cash to our shareholders, so we did a buyback. To do a buyback every single month, it would just, so I'm talking an off-market buyback for our clients, would just be an amazing expense. It just wouldn't be possible, so that would then take that option off the table if we were promising monthly dividends. Just to tease that out, when we do a DRP program below NTA, we then buy back those shares as well so that the whole situation's neutral, so we're not disadvantaging any shareholder, and that's so that the DRP guys don't pay commission and they get the shares, all those reasons why people do DRP. So look, it's there, but the thought bubble's there. Yeah, sure. [audio distortion] where there's a discount basis. Then the DRP. They're quite different. Yeah. Because I, how do I answer that? So I, and I mean me personally, whenever the shares are at a discount, I buy more. And then other people are selling them at a discount. So then I've been doing that for years. And one of my directors said to me, "Can you just stop saying that? People are bored with that. They're bored with that idea." So true, they're bored with that idea, but I'm not. Because I buy the shares at a big discount. But not all my shareholders have that advantage. They're not all in the game every day and are able to do that. Some people are living off the dividends. But then it's still unfair, I think, that they can't get into those shares. I have another group of shareholders who are my age, who are getting advised by their planner groups or whatever they're getting planned. You never went broke taking a divvy in your pocket and putting it in the bank. That's not how you get rich either. You get rich buying the shares at a discount to NTA and the DRP. So if you just suspend the DRP, the natural inclination then is for them not to go into the market and buy those shares from the dividends, but to put it in the bank for a rainy day, whatever that means when you're 55 and you've still got another 10 or 15 years to work. That doesn't work for a certain percentage of my shareholders. But I've got a different group who are in retirement mode and who are using that money to live on. So I've got to look after them. And I think your inclination when you say the quarterly one is the people that then are actually living off the dividends. They're more at that extreme. So it's a big question. So okay, it's on the board. So I think after this now, we'll have another fulsome discussion in both funds on it. And then try and think about how much we're trying to look like an income fund and how much we are an equity fund. And how used to high incomes you should be getting with Commonwealth Bank yielding 3.5%, fully franked, at these huge valuations. That's a tricky one too, right? It's a complicated thing. But I would take the question, and it's a very valid question. So the second thing you mentioned was not divulging our exact positions. For a fund of our size, AUD 350 million-400 million of positions across the board, we were getting what's called picked off. People knew our positions. They know our strategy. They know we scale into things. They know we scale out of them. And I just started to notice about five years ago that it was all happening ahead of me. They were positioning against our positions for what they knew we would have to do. And then if we didn't do it after divulging it to all our shareholders, we get done by the shareholders for saying you didn't do it. And then if we did do it, then it was free money to the other participants of the marketplace. And it is a competitive marketplace that we operate in. There is that risk. Yeah. That's a very real risk for our company. but in trying to reduce that, it's communication as to knowing what you own and why you own it and congratulate you, there are so many other LICs that actually do list down all that and they will be impacted just as much as you, so to me, I think by not doing it, it's possibly contributing to the discount to NTA. Yes, I think that's valid, I think that is a valid thing to say and our style leads to adding to winning positions, so as opposed to investing in 100 stocks, 1% each, our style of adding to winning positions and cutting losers leads to concentrated positions that over time outperform the market. That's the way the whole thing's set up. So to the extent that a company I work with, a guy next to me, he had 120 positions and he used to show what they were and he ran about the same amount of money as me and it didn't really matter. But for us, it matters. It's also going to on the short side as well. Short side, they just get angry. Nasty executives ring up. But still, I suppose that's just part and parcel of the deal. But yeah, so I'd say compared to the first question, we've been up and down the road on the one about showing exactly what our positions are at all times. And we think we're pretty transparent. But I mean, I guess we could show bands. You know that we don't buy more than 5% at cost. That's widely known about the company. So the position can't be more than 5% at cost, which only gets you halfway there. Because then if you look at it and go, "Well, he's owned it since last year. The share position's doubled." So he'd be roughly up 100% on that. There'd be roughly a 9% position, for example. You can kind of get there, but not easily. I accept that. And actually, the curly questions that you just wanted to answer, the one about how conflicted I am and all of that. I started this company. I founded it. I'm the big shareholder. I take the most risk here. I take the most responsibility. I sign off on everything. I'm liable for every banking document that gets signed, personally. When I'm no longer running the business, when I no longer have shares in the company, when I'm no longer involved on the board of directing it, the shareholders, anyone can, you can do whatever you want. I know that sounds pretty extreme. If something happened to you? If something happens to me, the answer is I've answered that question a lot. If something happens to me, I get hit by a bus and I'm mangled, but my head's still good, I'll be working harder than ever because that's all I'll be able to do. If I get hit by a bus, my head gets mangled, but my body's still good, I'll be riding a lot more because that's all I'll be able to do. But I won't be working in the fund. And there's letters on how that's to be handled, that they were set up a long time ago. So there is some key risk in the business. And anyone trying to outperform the index, running a business that was set up this way, that's set up a business, is a proprietor, is trying to outperform and have key man risk. Management by consensus, that's a different business model. That's not what we do. I don't want to offend you by answering the question that way, but I just feel strongly about having so much of my money tied up here and having built this business from scratch over a long period of time and running it the way we do so transparently and being very open with people and doing the right thing all the time. But when that time's when that's no longer the case, then it's different. People might prefer it in a different format. They might prefer it if, I don't know, if there were like five of us making decisions about gold or. Yeah. I was just going to say, the index had this on CDM, Jenelle and myself. I've known Karl for a long time. I've been a director on the board for a relatively long time. Except for the formal election actually. Jenelle's been on for a later period. We have very robust discussions. Karl and I are friends, but that actually paves the way, from my perspective, to be more challenging towards him if I think that there's an issue that needs addressing. Jenelle's from an audit background. Not many people understand more about complexity and the way the management team and that sort of thing than she does. And I think at a board level, we are not striving to push that. And I think that while taking account of what Karl is saying about his founding the company, being at a peer risk in everything, it doesn't stop. Very robust and challenging discussions are happening behind the walls, so it's very actively managed. We're all in constant contact with each other. It doesn't happen once a quarter or whenever there's a board meeting. It happens week to week, and yeah, to that extent. The other thing I did want to touch on, just really briefly, is on discounts. Obviously, there's a lot of very competitive products now that weren't in the market 10 years ago or whatever, ETFs particularly, and plethora of choice and that kind of thing, but I personally, and I've been involved in closed-end funds my whole career, well before I joined Cadence. And there was a very similar piece that was produced by Merrill Lynch, I think, in 1998, which talked to the outperformance of closed-end funds versus open-end funds. And we're going through a rough time in terms of discount at the moment. But over a long term, if you're a long-term investor, closed-end funds tend to generate their return because they're not forced into making decisions to liquidate and things like that as and when it is the least opportune time. So anyway. No, that's, I think, the discount premium thing. I mean, there's a chart here. A picture tells a 1,000 words. I try to, for guys that have not been with me long, who have worked with me for less than 20 years, say, then I try to instill in them that they've been to school and university, and some of them might have master's degrees and they may have gone off and done, I don't know what, there's so many degrees you can learn to do so many different mathematical formulas these days. It's difficult to keep up. But that is pure emotion. And the sooner anyone realizes that it works in the markets, the better. Because a rational player, any rational player in this game would go, well, maybe it's not pure emotion. It's a combination of things, but emotion plays a very big part in that outcome there. Why would you pay a premium for a LIC? Why did people pay such a large premium for our LIC? What's going on in their minds? I was at a 22% premium. Someone walked up to me and said, "I listened to your thing and you said don't buy your shares, but I knew what you meant. You meant buy my shares." And I said, "No, no. When I say don't buy them, that means don't buy them. And when I'm telling you buy them at a 21% discount, that means buy them. Because if you don't, I will." I mean, it's extremely tempting as a proprietor like I am, proprietary person. It's just buy the whole thing. So cool. I thank you. It's capitalism. I don't have the money. I need another if you lend me the money, I need another AUD 200 and something million. No, I don't need that. I just need AUD 190 million. [audio distortion] Yeah, but then I wouldn't have been if I wouldn't have been according to your opinion. But to your opinion. But then I wouldn't have been up 20% last year. I personally would have been, but you guys wouldn't have been. But I know you're not because it's at a discount. It's just a circle. But yeah, no, of course, don't forget at these discounts, this emotion turns into action, right? Don't think that it's just a thing. Every now and then, someone comes and says, "I'm going to blow you apart. We're going to whatever you because you're the discount to NTA. And we're going to deny any other shareholder the opportunity to buy you at a 40% discount. We're going to deny any other shareholder with half a brain from buying you at a 45% discount to NTA." But luckily, that opportunity sustained. And luckily, it's going to sustain this time too because that's going to be the opportunity. And of course, the free money is in me just telling you we're going to liquidate and you'll make money taking no risk. And it's awesome. But it's not going to happen. I don't think it'll happen that readily, is my guess. [audio distortion] company. And that performance in leadership is doing nothing to improve the share price. Nothing? Nothing at all? Well, based on that. It could be wider, right? I mean, to say we're doing nothing would not be correct. I mean, do you mean in terms of we're not running the money or we're not working or we're not? [audio distortion] It's not being accepted by the market as a very strategic decision to keep returns. Yeah, I suppose at a moment in time, you could say that's not the case at the moment. I mean, just as quickly as that happens, we're at a premium, which means the market over accepts it. It's not a moment in time thing. It's a long-term investment, right? Yeah. So there's that dilemma the whole time. I got 8,000-something shareholders when we're looking after all of them. And the part about me oh, how do I the part about me getting paid, well, I'm not going to do it for free because then I might as well just run my own money. So I struggle a bit with that logic too. Sorry. In considering the future of the CDM, Dariusz Peczek here, I think we should also bring something on the positive side that, for example, what's the number? How much was the total dividends paid over the life of the fund? Nearly AUD 2? Nearly AUD 2.80. So I mean, if you accumulate those dividends and you would have invested the DRP well, that's another interesting thing that answers quite a few questions, actually. If you invested the DRP at a discount to NTA, let's say we've done 10.5% per annum over the entire period and we've outperformed the market by 3.5%, something like that. But you'd bought the divvies at a discount to NTA because you've had that opportunity many, many, many times. Your performance wouldn't be 10.5%. It'd be more like 12% or 12.5%. So then the real opportunity lies in, unfortunately, the real opportunity lies in doing exactly the opposite of the suggestions, which is buying the shares at a discount to NTA. Just an example that I illustrated before. The houses were AUD 2 million. I can buy it for 1.6. I'm not touching it. But if you offered it to me for 2.4, I would buy it tomorrow. You can hear the way I'm saying that. It's a funny one. Yeah. But no, the divvies are 3x the share price. The dividends that have been paid in the company are 3x the share price. Bought heavily, and I have shares in both funds. Congratulations on a good year, Karl. And please keep away from buses. I think part of the problem that some of the shareholders are concerned about is the relatively small registers. I've noticed when I've tried to buy shares in both at a discount, it's quite hard to get set with a reasonable size price or without moving the price significantly. So that may be part of the problem. Yeah, it definitely is, which is another reason why we do the DRP so that you can get set in at least the DRP stock. So we've eliminated that problem and made that a cost-free, seamless transition. But the difference between CDM and CDO is noticeable now. So there's 8,100 shareholders in CDM, and there's some days when it trades 800,000 shares or 500,000 shares or 300,000 shares. The majority of our shareholders are not buying AUD 250,000 in shares. Generally speaking, we know a bit about them. In CDO, it's very difficult to get set in stock. I accept that. When we do the buyback, it sometimes takes us several months to fill the buyback. So the plan, which has been discussed longer term with the fund, of course, is with the performance being as good as it is and things going as well as they are, at some stage, you want to expand the size of the business. But you cannot do that at a discount to NTA because it's so disadvantageous to existing shareholders. So you've got to be trading at NTA or above NTA. And that opportunity may only present like every five years. But that's okay because it's a long-term investment. Yeah. Last year, when we were sitting here, we were talking about gold and the lag in gold miners compared to gold price. And it was a very good call, clearly. I assume we see that story continuing into the future in a significant way because I think one of the stocks you mentioned was WGX? Yes. That was last year. We actually sold our WGX on the back of very, very poor production numbers last year and replaced it with other stocks. That was the nemesis of the whole Canadian investment: more guaranteed production, less volatility, cheaper. But in Australia, ironically enough, you don't have that many gold stocks you want to buy. If you go and say, "I want to buy gold stocks," there's just not that many to choose from with consistency, which is why Jake Klein became so famous. He just consistently produced gold at Evolution. There's not many of them that have done it. Yeah. Also, where they're hedging heavily. Oh, that's been terrible for some of the companies. Yeah. Really, really terrible. But no. So on the gold, the gold is not going to keep going up in a straight line because no commodity ever does that. It's going to go up in an upward trend, and it's going to move around, and it's going to, the most obvious outcome is that when everyone agrees it's going higher, it's going to go lower. And then when it hits that bottom point, the point of maximum pessimism, it's going to turn around and go back on its long-term trend again, which is why it's not. It's a tricky thing to invest in. It's not just commodity. It's a purest form of trading. And resources is a leveraged version of that. Sitting here telling you now, our gold exposure is less this week than it was last week. So it's not going to go up in a straight line. But that's okay. That's what you should expect. It's been the same with the copper position, I think I described. And it'll be the same with all the zinc positions, platinum, and just not going to go up in a straight line. But that volatility will get you probably to where you're going. Yeah. Any other questions? Yes, sir. There's been a lot of articles. I wonder if there's not a generational thing to some extent, and there's people putting that view forward. And I mean, if you look at the limited number of us here in the room, well, that would pretty well indicate part of the problem. But the view that's been put forward is, well, young people just don't know what LICs are. They're too complicated and much easier to stick your dough in an ETF and away you go. And of course, as I understand it, ETFs are now more than 50% of the funding flows into the market. You may already do this, but I just wonder whether you, as a company, the two companies, and perhaps other LICs, need to do a bit of good old-fashioned proselytizing to try and sell what is still, I think, a very good idea to younger people. Now, whether you do that by financial planners or whatever, but I think unless you do that, I must say I'm very pessimistic about anything changing. That is an interesting comment. So we do a bit of big analysis of the people, and they are predominantly older. You shouldn't be surprised at that because contrary to what the press says about young millionaires and the influencer had made 50 million by the time they were 21 or whatever, the majority of wealthy people are older. It takes them a lifetime to accumulate wealth. The younger people don't have the money. The older people have had the money tied up in, well, I don't have to tell you how it's been working. The government's been telling us about it every day in the press, so on average, there's a predominance. The client that's going to be wealthy when they walk in the door, we don't know them, they're going to be most likely older than younger. The younger one, most likely, is going to have just paid an absolute fortune for a house and be paying off a mortgage and then be trying to get their kids through school or whatever they're trying to do. And so yes, there's this predominance of the, I mean, the LIC represents that thing that's the divvy of 8% and then other 3.5%-4% of fully franking coming back to you. So it is tricky. So then the incremental buyer, I described before the one we want to get, which we described as we've done a bit of work on them. They're time poor. They don't focus on their finances, on their investments. They don't know how they're going. They don't know how the investments are going. They've got their money with a fund like, I know someone who showed me their thing. They work at a very well-known bank called Macquarie. They've been there for 20 years, and they get a beautiful brochure every year on their super, and I said, "Are there any numbers in this brochure?" "No numbers." "Okay. Where can you find the numbers?" "There's a number you can ring, a 1-800 number. You hang on the phone for a couple of hours, and then you get the numbers, and they don't give you the numbers you need, then you call again and again and again. Three months later, you get the numbers, and then what was the performance over 20 years? 0%. Of course. Because the person at Macquarie is so time poor, they just look at the brochure. It's a nice picture on the front, put in the drawer, get on with what it is they're supposed to be doing to try and earn a living. So once again, the person that's semi-retired or working part-time or not has plenty of time to have a look at how it's all going. Stumbles upon Cadence, 20% discount, 80% yield, 13% gross, money for jam. You can buy it, but the young ones are not seeing it. And then the really young ones, what I call the really young ones, they're punting AI and memes and influencer and horses. It's not interesting to them, right? Yes. Not interesting yet. The LICs have had a long history, and they looked at [audio distortion]. Sorry, do another question. Over that period, you get quite extended periods of premiums and discounts. And it could be I took note of what you said about the demographics of your average LIC investor, but I don't think it's probably any different this time. I doubt it. There's been too much consistency in that discount, premium discount, premium. I think the last time we heard severe discounts was back in, well, apart from GFC or whatever, back in the 1990s. There was a whole host of closed-end funds here that were particularly property funds, I think, that got shut down or forced management changes and things like that. For whatever reason, it'll come back. You can't argue with the numbers, the yields and things. As long as you've got a longer-term investment time horizon, they make good sense right now as Carl's saying that they're discounted. That'll be a great graph to put on the monthly reports and see what the because we all get angry about it at times. Oh, I mean, you can hear my tone. I'm actually a bit irritated with my own I mean, my own tone's slightly frustrated at the moment, isn't it? Because I'm just going. The performance has been great. I'm not allowed to say that out loud, right? Because you don't do that when you're a fund manager. The performance has been great. But the share price has virtually hasn't moved. But that is also the opportunity. Yeah. And gee, if I'm fired up enough, I might just go and buy some. When can I buy them? When the NTA comes up. Yeah. And the other thing, the other new thing that really does my head is I'm only allowed to buy the shares eight days a month at the moment because there's, I don't know, there's some new rule on it. Yeah. It used to be I could buy them like everyone else. Yeah. Are there any more questions? If not, we could just have a tea and then we're done. Oh, I can't even do that. I've got to do the formal part, which is terrible. All right. Let's do that quickly. Okay. This is the formal part for CDO now, and the first item to discuss here is also the financial report for the year ended 30th of June 2025. Are there any questions on the CDM report? I mean, I've noted the one about not showing the percentages of the portfolios. That's on for the next board meeting, and the other one is the quarterly thing. That's on for the next board meeting discussion as well. Yeah. Yep, and so if there's no questions, I'll now move on to the resolutions. Oh, sorry. Sorry, sir. Thank you. Under the risk management and fair value measurement, the Level 3, which is the assets and liabilities based on non-observable market data, that seems to have doubled at AUD 5.5 million. How are those assets performing? So those are down. I'll let Wayne answer that. So in 2024, that was one investment. And in 2025, there was now two investments. It actually describes it there. It tells you, "We invested in Partners Group Global Income Fund, which previously was listed but then delisted." And we actually sold out of that. And the other is, "We invested in a pre-IPO called Petro Australis." And that should be listing in the next quarter. That should be listing in the next quarter. Interestingly enough, the Partners Group is a global business that invests in Fortune 500 debt of companies and is itself a listed investment company. They decided that they didn't want to be down in Australia anymore. The stock was trading at a 10% discount to NTA. They said, "If you bought it and hung onto it for a year, you would get NTA." They were paying out 9% yield per annum. That was a 19% return in one year for a very conservative credit position. I've been reading with interest some of the credit investments that people have been lured into in Australia, some of them yielding as low as 6.5% unsecured loans with no visibility on what you're lending to. I thought to myself, "Well, the Partners Group thing looked very robust compared to that." Petro- Australis is a preference share as well. If anything happens to it, we get a preferential price on that too. We tend not to. We don't stray too much outside of our competency. So I would say the risk's pretty much skewed enough over on that one as well. It's unusual for us to have that style of asset. It should have been listed already. Yeah. Any other questions? All right. So then I will now move on to the resolutions. And there are two of them. All resolutions today will be decided by a poll. In accordance with the proxy form, which formed part of the AGM pack, the chairman intends to vote all eligible undirected votes where he holds a proxy in favor of the resolutions. The final voting results will be released to the ASX following the conclusion of today's meeting. So the first resolution is to adopt the remuneration report as it's set out by the director's report. This resolution is advisory only and does not bind the company or its directors. I have a proxy amounting to 50,059,206 shares and 2,674,190 against this resolution. I will now ask shareholders questions on this resolution to raise their cards. All right. Could you please complete your voting cards? Oh, I'll pick it up. There is a question. Please complete your voting cards in relation to this first resolution. All right. The second resolution is that Mr. Wayne Davies, who retires in accordance with the company's constitution and being eligible, offers for re-election, be re-elected as the director of the company. Sorry, offers himself For re-election. I didn't say. The chairman holds proxies amounting to 52,356,246 in favor of this resolution and 1,975,242 against this resolution. Now, I'll start. I'll now start. I'll now ask shareholders if there are any questions regarding the second resolution to raise their card. All right. So please complete your voting card in relation to the second resolution. All right. So everyone should now have the opportunity to vote on these resolutions. I declare the polls closed for the vote on each of these resolutions. And that concludes the voting on the resolutions. Could you please place your cards in one of the ballot boxes provided by Boardroom? All right. Please join us for tea. And thanks very much for your time today. Thank you.