Our Chief Financial Officer, Kenneth Ko. We have had a tremendous enrollment of people for this call today, which we are very grateful for. To those who are here on time, we will just get moving now. I can see more people coming in. I want to start by acknowledging the quality of our teams. We have tremendous people in the business led by very, very capable leaders who have made long-term commitments to the business, and it is really that leadership that makes so much difference within the system. I want to start by acknowledging those more than 100 partners as leaders, really leading from the bottom up, our incredible people, to deliver our 20th year of results that I think can only be described over that period as extraordinary. We started in June 2006 with AUD 200,000 of billings, and this year you can see that our revenue is AUD 159 million as a group, which is 800 x the revenue that we started with. W hen we started, we did have an intention to make an impact to improve the quality of opportunities available for people within accounting firms and in the accounting industry. We were ambitious on day one to take that number to, I remember us hoping that by year 10, our plan was we would have AUD 50 million of revenue. We are continually grateful for the quality of the people, clients, and communities that are part of the ecosystem of our business. Every day the business becomes, frankly, more fun and the difference it is making to people is more obvious after this period of time, and that is very, very gratifying. As we like to say in one page, you can see across the top there, the team has got over 700 people. Average revenue per person remains very high by industry standards, anywhere over AUD 220,000 per person in billings. It is 105 partners, 43 businesses in six countries, AUD 159 million of revenue. Current run rate is about AUD 164 million. The shares on issue, 45.2 million, are still below the 45.5 million shares that were on issue at IPO. That revenue today, revenue at IPO was forecast to be about AUD 30 million. We have not increased the share count since IPO, which I think shows the discipline of the model and the team. Free cash flow per share is AUD 0.221 and is up 17.5%. Our return on invested capital at 23.2% remains very high. Organic growth, 2.9%, we are pleased with. Our ROIC plus organic growth is 26.1%. From a numbers perspective, they are a good set of numbers. On page three, Kenneth, if we can whip through this. 20 years of growth. The business has doubled six times in a row. We have tried to lay that out here for new and long-term investors. The point here is that Kelly+Partners Group Holdings operates a business system, and that system is in the habit of doubling itself consistently. When I moved here with my family of five in January 2023, our trailing revenue was AUD 64.9 million. This year that revenue is AUD 160 million. You have seen in that period again, the business has doubled, as it has now done. That is the sixth time, which is great. On page four, the book value of the business has compounded 34.3% CAGR for 20 years. Particularly pleased with that, that was a goal of mine from day dot, to compound that book value of 30% or more annually. It was a quiet goal, and I am very pleased to be able to sign off on that 20-year track record that I regard as a really interesting investment track record. When we started, accounting firms were not regarded as even businesses, let alone as investable businesses. The industry itself was just not considered investable, which is very interesting. On page five, Ken has done a huge amount of work. We are consistently asked questions by people confused by our structure and the accounting conventions that standards mandate. We have tried to be very clear here, and I want to thank Ken, our CFO, for the effort that he has made to again try and make this clearer. Our partner-owner-driver model means that the holdco owns typically a 50.01% or more interest in a local accounting firm. Often I get some people on Twitter who are confused by the accounting, and I do not think they are confused. I think they have just spoken before they have taken the time to look carefully at the accounts. I think as a group, we have done the best now we can to make our business as understandable to a quality shareholder, with some insight who can sit down and have a good look at the business. That is laid out there, and I will get Ken in the financial section to come back and take you through that carefully. Page six, all of this presentation was published this morning on the ASX. You have got statutory versus underlying NPATA and EPS, and you can see the consistent growth in the business over a long period of time. Page seven, some financial highlights for you. Underlying EBITDA is AUD 17.9 million. Underlying NPATA, AUD 10.8 million, up 18%. NPATA AUD 8.4 million, up 18%. Balance sheet remains very, very strong with a very high cash conversion. The net earnings of AUD 10 million and our returns 35.7% on equity up from 31.9% last year. I think those numbers, the value, the business is trading at an EV / EBITDA multiple of 12.6 x, which does not appear to be excessive, and earnings per share on an underlying NPATA basis are up 18%. On page eight, some common misperceptions. We published this. We get asked many, many questions every day, and we try not to do one-on-ones with investors. We really try to hold to these types of meetings twice a year so that nobody really has an information advantage. If anyone asks these questions, we will often publish them in a quality shareholders letter or to Twitter or in an ASX announcement as is appropriate. These are some of the questions that we get asked, and often I do think they are by people that have not understood our model because they have not perhaps taken enough time to really look at the materials. Often I get the other criticism that we provide too much information about the company. We are now at a point where there is more than 20 quality shareholders newsletters, nine years of public companies accounts published and results presentations. I must have done 30 podcasts or so and plenty of interviews. Our team have done a great job on our website of publishing an AI engine that will allow you to search much of that information. We are getting to the point where saying much more than we have said about our model and how we generate the returns we do. We do not really believe at a point is in the interest of the business. I am not that interested in sharing any of our trade secrets as interest in this sector continues to grow. You will see a posture from us, of less sharing of the operational and other insights of the business, because we do think we have done our best to, at this point, make clear what the business is, how it operates, and to some degree, how it generates the returns it does. On page ninee, one of the very, very exciting things about the business today is that the business now never sleeps. It is trading 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which gives us this opportunity to take the flywheel and not— Even five years ago, our flywheel was certainly in operation, but it was really only in operation 10, maybe 12 hours a day. Let us say certainly for a good eight-hour workday. Ken is in Hong Kong and has been for 10 years, so we have extended it a little bit, and Ken works a lot, as does his team. I t was a little bit more than eight hours a day. Today, genuinely, I am very pleased that our business is a global business, and it is operating 24 hours a day, most days a week, hopefully not on Sundays, and is compounding, and that flywheel is being established and is starting to turn. I do not know that I have got a good photo, Ken, but you might find it and pop it up at the end of our presentation when we take some questions. Our signage officially went up today on the new office in Dublin, in Ireland. Our partners in Wexford have opened the office in Dublin, and that is a 20-year vision for Stefan and his father, who built that firm over 55 years in Wexford, and I am very, very excited about the opportunity that will come from that, which is just another fantastic thing that is going on. You will see us talk a little bit today about the next stage for the business. I am confident that today our revenues outside Australia are at or above what they were at the time that we IPO'd the business in 2017. While they are not as profitable as we would like them to be in the U.S., we are certainly beyond benchmark in Ireland, and there is really no reason that we will not close the gap on those earnings over time and very dramatically grow this business, which is particularly exciting. On page 11, many years ago, for people that are new to the group, I used to sit with investors who were not that interested in the sector, let alone Kelly+Partners, and they would say, can you just give me the story in 10 seconds? This is KPG in 10 seconds. This is where this slide comes from. Lots of green dials. Basically, revenue up 18%, margins are very strong. Parent NPATA, very pleased with returns on equity at 40%. I do not think anyone can be too upset about that. 38.8% on the underlying group NPATA. Gearing at 1.52 x net debt- to- EBITDA, I think is very moderate. I saw a large PE-backed competitor recently here in the U.S., 6.5 x net debt- to- EBITDA seems to be very common, which is not Kelly+Partners. To emphasize, we can fund in the manner that we have, the type of growth that we have for decades at these levels of gearing at 2.5 x or less. Cash flows are up 20% to AUD 32.4 million. Our cash conversion is, I think our teams are doing an exceptional job there. Our people remain very effective, as you will see with revenue per FTE and our group operating cash flow at 47.9%, a slight type of number we are happy to see. Tons of graphs on page 12 and 13, which I will leave for you to admire, and not me. These are our teams' just epic efforts and on a consistent 20-year basis. I really want to emphasize that. Ken and I have the pleasure of presenting these results, but this is 100 partners, 700 people who every day turn up for their teams and their clients and make a difference in their local communities. I could not be more proud of them. On page 14, this is a slide you have seen before. Stage 5 of what we are doing is really, this is what we have built in Australia. Can we now take this business global over these next five years? The answer, I think, is yes. We will be doing that with our partners, as we always have. It is not a sort of whole co-operation. It is a 51/49 with our partners. At AUD 134.6 million in 2025, we are on our way to try and double that again. Because seven is a lucky number, and seven doubles would be excellent. That is what we are on about. The revenue CAGR remains very strong. I might leave the rest of these slides for you to review in your own time, but I think much of it you have heard from me before. Then really hand over to you, Ken, on the financials and then take some questions. Awesome. Thanks, Brett. Great to see everyone again and have the opportunity to present the financial results for 2026. This slide we publish every year for the group, and it has the consolidated metrics as well as the attributed metrics for the parent. As Brett alluded to earlier, we have had investors ask us about just focusing on the attributed measures, and that is why we presented the slide five in the presentation. That is a one-pager on just the parent attributable economics and metrics. Going forward, if you are after group and parent measures, look at this old slide. If you are just after all you want to see is parent attributable economics, then look at that new slide that we published. I will not go through this slide in much detail because a lot of the metrics and measures are covered in the later slides. On the P&L, our revenue of AUD 159.2 million, an increase of 18.2% on the prior year, driven both by organic revenue growth of 2.9% and acquired growth of 15.3%. I just want to highlight here that if we exclude the effects of consolidating offices that we did during the year and exiting unprofitable clients, our organic growth was 4.5%. On the right there, operating EBITDA margins of our operating businesses was 28.4%. Our Australian businesses achieved 31.9%, which is a very strong result. On the right here, you will see that revenue has grown 18.2%. Our operating expenses have increased in line with that. Our underlying EBITDA has increased in line with that. I will leave the rest for you to look at. At the very bottom of that table, underlying NPAT to shareholders of AUD 10.8 million, up 18.9% on prior year. In terms of the balance sheet, 1.52 x is our leverage ratio as at June 30, 2026. The group return on equity of AUD 40.8 million. Parent return on equity of 35.7%. If we look on the right there, lock-up days, which is something we like to measure regularly because it gives an indication on how well we are managing our working capital, is very strong at 52.8 days, which comprises of eight WIP days and 45 debtor days. On the summary of the balance sheet there at the bottom, you will see our total assets of AUD 229.9 million having increased because essentially of the acquisitions that we completed during the year. On the next slide, in terms of our debt and liquidity, we had, as of June 3, AUD 89.4 million of facility limits, of which we drew AUD 74.7 million of drawn debt and AUD 17.7 million of net debt. Leaving us with AUD 18.6 million of cash and headroom, representing 25% of the gross debt drawn. I just want to highlight there on the right, because we have had, again, some investors and shareholders misunderstand. They think that the consolidated debt is all debt relating to parent, and that is not the case. This table, which we publish every period, shows where the debt actually sits. In terms of the AUD 74.7 million of total debt in the group, AUD 28.5 million sits in the parent's balance sheet and AUD 46.3 million of the debt sits in operating businesses' balance sheets. I just want to make that clear to everyone to see that. As we said before, the group gearing increased to 1.52 x EBITDA from 1.42 x in the prior year due to the debt that has been taken out to complete the six acquisitions during the year. This is a new slide that we have put in this year. Again, we have had feedback from shareholders. We used to publish, and we still do, in the appendix, a slide called Net Debt per Partner. We think that this is obviously a much better way to look at the debt situation or the leverage of the group. Here I have presented, since IPO, all of our debt- to- EBITDA metrics for the last eight years. You will see that I have put different calculations, net debt- to- underlying EBITDA, net debt- to- underlying EBITDA after you take out rent expense, net debt- to- statutory EBITDA. If you reduce rent expense and you do not add back the non-recurring items, what would it look like? If you look at the history of the business, we have never exceeded 2x EBITDA in the last eight years, which demonstrates the disciplined approach and us repaying the debt. As Brett said just now, we come across examples in our competitors that has much higher leverage than what we have. We think this is very moderate. I also note here at the bottom left of this slide, we often also get asked why we do not include contingent consideration as debt. Contingent consideration is the deferred component of the purchase price when we make acquisitions, and that is because we pay this through saved operating cash flow. We actually do not borrow again to pay for this. We set aside cash flows in our businesses to pay for those contingent consideration, and that is why we do not count it in the leverage ratio. In terms of the cash flow, very strong. As you can see there, AUD 32.4 million of cash from operations up 30.1% from the prior year. If you take out the scheduled debt reductions of AUD 13.1 million, you get to a free cash flow to the consolidated group of AUD 18.4 million, which has grown 50.5% on the prior year. You will see that during the year, we drew debt of AUD 23.1 million, and we used that primarily to complete the six acquisitions during the year of AUD 20.5 million. We also did fit outs on three of our offices of AUD 3.5 million. Again, AUD 13.1 million of scheduled debt reductions. We think that is a very disciplined approach in repaying down the debt, and we are very pleased about that. Then the parent NCI waterfall, which we have presented since the previous year, showing how we get from the 51% to 49% share of the net profit before tax to the statutory split, which is affected by parent taxes, interest on parent debt, depreciation, additional investments, and non-recurring expenses. I might just go quickly before I hand back to Brett, just to the parent attributable slide, on slide five, and just explain quickly what I have done here. As I said, this is a one page that shows all the economics of the parent. Previously, all of these metrics are available in the slides, just in different sections. But we have put it now together in one slide for everyone to refer to. You will see there on the top how the consolidated revenue and EBITDA per the statutory accounts and how we then do a waterfall to show how the parent gets a share of the operating business underlying EBITDA. It spends the additional investments. It spends on interest depreciation income tax to arrive at the underlying NPATA. On the right there, you will see some parent specific measures, balance sheet return and valuation metrics, that I think will be helpful to everyone. With that, I would like to hand back to Brett. Thank you. Brett? You are on mute, Brett. Sorry. Thanks, Kenny. Just for everyone that is attending today, we have a Q&A service where you can put in a question, and we can do our best to try and answer that question. We will give you a moment to do that. General comments are that the business is in a really tremendous place. We have a settled business model, and we are in a market where there has probably never been more acceptance of what we are doing as a good place to invest. We have had a strange year of people being worried by AI, but I do believe that there is a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the potential of that technology for our business coming through. We believe that we have got a very strongly differentiated understanding and deployment in that space that will create tremendous value for the business, to such a degree that we will not say much about what we are doing or how we intend to use that technology to make our shareholders better off. We feel very comfortable that that is just a massive opportunity. I think I have said enough in various presentations over the last 12 months to give people some comfort that we are aware that AI is a thing, and we might have some ideas as to how to create some value from it. I have written a shareholders' letter for our quality shareholders today that I hope you find helpful. I want to acknowledge that the last 12 months' share price performance has been very distressing for many people, including myself, that own shares, and quite a few of them in the business. Although we do take a decades-long view of the business, and so while I do find the gyrations of the share price annoying, I accept that that is the moods of the market and to some degree, that is just one of the things that you accept when you run a public company. Other than that, the business is very much in a posture to aggressively grow from here. We have mentioned in our presentation that there are three things that we are working on, and we have been working on them for a couple of years. We have really invested a fair bit of capital and certainly a huge amount of time to really move the business now onto a global footing. Those things are to continue to investigate and at some point execute, a listing on an international exchange. To secure long-dated debt funding in the style of Constellation's 15-year debentures. To implement a dual-class structure, for long-term governance of the business. Those three things we think will add huge capability to the business' opportunities to grow, and that growth is really about taking our unique partner-owner-driver model into markets where there is real demand, not least of here in the U.S. We think that our model very much sits between private equity, buy 100% and grow you into a big monster, and try to swim by yourself at an increasingly older range against a market that really is on the move. Our model is tremendously unique and differentiated with a two-decade track record that I think is without peer, frankly, in the industry globally. I think that's probably become quite well known. There's good acquisition pipeline and there's real, deep opportunity for the business. Now, Kenneth, I can't see any questions there, where they're published. Here we go. In the comments section. Focusing on SME clients, do we see the risk that your customer gets acquired and losing that customer? It's true that from time to time, clients' companies do get acquired. I'm pleased to say that we often keep them as clients. It's very marginal at best as a risk to the business. It's been that way for a couple of decades. Number two, you are still working on the new structure and the financing of the company, and mentioned that it takes a long time. Could you be more specific? For the deal we looked to close in Cyprus, we were pleased that we were able to attract from the Bank of Greece funding that duplicated what we've done in Australia. We've duplicated the arrangements that we have in Australia, in Ireland, and we're confident we could do that in most places. We are working with Westpac on how we structure long-term for global growth. We think that a 15-year debenture at the holdco would do the best job of that, but executing that is not without its challenges, so we continue to work on that together. Westpac have been a long-term and excellent partner of the business. There's a third question, the partnership that in Cyprus that we looked to buy in, that deal didn't go through as the company suddenly asked for more money. That's true. Did we have to pay any fee for walking away? No. We didn't have a break fee because we had a binding term sheet. When the vendor asked for a lot more money, we just said no. Deals that don't start well seldom end well. We're very careful at this point. We've got a huge amount of internal opportunity, and we've got a lot of incoming partnership opportunity, and we're really continually trying to raise our standards as to the quality of the people and partnerships we bring into the business. Because when deals get difficult, they do absorb a lot of time, and they don't create additional value for that time. They're the answers to those three questions. We've got a bunch of people with us. Have we got any questions? Brett, there's more in the in review section in the Q&A. Sorry. Adam, in the published bit, great. Group investment went to 3.1% of revenue, the highest level for five years. Where do you think the right level is for the business, and what are some of the investments being made and expected benefits returns for the business? It's true that our additional revenue at group level is the highest it has been in five years. But a careful look at what the pattern of that is over the last 20 years is frankly more relevant. We are duplicating all of the capabilities to a great degree that we've got in Australia, and on a global basis. That has been seconding team members in here, investing in infrastructure, technology and teams. I think short of one or two people, we've probably got the full capacity now that Australia has in the U.S., across Hong Kong, and into the U.K. So, we feel pretty good about that. If we'd been public the first 10 years of Kelly+Partners, it would've looked like this. In fact, that number would've been about 4%, could've been up to 5%. I think when we started services, it was between 12% and 14% of revenue, and post IPO, we committed to the partners we would keep it at 9%, and we would pay the difference at the holdco level. So, I feel really comfortable in that. It's a capital allocation decision. It's taking internal profits and essentially directing them to internal growth and any serious study of the book, "The Outsiders" will— An analysis of our business would show that our best returns are from additional partnerships. Our next best returns are from internal investments of these very, very high ROICs. Hi Brett, appreciate if you can talk about the recent dilution in your shareholding down to 31%. Chinmoy, I really took the position, in a situation where there was a massive fire in L.A., and I said this to our shareholders at the Berkshire catch up in Omaha and again in London recently. There was a big fire in the middle of L.A. We're living in Malibu, and I needed to relocate our family to the other side of that fire. My wife has a serious heart condition, and Beck had said to me for years that the stress of a gyrating share price does affect her much more than it does me. I'd committed over time that as I'd said publicly in four versions of the owner's manual, that I would look to have a Warren Buffett style, 35% shareholding. I took on some margin loans because when I needed to buy a new house, I couldn't get a term loan. I couldn't sell a bunch of stock. I approached Morgans Financial, who'd been our bank for the IPO, and they were going to sell some stock for me, but came up short a few days later after being quite confident they could sell the stock. In an emergency, I entered into facilities that I thought confident, it was unlikely to see a 50% decline in our share price in the period, given the results you've just seen. The market has moved in a different direction to our business. It was simply a bet I took. You're the shareholder in a business, that was founded by my wife and I, on the bet that I could take the AUD 200,000 of personal billings I had and turn it into something. Most of our bets have gone okay. This one's gone strongly against me. I'd thought that our shareholder base was less likely than the market to react to broad AI fears. I would say to our longstanding quality shareholders, many of whom have smaller holdings, that we did have a couple of larger shareholders in February sell down pretty aggressively. One in particular, across all of their portfolio. That seemed to have spooked the market. I've paid a real price for that. We have diversified our family's financial position, which is good for my wife and kids. We've been able to move homes in an emergency. It's not the way I would've liked to achieve that outcome. But it was the only option available after very exhaustive inquiries, by me over a period of time. I've held a significant shareholding in the business for 20 years. At IPO, I had 65 personal guarantees, and Westpac released their charge on my family's trust in about January, February this year, w hich held our entire stake in the group. I think my wife and I have taken on a fair amount of responsibility for a long time. I do not think in that period I have been out of pay either. It has generated a lot of commentary. I think a lot of the commentary is what it is. I will not say much more than that, but I feel very confident as the largest shareholder in the group to continue to be the largest shareholder in the group. There is a fair amount of commentary around funding sources. Given the low debt- to- EBITDA, it does not seem like it is limiting your near-term growth. That is true. What is the thinking behind the long-term debt funding? Long-term debt funding at the holdco would allow us to grow very dramatically outside Australia. It is difficult to get an individual banking situation in each country to do what might be, at least in the first instance, smaller, one, two, three, four, five deals. Constellation Software is the best example. They are in over 100 countries. They can move very quickly and give certainty to people about joining their group. We bought a 51% interest in Kudos International, and it has got 60 firms in 48 countries. Many of those are smaller firms, smaller countries would be harder to finance, and certainly Westpac could not do them under our current arrangements. They have been a tremendous partner in helping us grow this initial global foundational footprint. That is the thinking. But again, we are thinking decades out, trying to get the structure right and the funding structure right now, so that we can do as we have done in the current business, just continue to get that flywheel moving and keep it moving on the same basis. Can you please give any updates on acquisitions or partnerships and what you are seeing on the ground? We are seeing a huge amount of activity as always. We feel unanxious about doing much. I think we did six or seven deals in the first six months of the year, Ken, up to the end of January. That is right. The share price fell 70%, Ken. So maybe if we do less, share price will get closer to intrinsic value. Who knows? We will just continue to do what we have always done, and that is not be desperate to do a deal that does not make sense. There is a huge amount of activity in the market, and we will always get our fair share. We are pretty confident. Any update on listing in U.S., Canada markets? I cannot say much more because there are real laws about that commentary, but I have visited and shared openly online that I have been to the London Stock Exchange twice. I have been to Toronto Stock Exchange. We have been to New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. You can see disclosures in the accounts of the last more than two years of some millions of dollars spent on that effort, to investigate the right venue long-term for the business and spent some money with lawyers to work on structure and other good things. We are on the move there. Shed some light on the number of acquisitions slowed down. That is not my position. Just look back 20 years. There is a really clear graph of when we have been able to find good partnerships to join the business. It has got to be the right people, right values, and the right terms, right price, et cetera. A lot has to come together to do the right type of a partnership deal. So, feel pretty relaxed about that. At what company performance would you reinstate dividends? Great question. Probably none. Lynn, if we ran out of places to earn the sorts of ROICs that we're generating, then we might sell the company as opposed to pay dividends. But while ever our returns are miles beyond our weighted average cost of capital, then there's no plan to pay dividends at any point. Should there be a change of listing venue, it's quite likely that we would fund out the very large franking credit balance that we have. If we were to do that'd go out as a special dividend, but that's the only thought I've had of late of dividends. I don't mind the idea of having a base level dividend like Constellation has had. But the opportunities to grow have been so substantial over the last five years that we have thought that internally funding that was better for shareholders than paying dividends. You made a comment in the presentation earlier, U.S. is not as profitable as you would like. Is that because the inherent economics are lower or it's taking longer to get to maturity than compared to Australia? I think their profitability probably looks a lot like Australia did in the early years. We need consistent effort into those businesses, and it just takes time to build a relationship. We've just completed a new office in Woodland Hills, which is amazing, and that'll change everything about that business. We're building a new office for our large Florida firm that'll be finished by 1 January. Again, that will dramatically impact that business. It's just a step-by-step process that you can do in six weeks, but often when you don't have the relationships that we would in Australia, it might take 18 months to 2 years. Again, we feel unanxious about that because we can see clearly in the clear now where the opportunity is, and we actually think that that's an understanding that isn't in this market generally. We actually see a very big opportunity in this market as a result of sorts of margins that we're seeing in firms that we look to bring into the group. It's actually quite an interesting opportunity. That might be the last question that's in that list. How do you intend to scale the acquisition engine in the event that you're able to raise some debt? It's a great question, Patrick. It would be a matter of scaling the teams in various markets. We really like businesses like McDonald's who have sort of five global markets. I can see us having teams in each of those markets. North America, U.K., Australia, Pacific, potentially into Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Middle East and Africa and Asia. This is a 20-year view rather than a 20-minute view. But there's no question we could scale teams into those places and grow those businesses dramatically. We're getting a lot of inbound from private equity groups who have bought into groups and now have 10 firms and are like, what do we do with this thing? There's not an obvious public market exit, and a lot of these groups are not obvious targets for the very, very large consolidators. When I started, I was excellent, and became excellent at getting an individual client or person that owned an excellent business to come across to the business. Then I saw the opportunity in just bringing an entire firm into the group, which was just more efficient. Frankly, it took the same amount of time. What I see today is these whole groups that have been consolidated, multi-location businesses that are like, well, where do we go? We don't really want to go to a big private equity group, and we're sort of too big to be small, but too small to be massive. Where can we go? What I'm trying to set us up for is to be the consolidator of those consolidators. As a global posture, the listed holdco that can bring many of those groups into the business. I don't want to say too much more than that. It's a different thing, to a degree, to what we've been doing. I think you'll see that come to shape over the next five years, and I think in quite an exciting way. If you could share your thoughts about long-term debenture. If we could bring that together, we can do that as a rights issue to existing shareholders if there's appetite, and that would be the best way to give a shareholder a dividend-like return. Mark Leonard at Constellation designed a 15-year debenture with inflation plus 6.5%, and the total return was basically designed to mimic the 30-year historical return of equities on the Toronto Stock Exchange. We are contemplating and have designed an instrument that would allow shareholders to get a dividend-like return, income-like return from a business that they understand that would also strengthen our ability to grow the equity value of their equity investment. For anyone deeply curious about that, study what Constellation have done and how they've done it, and imagine what KPG would look like if we can make that happen. I'm also curious about your thoughts on any buyback. There isn't the capital in the business today to do a meaningful buyback. Should we go to the market as we have, as you can imagine, over the last number of months, looking for that alternative capital, typically debt, to fund a very large buyback. Those debt providers then typically start to try and encourage us to take the entire business private. We keep the conversation, said, no, give us a very large debt facility at the right prices so we can buy a meaningful amount of stock back. It doesn't really move the dial if we buy AUD 5 million worth of stock back. But if we had the capital, we would buy a very, very large chunk of this business back and cancel those shares. We have a very strong preference to be a public company. You intend to scale the acquisition engine in event you are able to raise value. There's a question as to has the acquisition engine been unable to scale so far? No, I wouldn't suggest that. I think a two-decade, 30% revenue CAGR performance is, without essentially issuing additional shares, is probably out of CAGR. If you throw that performance on for another 20 years, as a shareholder, and you hang around long enough, you might be pretty happy with what happens. Is AI giving any noticeable benefits? What I'll say to that is, very strongly, yes. What I won't do is just tell you how or why or anything else. I'll let the other accountants try and work that out. What we're not going to do from this point is run a sort of education service for other firms in our industry and other consolidators. How is the acquisition price in the U.S.A. affected by competition from private equity? I must say there really isn't any impact on the part of the market that we are looking at. There's a real sort of bifurcation. Private equity are into very large firms. There are some sort of now popping up sort of AI-led holdco consolidator style, dotcom favored things that might want to buy small things. It's not affecting us. We have a very much a proprietary deal flow line over 20 years where people know who we are, they know what we stand for, the difference that we can make, and we've got a proven track record and dozens and dozens of people that have partnered with us who can stand behind what we say that we will do with you and your business. I think we're in a very, very unique place. This is permanent capital, relationship-based with decade-long view versus flighted EP capital with a transactional emphasis. With a three-minute attention, three- to five-minute attention span. I only had three to five years. So I feel very confident that we're in an extremely strong position at this point in it. I must say, I haven't been involved in the business at a time when the business was stronger. I'm very excited about where we are. Has the equity raise made through partners at AUD 11 and change led to any morale problems with the partners who bought at that price and subsequently saw the price drop AUD 0.60? Frankly, it's been a good education for our partners. I think I owned our equity for many years, and during COVID, we saw 60%, 70% price drops. During COVID, our share price dropped to AUD 0.60. We issued at AUD 1. There was never going to be a situation where any government contemplated not collecting tax, even for a second. I'm very confident that the intrinsic value of the business is the focus of our partners. They've all made typically 10-year commitments to the business. When they bought into the business, I explained to them, buy into the business with a 20-year view, and I think you'll do okay. So I'm not concerned about that at all. If you're a short-term person, our firm and our stock's not a place for you. What are your thoughts on recent acquisition of CBIZ by Grant Thornton at current suppressed price? Do you see KPG as a potential acquisition target? I think that CBIZ acquisition is instructive. I think it leaves a hole for our type of business to be listed on a U.S. exchange or a Toronto Stock Exchange or a London Stock Exchange. There's billions of dollars worth of invested capital in that business that's going to be looking for a home, and our returns have always been 3 times on any major metric, 3 times better on any major metric than CBIZ's. So I think it's great that CBIZ has been or will go private with Grant Thornton, and I think that that frankly just presents an enormous opportunity for our business. I think our business today is by far the best-performing publicly- traded accounting group in the world. If you look out 10 years, what do you think is the biggest constraint on KPG becoming a much larger business? Available acquisition target, partner group capital. If we can get the structure right. Warren Buffett, I think, wrote the best one-page letter ever in the history of business when he wrote about Charlie Munger on his death and said Munger's contribution to Berkshire was the architecture of Berkshire. If we can duplicate that architecture to set us up to be able to compound for many decades from here, then I think I feel very excited about the future of the business. Structure kind of is everything. We've got a very settled strategy, and after structure, it's availability of flexible capital on the right terms. It's very long-dated. Do you need to change the stock market listing venue in order to raise debenture debt? We thought we did. We're getting some feedback that that might not be the case. We are working with Stifel in Canada on that matter when we can publicly share that. We'll tell you more when we've got more news. From Brendan Harrington. Hey, Brendan. Great to see your note. Hello, Brendan, Ken. Hope you are both very well. Congratulations on 20 years. A phenomenal personal achievement. A phenomenal achievement in and of itself. To do in a patient, principled, and platform-building way of KPG, something you should be especially proud of. Can you please speak more of the rationale and performance to date of the WrkPod acquisition? The WrkPod acquisition is a sort of sleeper business. Based in the Philippines, more than 1,000 seats, that we are now, we are using I'll say a little bit more. It's a very good question, Brendan. We did a shareholders' meeting in London. We had 35 investors there, including, and I won't mention who it was— but a gentleman came up to me and said, look, I run the family office of this family. We have more than GBP 20 million investable capital in our holdco. I saw you speak in Sweden at the Serial Acquirers Conference earlier in the year, and I wanted to ask you one question. He wanted to do that privately, so he did it before the meeting. He said, will you take your partner-owner-driver model over time and apply it to other verticals? I said, well, look, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, when asked what's the number one thing you can do in business, answered simultaneously, 'Focus.' We will stay focused on the accounting sector. At the same time, when WrkPod came along, that can provide team members to our firms and to our 25,000 clients. The alignment and the fact that it has been built from scratch by one of our clients. The values alignment and the business alignment was so strong. I saw this as an opportunity to apply our partner-owner-driver model in this niche. Now, what we are doing under that, effectively, WrkPod holdco, is identifying niches where we can build these types of virtual teams that gym operators need, healthcare operators need, and I will not say any more than that. But there is a dozen niches that we have identified that really need excellent people. And what WrkPod does is it does not just find random people. It actually finds great people and then trains them, documents the systems of the business looking to work with them, and then it trains those people. So Brendan, what the opportunity there is to take that from 1,000 seats to 10,000 seats, and based on today's market cap, that business would be more valuable than KPG if we can execute that plan and by a significant number. Now, I believe KPG will continue to grow. I think today's market cap just does not matter. It does not reflect the intrinsic value of the business. But I want everyone to be aware that we believe that the number one asset of KPG is our partner-owner-driver model that we invented, designed, and refined over nearly 100 partnerships and transactions all apart. As we find partners that want to take that model and really apply it with our expertise in coaching and guidance, I am very, very keen to scale the use of that intellectual property across those verticals. Now, longer-term shareholders will know that we attempted to do that in Texas here in the U.S. as a startup in the accounting industry, and we did not have a partner that was able to execute. It was not all his fault, it was not all our fault and all of that. But one of the insights was that if we had somebody who had established decent-sized business and was more closely aligned in various ways, then we thought that might actually work very, very well. So I would just say that WrkPod is performing very well and I believe will continue to outperform its sector and be a very, very valuable contributor to our business, contributor to our clients' business, and an asset of the group. Another question, Jim, what are your observations post-partnership with Hello AI on AI adoption and embedment by KPG? We are doing well with the initiatives that we are running in the AI space. I would point you and everyone to Jim Collins' amazing book, "Good to Great." He has a six-part framework, and it talks about great leadership, great people, great thinking, and then great execution. It is a discipline. The last step is technology as an enabler. Whether it is a dotcom boom or now in AI, it is very easy to turn that framework, and I am seeing it in our industry, to rather than start here, to start here and say, AI will save me. AI will make me better. AI is going to be awesome. I t is awesome, but it is a technology, and in a change program that Collins describes and the flywheel that results from it, it has to happen in the right place at the right time. And the way to think about it, in my view, is if we go and get the latest and greatest machine gun, and we give it to six-year-olds who are not trained, or even 36-year-olds that are not disciplined, then the return on that machine gun is going to be very low. You've got to have great leaders, excellent soldiers with the right thinking, right strategy, right structure. Then that disciplined force needs to take that technology, whatever it is, into the theater of war, if you like. That's the way we think, and if you get that right, you get this flywheel. The reason I'm so confident about our business' ability to extract enormous value from any technology, and in particular from AI, is that we all operate on a consistent technology network, which is very, very unusual across accounting firms anywhere in the world. We have at least 80% commonality in our software stack, which again, is very, very unusual across any accounting groups that you'll see anywhere near our size. That's because we have a 51/49 ownership situation where the holdco has control of certain things. One of those things is that the IT network and the software stack, and it's always been like that. We've always done the work to do that change program, to do that actual hard yards of operational effort. It is very, very hard work. It's much easier to buy something than to fix it. Then because of the alignment created by our partner-owner-driver model, we've got leaders and soldiers who are more like the SAS or SEAL teams than general armies. Most firms our size have huge audit practices. Our audit practice is less than 5% of revenue. So they have masses of people, and they don't have a 51/49 structure where there's any agreement on real governance, let alone who's responsible for what. Our ability to move and move fast and implement technology, whatever that technology is, is miles in advance than the average group. Now, when private equity come in and think that they have power because they bought 100%. In professional services, just because you own 100% doesn't mean you have 100% of the hearts and minds. We have more than 100 partners who on average, have signed agreements that say they're committed to the group for at least 10 years. That's 1,000 years of people commitment to our business. That's unheard of. It's that commitment when shit gets hard, which change, in particular around technology adoption, is very hard. When it gets hard, it's that commitment from the leadership and the fantastic people in the group that drives change through the business. We're not a top-down organization. We're services from the bottom up with unusual alignment and partners who are driving this change, who are saying, Brett, how can we go faster? Or, how do we do this? We want to use that. Now, our services team serves those people, and the dynamic and frankly, the high-performance culture that that has built in the team is unbelievably exciting. I get most excited by the quality of our people, their alignment, their commitment to what we're doing, and that's a commitment to their people and our clients and communities. It's that area that I'm excited about. Now, I'm holding myself back giving you anything specific that we're doing. I've said enough, if you go and you look at my presentation in Sweden in March, which was the most I'm ever going to say about it, and you use your AI to look at everything I've ever said on any podcast or anywhere else, and ask me the questions. You'll have a very good conversation with me based on what we've already shared. I hope that makes some sense. What you will see is our continual strength of billings per person, and revenue growth, which tells you a little bit. Ken, did I leave anything out? My friend, h ave you got anything you'd like to share? Certainly if anyone's got any other questions, we're right here. I've got time. I'm in L.A. today. It's 6:04 P.M., so I have nowhere to rush off to in particular, other than dinner at 7:00 P.M. I do have a bit of time for people. There's a few more questions, Brett, in the- In review. Y ep. Recent news of Big Four accounting firms, recently KPMG undergoing erosion of corporate trust. Do you think it creates an opportunity for Kelly+Partners Group? I have had the view and started the group in 2006 because I thought there was an opportunity, i f you look at the Bain book, "The Founder's Mentality," to create a scaled insurgent. Big Four are here. I have often said I think they are cancer-ridden, given their values and that their future looks like this, that their structure is not right for today, et cetera. Let alone tomorrow. I think those businesses have got a bit of a drift. I think there is an opportunity for us to scale. This is the industry. This is us. The second tier will pick up some of that work. I think we are the best placed firm globally to be a specialist provider of very, very high quality, what we call a first choice accountant to private business-owning families going somewhere. I think we do own that space today and can own that space globally, and I do not fear the Big Four or anyone else with respect to that. We are focused. So there is no big audit group. We are not doing public companies. We are not getting distracted with consulting businesses or ad businesses or whatever. So feel pretty good about that. What takeaways do you have other firms that recently listed globally, Andersen in the U.S. and MHA in the U.K.? So, just very brief. It is a very good question, Tristan. Very brief comments. Andersen's structure is incredibly complicated, and that business' history is interesting. So, it is doing well. It is a good business, and we will see. MHA in the U.K., for example, both of these have had successful listings, and Kelly+Partners Group was mentioned in both of their investor packs, et cetera. So MHA in the U.K. has, for example, I think, a four-year partner commitment and just jump in, ask your favorite AI to compare the three of us and throw CPAs in there in the mix, and I think Kelly+Partners Group looks pretty good. Patrick has asked a question. Non-recurring expenses have a habit of becoming recurring. Can you shed some light on the non-recurring expenses at parent level? Patrick, I think I have probably spent half my life telling people that if we keep running an acquisition-led strategy, we will continue to incur these non-recurring expenses, and I do not think we could do a better job at stepping them out very, very clearly for any investor. But the best way for us to prove they are non-recurring would be to do no deals for a year, and you wouldn't see any. But it is probably better if we do. Any book recommendations, please? So favorite books at the moment, Barry Diller. His book is exceptionally good. And John Malone, his book read back-to-back is very good. I think both of them are just very interesting gentlemen. Their books, I think, have a number of lessons for sort of everyone, which is really cool. Any other questions? Tristan, just one comment on Andersen and MHA. When we went to list Kelly+Partners Group, investors pretty much spat in our faces. The whole idea of a listed accounting firm was sort of an anathema to people. I think that you can see in the shareholders letter that I published today, a list of the private equity investment into the group, more than AUD 10 million in a very short period of time, and there is two listings, and I expect there will be more to come. I think our investment thesis is validated. I think our operational track record is good or better than anything that I have seen, private or public. And really from here, it is a question of getting the structure right and the capital to deploy much, much, much more capital, at high rates of return. A very excellent mentor to me who has built one of the world's best compounders, said to me, Brett, look, if you could deploy some billions at 25% compounding, it would be better than deploying some millions. And that is an obvious observation, but he was very adamant, get your structure right, get the right access to the right capital at scale, and get on with deploying this model globally. I am excited by the more acceptance of what we are doing. I think our model is very proven and well-respected. And, I think the opportunity for the group is frankly gigantic. Brett, I just want to chime in on Patrick's questions on the non-recurring expenses. In that, if you look at the reconciliation table, there are actually two components there. That is in actual fact, they are just non-cash accounting entries that don't really mean anything. The first one being, we are required by the accounting standard to record the present value, i.e., a discounted value of the contingent consideration. And every year, there is this unwinding of this interest into the books to get it to the current value. So that is one of the non-cash adjustment which, sorry to be technical, but that is what it is. The second one is- And it is very important. Ken, that is very, very important. Guys, that is a huge number. There is no question that it is not real. It is just something we are required to do. And there is no question that we are not losing clients at anywhere near that number. So, I would like to think that is not particularly controversial. No, it isn't. Patrick, the second one is this impact of this accounting standard that came in many years ago where the rent is actually capitalized, therefore it creates a non-cash difference between kind of the depreciation of the right-of-use asset and the repayment of the lease liability. Again, this is so technical, but it's again all non-cash that's been added back. So those two components there, that's part of the non-recurring expenses. That's always going to be there because that's simply an accounting non-cash adjustment that doesn't really make a lot of sense. That's why that's been added back. The others, as Brett's alluded to, it's the one-off costs of us completing acquisitions. And various other things that happen from time to time. But it's a good one. Like today, with the use of AI, you can take our half year-end accounts since IPO, throw them in there, ask it to give you a good explanation and see if it lines up with what makes sense for you. I'm very, very confident that that'll look okay for you. Thank you, Patrick. See any more questions here, Ken? We're losing a few people. No. Well, going once, going twice. I appreciate all the answers. Thank you both. Thank you, Patrick. I appreciate everyone's attendance today. We always aim to give you clear information that is very, very transparent and hopefully helpful to you. If you've got any questions, please at any stage drop Ken and I an email, and we'll always do our best to give you a swift and clear answer, even if it's just a reference to where we might have answered that before. As I love to say, thank you Kenny, and to our entire team, for what's been a huge year again. To Joyce for setting up today's meeting and for all of those people quietly doing incredible things within our businesses and within our group. It's always a great day to be an accountant. So, have a great day. Thanks so much.