Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to today's hybrid meeting. My name is Margaret Towers, and I'm the Chair of the company, and I've been appointed to act as the Chair of today's meeting. I'd like to begin by acknowledging that I'm speaking to you from the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. I also acknowledge the traditional custodians of the various lands from which each of you are joining the meeting today. I pay my respects to their elders past, present, and emerging. It is now 1:30 P.M. in Sydney, and I've been informed that a quorum is present. Accordingly, I declare the meeting open. Let me start by introducing my fellow board members who are with me today: Ian Hunter, he's the guy in the suit, Joanna Jeffries, and Katrina Glendening. A notice of today's general meeting was provided to shareholders on July 11, 2025, and was further supplemented last week on August 5. I'll take the notice of general meeting as read. The resolution being put to the shareholders today will be decided by a poll. To ensure that everyone has adequate time to cast their vote, I now formally declare the poll open. You can cast your vote at any time until I declare the poll closed toward the end of the meeting. I'll provide a two-minute warning before closing the poll. If you're voting virtually through the online platform, you will need to click on the button for getting a voting card, following which you'll be prompted to enter your security holder number or proxy details before you can vote. Once registered, your voting card with today's resolution will appear on your screen, as will the voting options for, for, against, or abstain. When you are ready to vote, simply select one of the options to cast your vote. Once you've finished voting on the resolution, click submit vote. For those shareholders in the room with us today, you will have been given a voting card when you register for the meeting. Simply fill out the card when you're ready to vote. If you're entitled to vote and have not received a voting card, please see one of the MUFG registration staff located outside the meeting room. For those shareholders joining the meeting online today, if you would like to ask questions during the meeting, we encourage you to enter your question now so that we're able to address these at the appropriate time during the meeting. To ask a question, click on the ask a question button and submit your question. You'll be prompted to enter your security holder number or proxy details before you can ask a question. To ask an audio question during the meeting, click on go to web phone and follow the on-screen prompts. We will endeavor to answer all relevant questions from shareholders during today's meeting. The order of taking questions will be as follows: from shareholders attending in person, then shareholders who have submitted questions online, and lastly, from shareholders using the teleconference facility. I now turn to the formal business of the meeting. As announced on the 5th of August 2025, the company withdrew the proposed restructure via a scheme of arrangement with Platinum International Fund Complex ETF, PIX. The board conducted a proxy solicitation campaign to ascertain support for the scheme. Having regard to the voting intentions of some of the company's substantial shareholders and L1 Capital and its associates' notified intention to vote against the scheme, the board believed the scheme would not receive sufficient support to meet the 75% approval threshold required. The board therefore considered that it was in the best interest of shareholders to withdraw the scheme. Accordingly, at today's general meeting, shareholders are being asked to vote to approve the on-market buyback of up to 50% of the company's issued share capital. Today's resolution is an ordinary resolution requiring the approval of at least 50% of votes cast to pass. Importantly, L1 Capital and its associates, who together control the votes of approximately 18% of the shares on issue, have confirmed that they will be voting their shares in favor of today's resolution. This is on the basis that the board has provided a commitment that the company will buy back no more than 20% of the company's shares on issue in the period prior to the extraordinary general meeting that has been requisitioned by L1. The board is of the view that the proposed on-market buyback provides a liquidity mechanism for shareholders who wish to exit some or all of their investment closer to NTA. This has been one of the board's primary objectives following the announcement of its strategic review last year in April. I would like to advise you of the proxy votes cast on the on-market buyback resolution. These details are on the screen. The Chair intends to vote all open proxies in favor of the resolution. Shareholders will now be given an opportunity to comment and ask questions about the on-market buyback resolution. I ask that only questions that are directly relevant to the resolution are raised. Firstly, are there any questions in the room? You've put the numbers up there. Now, L1 have got about 20% or so today, so about 53 million shares. You could have got this through. That's only half of what was voted. If they voted against 50% buyback, it still wouldn't have been enough for them to defeat the motion. I'm putting it to you, the limit to 20% before they have an extraordinary general meeting at which they'll end up with control, no doubt. Why are we not restricting us to just 20% of the shareholding? For all we know, L1 could say, we'll just do that. Here's 20% and the rest of us are locked out. Okay, we did go through a lot of discussion with L1 about this. We had actually done a proxy solicitation campaign and there are a number of not substantial shareholders, but significant shareholders, those in the range of 2%, 3%, 4%, who had indicated to us that they were going to vote with L1. Therefore, we knew, that's how we knew that the 75% test wasn't going to pass. That's why we had to pull that one. With regard to the overall vote, I have got the numbers somewhere. I think that even with the proxy campaign, we have only managed what's happened through that proxy campaign is this is quite a lazy register. Basically, for a thousand calls made, we made physical contact with 10% of the people. Therefore, it has been pretty difficult to actually get people engaged. In addition, I think the final numbers are only 37% of the issued capital has voted. Most of that are the big shareholdings. When you get down around the lower levels, it's not significant. I think our call has actually been right that if only 37% of the issued share capital has voted and we knew that 25% was against us, we wouldn't have got there. I think you might have shot yourself in the foot a bit by calling two meetings, the paperwork for which probably confused a lot of people thinking I've already filled that in, I've done the extraordinary general meeting and they won't read, they wouldn't have read about this meeting. Anyway, be that as it may, here we are. Can you tell me what is going to be the mechanism to get the traded share price up to the net tangible asset value? My understanding is you can pay 5% above the five-day average of the share price, which has been rising the last few days in anticipation. How are you going to do it so that you'll end up buying some shares at approximately NTA? Yeah, look, we've had a couple of meetings on that, we've spoken with the traders, and we've engaged an external broker to actually assist us with that. Yes, I agree it's not going to be easy, but we are actually actively looking. We've been very fortunate that the discount has come in. I think it's down around 7% at the moment and the share price has gone up. I think the idea is that we need to manage within the regulatory parameters, which we will do, the VWAP plus five and within the bid offer spread. I think if we can actually, in the first few days, go small but high, when people see that this is happening, I think the price will naturally rise. That's certainly the view of the board. We're on a journey and our goal is to achieve 20% within six, eight weeks. Is there going to be some sort of limit on the amount that you buy? What I'm trying to get to is we don't use up this 20% quota before you've got close to. That's the plan. That's the plan. may well be, but we need a strategy to do it. Yeah, there are people working very hard internally. The finance guys are coming up with spreadsheets. We are actually coming up with daily limits in terms of where we think we should be buying at. What we're proposing to do actually is for the first couple of days is see how the market reacts. I think, you know, you don't want to make this into a rules-driven buyback scenario where you're just standing in the market regardless of what the price is doing. I think the first couple of days is going to be a bit of suck it and see. We can lock it down and hopefully we'll, I know hopefully is a bad word and you don't like that, I can see it on your face. The plan is to get there. In terms of how are the mechanics going to play out, who knows, but the point is that the idea is the bulk of the buying will be at the tail end when the NTA has closed considerably. Have we got a date for the extraordinary general meeting that L1 Capital want to call? Has that been? There has been no announcement yet, but that's in our court, actually, that's in Platinum's court. We will be announcing that in probably the next week or so. We have two months within their, they gave their proposal to us the 4th of August, so we need to hold it within two months. What about the timing of any dividend? I presume that's way down the track. No, no, no. We've got a board meeting next week, and we will be determining a dividend. Had you given any thought to doing an off-market buyback so that we could? Yes, we did. I don't know how many, what extraordinary general meeting or whether it's a special. The issue was having received the proposal from L1, we wanted to be able to get to the market sooner rather than later. To do an off-market buyback would have actually dragged out the process even longer. That option is available to the board at a later stage, but I felt that we needed for the shareholders to be able to start taking action sooner rather than later. That was investigated. We should have done this in April. We should have put this in motion in April last year, almost 18 months ago. I totally agree with you. I'd rather we not be standing here either. I was here telling you to do that. We put the wheels in motion. There have been a number of proposals that have to be given the appropriate respect that they deserve throughout that process, which we did. When we came out in July with the proposal that we proposed, there were some tax regulations that we were hoping to have it all done by December. There were some tax regulations that came to light on the 13th of November that forced us to actually push the meeting into the 2025-2026 calendar year. There are absolutely sound reasons along the way why we weren't able to get this done quicker. Thank you. Any more questions in the room? To Kingston. Good morning, David Kingston, K-Capital. Look, again, congratulations, Margaret, and the board on excellent corporate governance to propose the scheme, which would have enabled the owners of PMC to choose to exit at near NTA. As I said in the earlier meeting today, you are the antidote to the Gordon Gecko's of the industry. Most of us know the great Gordon Gecko, iconic, but for those younger people who don't know him, he was the star of Wall Street, the movie. Have a look at it, great movie. As I mentioned this morning at the earlier meeting, Margaret, there is an inherent conflict between the manager of LICs who receives substantial fees and often seeks to grow a firm. Compared to the interests of owners who want to optimize TSR, many LICs have traded at chronic discounts to NTA, which has resulted in a substantial number of LICs being converted to ETFs or unlisted trusts or taken over. Hence, the owners have the choice to exit NTA, for example, ALF, Ellerston, Monash, Antipodes, Magellan, QVF. It's inequitable if the owners of a LIC face a share price which is chronically at a material discount to NTA over the medium term. Often, managers will continue with a LIC at a material discount to NTA because the manager's fees continue. Well done to the PMC board. It's decided to give its shareholders access to near NTA via the scheme. The scheme was not just recommended by the board, it was also endorsed by the independent expert, so it's clearly compelling. Sadly, L1 Capital have chosen to block the scheme. They've used their 17% stake, which is now an 18% stake, to kill the scheme. In essence, L1 Capital have bullied you, Margaret, and the board into cancelling the scheme you worked on for over a year that's recommended by the board and recommended by the expert. Pretty dubious behavior by L1 Capital. L1 Capital have deprived PMC shareholders of the option to exit at near NTA. To the extent that PMC continues to trade at a meaningful discount, the damage to PMC investors from L1 Capital's action will be readily apparent. At the moment, PMC's current market cap is a discount of $35 million below its pre-tax NTA. Thank you, L1 Capital, for the discount. Let's look at the buyback. Well done, Margaret, and board. Second best, but well done for moving on to the buyback. When you knew that the scheme was going to be blocked, you've called an AGM to approve the buyback of 50% of PMC shares. L1 Capital, again, has blocked your very excellent initiative. Congratulations again. They have, no doubt, in a pretty detailed meeting behind the scenes, only agreed to support 20% buyback. Prior to another AGM called by L1, gee, they're pretty pugilistic, these guys, to vote on appointing three nominees of L1 to the PMC board. If that occurs, sadly, Margaret, you have signified that you and also Ian Hunter will resign, leaving the L1 nominees in control of the board, which is disappointing. It's also concerning looking down the track, and it's relevant to whether people support this buyback and exit. In the buyback, L1 have proposed that they are appointed as manager. Concerning because presumably their fees will be high, the need to recover over the high watermark will disappear on a new management agreement. One has to be a little bit wary about what L1 are seeking to achieve. Also, it's fair to point out that L1's claims to be Australia's best performing long-short strategy are a bit questionable. Their main listed fund, L1 Long Short Fund Limited (LSF), has only returned 11.2% per annum since its IPO in 2018, versus 9.6% per annum for the relevant index. Very small premium given the huge leverage adopted by LSF. The premium also is even worse if you discount for the 8% discount that LSF currently trades to their pre-tax NTA. I think the general reputation that they promote of being Australia's greatest long-short manager is very questionable. Their fees are also huge, 20.5% performance fee, concerningly with no threshold except high watermark, and 1.4% management fees, way above the PMC fees. Interestingly, in the year to 30 June 2025, LSF has delivered a mere 7.2% versus the relevant index at 13.8%. The numbers are moving around, but I think they promote an image that I'm not necessarily sure I would agree with. Sorry to quote you, Jeff, because you are here, but it's interesting that Jeff, who is a specialist with LICs, has described L1's behaviour regarding PMC as appalling corporate behaviour, and the trust of shareholders has been betrayed. That's a powerful criticism. I'll be voting in favor of the PMC buyback. Congratulations again to the honorable actions of the current PMC board. I question, Chair, given the outstanding role you and the board have played in looking after the interests of PMC shareholders, can you please clarify why you intend to resign if L1's three nominees take control of the board? Are you concerned at L1's intentions to change the manager, change the management fees, change the management style, and also get rid of the deficit to high watermark, which will improve the ability of any new manager to take large performance fees? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Kingston. I think what you have done there is a fair synopsis of the past month or so. I would take umbrage with the word bullied. I don't think that the board were bullied. I think that it's like any commercial transaction when you're presented with it. You take the appropriate action, and we have always had at the forefront of our mind the outcome for our shareholders. Unfortunately, we've arrived at this position here. It's not certainly Ian and I who've been on this journey, and actually Joe has too, as a Company Secretary. She's been attendant to most meetings and kindly stepped up to the role when Dick Marath could see that this was going to go on forever, and he had more better things to do with his remaining life. We are where we are, and to clarify for you, look, L1 Capital were happy for Ian and I to continue on the board. It was not a condition that we left. We had anticipated that today was the culmination of 16 months' work, and we've planned holidays. We've planned the rest of our lives. Unfortunately, that's worked for PAI this morning. It hasn't worked for Platinum Capital Limited, but we are going to, coming back to the earlier question from Simon, we endeavor to get this 20% out before we go. As Ian and I have discussed, we would like a commitment from wherever the board ends up to basically pursue that buyback. As Ian has said to me, I can't rule from the grave, but I think that you've got to have the conversation. We'll see how that one plays out, but I welcome Katrina to the board, who is an ex-colleague of mine from the Bankers Trust days, and I believe her to be a truly honorable and independent person and has even proved it in the last week while she's been on the board. There was no forcing to come off the board, and it's the opportune time for us personally to work out where we're going. In terms of what L1 Capital's intentions are, they will have to put their product to a vote. I think their current plan is that that will be presented at the AGM, and I think all shareholders would have the opportunity to vote on that. What will have happened by then is we will know what's happening with the PTM-L1 merger, and we will know how much influence L1 Capital has over the combined merged co-entity going forward. I think even the election of directors probably should happen after the PTM-L1 merger goes ahead or is voted on. From our perspective, I suppose we're still playing our cards close to our chest. We're trying to time when the votes are done based on what's happening on other things around us. Be sure that whilst Ian and I are on the board and our fellow colleagues, we will be in batting for the shareholders. Thank you. Just a couple of quick follow-ups. Look, I don't want to play semantics, but bullied, all I was really meaning, Margaret, is that you worked for over a year. You came up with a scheme that you believed you and Ian and the board believed was the best scheme for shareholders. It was endorsed by an independent expert, a party though who potentially has a conflict of interest, but had 17%, you know, made it clear that they would knock it out. Therefore, you changed to Plan B, which was a second best outcome. That's all I meant by that word. No, I appreciate that. Just on that point, we actually did get Senior Counsel sign-off that they were allowed to vote because to me, it didn't sound appropriate that they were able to vote on the scheme because they were potentially a beneficiary out of it. Anyway, Senior Counsel advice came back in L1's favor and there was no more that I could do about it. I understand what you're saying. It's just one of those emotive words that can get things going. It got a reaction from you, so it worked. Just a final one. I know it may not be your decision because the commitment you have arrived at, which is a commercial transaction with L1 Capital, is that they will support the buyback, but you will only use it to 20% until the date of the 249D meeting. It's highly likely that their nominees will swamp the board. Sadly, because I've got a lot of respect for you, it's sad that you are going to resign along with Ian, which is a pity, but c'est la vie. While it's not going to be your decision, do you think L1 Capital are going to be open-minded to use the full 50%, the 30% extra after the meeting to change the board? Look, I don't know. I haven't had those discussions with them. If you talk to them about what's their strategy with their L1 Long Short Fund Limited (LSF) product, it is that they like to keep the discount around 3%. I totally acknowledge the number you put out earlier, 8%. They are trading at 8% now. I think that's because they're distracted with Platinum Capital Limited (PMC) and they've been buying up PMC rather than supporting LSF. That's all supposition on my part. Is it their performance isn't as good as perhaps projected? They do have a 10-12% buyback in place too. I think they've got two options. One is to support the price at the lower end. I think if things get a bit tough, they can activate the 10-12%. With regard to what they will do with this product, it is all supposition at this point in time. I think it's important shareholders listen to what their proposal is when they're put to the market. Thanks very much. Thank you. Hi, Margaret. Malcolm McComas. This is my name, DRK Capital. At first glance, the resolution today is simple: buy back 50% of issued capital, shrink the discount gap, give shareholders a liquidity event closer to NTA. Not much is simple in funds management, especially if it relates to the Platinum Group of companies. Some would say that the shenanigans around the scheme and now the buyback are just a normal part of the value discovery process. Others haven't been so generous. Miles Stouty from Global Funds said that L1's tactics here are very disappointing and contrary to reasonable corporate governance. He was confident that independent shareholders would vote that proposal down. That's probably the 249 that he's talking about. David Kingston here on my right said that this is a unique case where a fund manager is clearly averse to the interests of PMC shareholders, albeit augments its own position if it becomes a manager of PMC. We're blessed today by having the undisputed godfather of the $50 billion LICs sector, Jeff Wilson, here in person live, who said, as David mentioned, that L1's conduct is appalling corporate behavior and the trust of shareholders have been betrayed. I agree with those sentiments. In recent times, we've seen the PMC board work their butts off, that's a technical expression, to structure and document a sensible proposal endorsed by an independent expert to convert PMC into an ETF to allow redemptions and investments at NTA. Thanks, Margaret, for presenting shareholders with good options that are progressive and sensible and benefit all shareholders. I also recognize that many LICs structures are often not fit for purpose relative to other investment entities. They give shareholders liquidity at NTA because it's their money. It's very disappointing that the recommended scheme you've slaved over for months was stillborn, depriving shareholders of the only chance to determine their own future, a chance that was stolen from us by the guerrilla tactics of L1. In assessing this alternative proposal, several issues stand out that are worth mentioning. Firstly, can L1 be considered as an ethical and capable manager? If the answer to that question is yes, then why has L1 sought to firstly kill Plan A, the recommended scheme, and secondly demand the PMC board cap the Plan B 50% buyback at 20% for now? In addition, what are the real motives for L1 to issue a 249D notice to appoint three of their own to the board, plus an indicative plan to grab the management rights of PMC? An indicative is the word. No detail. This looks and smells like a plan that favors L1 over all other PMC shareholders. It's an attempt to entrench control by a 17% shareholder and lock up our firm. It's also something that L1 acquired a few months if L1's proposal will acquire in a few months if L1's proposal to merge with PTM is approved by shareholders. Now is not the time to dive into the complexities of that proposal, other than to say it's courageous on the maths, looking at the cash that PTM is contributing to the joint deal and the four-year transition under escrow to a liquidity event for L1. To further test these issues as to whether this is the conduct of an ethical and capable manager, I looked at the L1 website to inform my voting decision today. The familiar claims include the usual proven track record, questionable, but generally good, quality research, independent thinking, sound judgment, and alignment. The alignment one was particularly interesting. Investment teams that have the majority of personal wealth invested alongside investors. What I was looking for was the alignment with investors they serve on a fair and reasonable basis. Quite different issues, plus some good words about ethical behavior and at least a passing mention of good governance. Nothing to be seen here was my conclusion. I'm sure that L1 investor relations team will be fine-tuning that list fairly shortly. Another issue that troubles me here is the L1 signature fund, the global long-short fund that's been talked about, is currently trading at the 8% discount to NTA. Again, another example of the perennial issue with LICs and the fundamental reason for this buyback resolution. L1's fee structure is also an issue. Have much longer to go. Two lines. Okay, brilliant. Thanks. L1's fee structure is also an issue, 1.44% management fee, plus 20.5% performance fee on any increase in NTA, no benchmark. That is a joint venture, not a fee structure. I'm voting in favor of this resolution. My question is here shortly. In addition, my free advice to L1 is drop the 20% cap on the 50% buyback right now. Withdraw the requisition, apologize for your tactics, and focus on your own performance. You're making poor decisions here. My question, are you legally bound to the 20% cap if you've done a binding deed? I think as we have done an ASX announcement, I think we are legally bound. You can always change an announcement. You can't often change a deed. Oh, there's no deed. No deed. It's only by way of announcement that you've actually locked in this. You argue that that is the subject of the vote and therefore the vote's valid if that 20% is carried forward. That's up until the date of the 249D. That's the fourth. With comments like yours, which are very valid, and I thank you for them, they may want to go back to the drawing board. Indeed. Just coming back, Malcolm, thank you very much for taking the time to actually study the current position. I thank you for putting the time and effort into that. It's interesting, something I learned along the way, that talking to the U.S. fund managers, they actually believe these tactics are quite common over there. They actually hold the UK and the Australian markets in much higher standing from a corporate governance perspective, which I think we all do too. I think they're saying they haven't seen this here, but obviously L1 Capital have been advised by people overseas who do employ these types of tactics quite regularly from what I can gather. That hasn't been approved. I mean, everything you've said is correct and what's out there, but this is going to a vote to the shareholders. It's got to be approved by the regulators. You know, we are where we are, but we're on a journey. Yeah. Step D, put together a framework. I think there are other things along those lines about the UK market with treasury notes, etc., where you can support your price. Your comments earlier about the LICs market, I came to a conclusion a couple of years ago that this is just ridiculous. You've got these two different vehicles offering the same product, and one, the unit holders can get out at NTA, and the others are stuck in there with this discount. I thought, personally, it's funny, I am at odds with Ian over there who turns a good buck trading on the discounts. Unfortunately, I have other things to do with my life. I thank you for your comments. It's not for us here today to decide whether L1 Capital is an ethical manager or not. I understand that you wanted to put your point across. I think that can be debated when an IMA proposal is put forward. I will say that we did do an ASX announcement actually just before we came into the meeting, and we have received three more director nominations to stand at the EGM that will be called towards the end of our six-week buyback period. There were other parts to that disclosure, which at this point in time, the ASX have chosen not to release. At this point, there will be other directors standing for election. That's all I can say at the moment, but hopefully by the end of the day, there will be more information out there. Does anybody else in the room have any more questions? Yeah, he has nominated them. Yeah, I know you know. I wasn't sure whether I was allowed to say who had nominated those other directors, but it's Wilson Asset Management. There will be more unfolding on that over the course of the day, I expect. If there's no more questions in the room, we will actually move to any questions online. Today, we have a question from Mr. Stephen Main. Has the board engaged with any regulators about the circumstances leading up to today's shareholder meetings, and did we seek any advice on the potential of engaging with the Takeovers Panel to enable a full implementation of the board's recommendations, including on the size of the shrinking buyback, which will impact L1's voting control over the company without them making an offer to all shareholders? No, we haven't referred it to the Takeovers Panel. We did seek advice, which I can't remember off the top of my head, but we felt it wasn't activated at the time. Can we take that on notice and maybe get the, well, it's Stephen Main. We will come back to you, but we did have discussions around it, and I just can't remember the answer off the top of my head. Margaret, we talked about the Takeovers Panel in the context of any advice. Sorry, I can't hear. Sorry. The board determines how many shares are bought back under the buyback at any given time, so it's within the control of the company. Right. To the extent to which there may be a control in. I think there were two points to that question. One was, did we seek regulatory input and your reference to the Takeovers Panel for the scheme to be compromised? The answer is no, we had discussions around it and we decided that that wasn't the appropriate route to go down. In terms of the point that's been outlined there by our legal advisor, the company is still in control of the amount that they can buy back. Although we're limiting it to the 20% now, that 30% is still available. In fact, I made this point as I was talking to people over the last couple of weeks that the vote is to, the resolution is to buy back up to 50%. One point that I made as I was talking to people was that, vote for the proposal. Sure, we may be limited to 20% now. They may like long-short proposal, and therefore they may choose to stay in for different reasons. Either way, the 50% is there. It's an option to allow people to exit depending on how this plays out. We have a further question from Stephen Main. Has L1 and its associates voted any of its 18% stake in favor by proxy, and are they in the room and ready to vote in the poll? As they said, as part of the announcement on the 5th of August, they said that they would vote to support the buyback, and they have voted to support the buyback. They're not in the room. I did invite them to see whether they wanted to talk to the shareholders as gathered to present their product, but they've decided that's better left to the AGM when they're better prepared to promote it. We have a further question from Stephen Main. Forget about a 10% success rate with telephone solicitation. What percentage of the register have signed up for electronic communication and are reachable by email? Did you try that? Did you try any snail mail communication as you have every shareholder's postal address? Yes to both. There are no further questions online, Chair. Thank you. Okay, are there any questions on the phone? Chair, there are no phone questions at this time. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I now formally propose the on-market buyback resolution on the terms contained in the notice of general meeting as supplementary. Sorry, Margaret, there's another one for you there. All right. Question from Stephen Hamlin van Emmerik. I note that the ASX announcement regarding the three Wilson Asset Management directors has now been released to the market. What do you know about the broad intentions behind the nomination of directors? No comment at this stage. Chair, there are no further questions online. Thank you. Okay, so the text of the resolution appears on the screen. If you've not done so already, please cast your vote by selecting either for, against, or abstain for the scheme resolution. As mentioned earlier, as Chair, I intend to vote all open proxy votes in favor of the resolution. Voting will remain open for two minutes, following which voting will close. For those here in person, once you've marked your vote, please raise your hand so it can be collected by MUFG. We will now take two minutes to finalize the poll. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I now declare the poll closed. The results of the poll will be announced to the ASX later today and published on Platinum’s website. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the formal business of the meeting, which I now declare closed. A record of the meeting will be made available on Platinum’s website in the next few days. On behalf of the board, I would like to invite you now to join us for some refreshments directly outside. Thank you all for attending.