I'd like to start by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the lands on which we're meeting, to pay my respects to all elders, past, present, and emerging. I extend that respect to any First Nations people joining this meeting with us today. The company secretary has advised me we have a quorum of at least two shareholders present, I'm declaring the meeting open. I'd like to start by introducing my fellow OFX directors. First is Skander Malcolm, the CEO and Managing Director. Then on my right are Rob Bazzani, the Chair of the Audit, Risk, and Compliance Committee, and member of the Nomination Committee. Jackie Hey, who is the chair of both the Remuneration Committee and the Nomination Committees. Connie Carnabuci. Sorry, I've gone the wrong way. Cathy Kovacs, who's a member of the Audit, Risk, and Compliance and Nominations Committees, Connie Carnabuci, who's a member of the Remuneration and Nomination Committees. Adrian Wong, the Chief Legal Officer and Company Secretary is attending over there. Also in attendance is our company's auditor, Karen Hopkins from KPMG, here in person. Members of the global executive team who are attending in person with me or via Zoom are Axel Freytag; James Georgeson, our Chief Financial Officer; Josh Goines, our Chief Growth Officer; Kate Malone, our Chief Risk Officer; Yung Ngo, our Chief Customer Officer; Kate Svoboda, Chief People and Culture Officer; Adam Thomas, our Chief Technology Officer. Due to our time zones, our offshore Chief Commercial Officer for business to business, Maeve McMahon, will not be on this call. Before we begin, I just have a few housekeeping matters, if you bear with me. For those attending via Zoom, if you have any technical issues at all, please call the OFX team on +612 9866 79160 for support. For those attending in person, should you need to leave the room at any point, simply use the doors you came through. Toilets and emergency exits are located just out those doors as well. Our aim is to ensure a productive and fair meeting for all shareholders. Please listen courteously to others and express your views fairly and respectfully, avoiding any language or conduct that could disrupt the proceedings. To ensure the meeting runs smoothly, unless otherwise noted, I ask that all questions be directed to me as chair. To give all shareholders an opportunity to participate, we suggest that each shareholder limits their questions to two per agenda item. Please keep your questions concise, relevant, and avoid repetition. If time permits, we will return to any additional questions not yet addressed. On to the agenda for today. The proceedings today will be a brief introductory address from me as chair. I will introduce the CEO and Managing Director, Skander Malcolm, who will provide his address. We will move to the formal part of the meeting and the resolutions set out in the notice of the meeting that has been sent to shareholders. Starting with my address. Again, thank you for joining us, whether here in Sydney or online. Once again, you all are very welcome. This is an important AGM for OFX. Over the past year, the board has been considering two closely related questions. First, why have the financial outcomes of the business not reflected the transformational progress that's been made and the potential we continue to see in the business? Second, looking forward, what represents the best available path for OFX and its shareholders? The board has examined these questions carefully and considered the alternatives available to us. We've exercised our judgment in the best interest of the company as a whole, as you'd expect. This has required us to focus first and foremost on value for shareholders while also maintaining the confidence of our clients, employees, regulators, and business partners. Let's begin briefly with the performance of the business. Our CEO, Skander Malcolm, will provide further detail on our FY 2026 financial results. However, as you know, those results fell short of the outcomes that the board, management, and our shareholders reasonably expected. The external environment remained difficult. Business and consumer confidence was subdued in a number of our markets. Foreign exchange volatility remained low, and geopolitical uncertainty affected client activity. We also incurred losses associated with fraud and bad debt in our North American corporate business. These factors contributed to the result, but they don't remove our accountability for it. The board acknowledges that shareholders have experienced a substantial loss of market value in recent years, and that the financial performance of the company has tested their confidence. The directors have shared in that experience as shareholders ourselves. We do not underestimate its impact. At the same time, the financial results do not fully reflect the progress made within the business or the potential that has been created through the investment in OFX 2.0. The board did make the deliberate decision to commit substantial investment to the New Client Platform, accepting that this would constrain near-term profitability. We believed that this transformation was necessary to modernize the business, broaden its capabilities, and position OFX for sustainable growth. With the migration of corporate clients to the New Client Platform substantially complete, the business is shifting its focus from development and migration to adoption, productivity, and growth. Our offering now extends beyond foreign exchange to include multicurrency accounts, cards, subscriptions, and integrated spend and payment tools. We're seeing promising signs following the transition, including growth in corporate New Transacting Clients, multiproduct adoption, and non-foreign exchange revenue. However, that progress has not yet translated into the stronger and more consistent financial results or the market recognition that we believe it should. Against that backdrop, and with growing indications of external interest in OFX coinciding with the company's annual planning cycle, the board determined in early February of this year that it was the right time to undertake a comprehensive strategic review. The board considered it important to establish a disciplined process through which any external interest could be assessed, rather than responding to approaches on an ad hoc basis. The timing also enabled the board to consider management's most up-to-date outlook and undertake a thorough review of the business, its strategy, and the alternatives available to it. The review included a genuine examination of the potential of OFX, how it could best be realized, including testing the company's organic plan against the most recent data points from client adoption, trading, and the new go-to-market program. Remaining independent and continuing to execute OFX 2.0 remained an attractive organic alternative throughout the process, particularly in light of the improving performance in the new financial year. As we had stated, the review attracted multiple credible proposals from strategic parties and financial sponsors, with differing levels of conditionality and execution risk. In assessing these proposals, the board considered price, certainty of completion, strategic fit, financial capacity and backing, and regulatory complexity. For a global, highly regulated business such as OFX, a proposal has value only if it can be completed. Following this process, the board concluded that the proposal from Equals represented the best available path forward from where OFX stands today to maximize shareholder value. The proposed cash consideration of AUD 1.00 per OFX share was an important element of that judgment. However, we were also persuaded by Equals' capacity to complete the proposed transaction, the strategic fit between the two businesses, Equals' financial position and backing, Equals' understanding of the regulatory and operational requirements, and the opportunities that they identified to build upon OFX's technology, international reach, and client capabilities. Taken together, these matters gave the board a high degree of confidence in Equals' ability to complete the proposed transaction. We also acknowledge the professional and constructive manner in which Equals has approached the proposed transaction. This was a particularly complex judgment. The board had before it multiple credible proposals and a genuine organic alternative. Directors devoted considerable time to examining and challenging the different paths available. Our conclusion does not diminish OFX's independent prospects or the value created through OFX 2.0. The New Client Platform, our international infrastructure, and our people are central to the value recognized through the process. However, the board's judgment is that the Equals proposal offers the strongest available combination of value, certainty of completion, and strategic fit within a reasonable timeframe. It is important to highlight that we are not asking shareholders at this AGM to approve the proposed transaction. The board has indicated its current intention to support the proposed transaction subject to the completion of financing arrangements, the finalization of binding documentation, and the relevant regulatory and shareholder approvals. If binding documentation is entered into and the transaction proceeds, shareholders will receive detailed documentation explaining its terms, conditions, advantages, and disadvantages together with the opinion of an independent expert. Shareholders will then have a separate opportunity to consider the proposal and vote on it. Until that process is complete, OFX remains an independent ASX-listed company. The board and management remain fully responsible for operating the business, serving our clients, supporting our employees, managing risk, and executing our strategy. We recognize that the prospect of a change in ownership inevitably creates uncertainty for employees. It would not be realistic to suggest that every role or every aspect of the organization would necessarily remain unchanged. However, the board believes that the proposed combination provides a credible basis for continued investment in OFX's platform, products, and client capabilities. Throughout the strategic review, our people have remained focused on our clients and continued to deliver in demanding circumstances. The board is very grateful for their professionalism and commitment. Before closing, we should address the remuneration report, which is especially significant this year. At last year's AGM, OFX received a first strike against its remuneration report. We took that outcome seriously, engaged extensively with shareholders, sought external advice, and made changes to the remuneration framework and disclosure as set out in this year's report. We are always appreciative of the well-considered input that we receive from our shareholders and are, of course, grateful for your voting support on this year's items. In closing, I thank my fellow directors for the considerable time and commitment they have brought to their responsibilities this year. I thank Skander and the management team for their leadership through a period of significant operational change and strategic intensity. Most importantly, many thanks to the OFX employees around the world for their commitment to our clients and to the company. I also thank our clients for continuing to place their trust in OFX. To our shareholders, the board understands that the company's financial and market performance has tested your patience and confidence. We also believe that the work undertaken over recent years has created a stronger platform, broader capabilities, and considerable strategic value. The board's task is to determine now how that value can best be realized from today's position. On the basis of the strategic review, we believe that the proposed path offers the strongest available combination of value, certainty of completion, and strategic fit. Thank you for your continued engagement with OFX and for joining us today. Now I would like to hand over to Skander Malcolm, our CEO and Managing Director. Thank you, Tricia. As highlighted on slide six, trading in fiscal year 2026 was challenging, but we've worked very hard to manage our financial levers while investing in our 2.0 transition. We delivered NOI of AUD 196.6 million and underlying EBITDA of AUD 25.2 million. This was undoubtedly a disappointing outcome, I'll walk through some of the reasons on the next slide. Execution on our strategy was excellent, with the majority of clients successfully transitioned to our New Client Platform and good growth in multi-product adoption. Our NOI margin was 51 basis points, around five basis points lower than fiscal year 2025, primarily driven by a mix shift as we saw fewer forward transactions in the second half in our corporate business and growth in same currency transactions, which are lower margin. Our business continues to generate healthy levels of cash with net available cash as at 31st March 2026 of AUD 49.6 million, which was slightly down versus the prior corresponding period, but up on the first half. In terms of key client metrics, the average revenue per client was slightly down at AUD 4,000, reflecting weaker FX revenue. Non-FX revenue continues to grow at a healthy rate, up 12.1% to AUD 1.8 million, and wallet balances held by clients are growing well, finishing the year at nearly AUD 233 million. Moving to slide seven. It was a difficult year with business confidence not seeing these kinds of lows since the COVID period. Geopolitical events, economic strains, volatile interest rate outlooks, supply chain disruption, inflation, and many other factors have made our clients adjust their growth agendas. With that, we've seen fewer transactions and fewer forward contracts. We actively discuss this with our clients in every region, and the message we hear is very consistent. We need to manage this period carefully. The business confidence indices in every major market, perhaps with the exception of the U.S., reflect this. The side effect of this enduring uncertainty is that somewhat perversely, volatility is actually down. Markets and clients are pricing in these factors. Considering what is happening in the world and its economies, it is extraordinary that compared to two years ago, volatility as we measure it was halved. In our portfolio, it has meant average transaction values or ATVs remain very subdued versus their long-term mean, and cross-currency transactions have declined year-over-year at the highest rate we've ever seen. Moving now to slide eight. We are, however, pleased with the momentum we're seeing through our 2.0 strategy and the level of client adoption on NCP. On the left-hand side of this page are some of the data points that describe the fact that most of the heavy lifting for the transition of our corporate portfolio onto NCP is now complete. Over 90% of our corporate clients in major markets were migrated at the year-end, and the 23,000-plus active corporate clients on the NCP was an increase of 70% on the first half. The scalability of this platform is already evident, with server costs growing at a far smaller rate than transactions or clients being added. What really encourages us, though, is the growth in multi-product adoption. In the fourth quarter, it grew to 8.4%, up from 4.5%. Through the first quarter of 2027, it is now over 10%. This is as a result of both more existing clients taking on more products and new clients adopting multiple products at a very healthy rate. In the fourth quarter, for example, over 27% of all new clients are multi-product clients already. In Australia, where the new launch and the migrations happened earliest, we are up to 13% of all clients being multi-product. On the right-hand side of the page, you can see we have a very exciting and busy program ahead for our clients, incorporating more AI to simplify and automate their workflows, more automation to simplify and accelerate onboarding, more security to protect our clients' funds and data, and a wonderful consumer client proposition. As I mentioned at the first half two years ago, our technology team had eight large teams doing one deployment every two weeks, which equates to about 26 releases a year. Today, we have 18 small to medium squads delivering over 200 deployments per week. With the adoption of AI, we see even more productive technology output. We believe that this speed and quality of new features and services, as well as a much more settled and refined go-to-market program, can translate to more new trading clients in corporate and more productive sales teams, and momentum into fiscal year 2027 has been positive. Moving to slide nine. In the first quarter of 2027, we delivered revenue of AUD 46.1 million, up 2.5% versus the prior quarter, but down 18.7% on the prior corresponding period, noting that first quarter 2026 included significant volume arising from the Trump trade in April. Through the first quarter 2027, we saw revenue continue to build and June finished well, up over 30% on May, and this positive trend continued through the early part of July. Net operating income for first quarter 2027 was AUD 43.9 million, up 1% versus the prior quarter and down 20% versus prior corresponding period. Our refreshed go-to-market strategy delivered 16.5% growth on the fourth quarter 2026 in corporate NTCs. Further investments in the onboarding client experience have delivered improved prospect to client conversion. We remain confident in our ability to grow corporate active clients in fiscal year 2027. In terms of progress on the transition to NCP, the migration of existing corporate clients onto NCP is now complete across all major markets, with New Zealand and Singapore also going live during the quarter as planned. Non-FX revenue grew to AUD 0.8 million or 24.4% on the fourth quarter and 195.3% on the prior corresponding period. This was predominantly driven by card revenue up 43.9% versus the fourth quarter 2026, supported by pay by card revenue up 14.3% versus fourth quarter 2026, and subscription revenue up 8.1% versus fourth quarter 2026. Client wallet balances were AUD 203.3 million as at the end of June, down from AUD 232.9 million at the end of fourth quarter 2026. This reflected a single large client outflow as expected. Excluding this single large client, wallet balances grew 30.4% versus the fourth quarter 2026, and we saw a significant inflow from the same client early in the second quarter, which highlights that wallet balances will fluctuate as we build them. Interest income from group and client wallet balances continues to grow and was AUD 2.4 million in the first quarter 2027, up 18.7% versus fourth quarter 2026. In first quarter 2027, we also continued to deliver meaningful improvements in our product and technology roadmap. Moving now to slide 10, I'm very mindful that the economic and geopolitical backdrop is very uncertain, and to some extent, this has shaped what we believe is a reasonable view of what we can deliver in fiscal year 2027 and beyond. However, there are several factors that are within our control, and we have listed them on the left-hand side. Put simply, the foundations are in place, the distractions have largely been navigated, we're set to grow. We see the outcomes as being positive, specifically, we know we can grow corporate active clients, while we expect cross-currency average transaction values to remain steady. As active clients grow, so do transaction volumes, which translates into growth in corporate revenue. We see a path to stabilizing consumer revenue through refocusing on the segment for the first time in more than four years, including reallocating some marketing budget to it and bringing some clients onto the New Client Platform. Enterprise has been growing well year-over-year, we see that continuing. We know we can control costs, and we've put in place new controls to reduce bad debts. The slight increase in operating expenses includes a rebasing of performance incentives, as with fiscal year 2026, that would be dependent on growing the top line. The anticipated increase in NOI, compared with the strong cost control, sees us targeting a return to delivering positive operating leverage in fiscal year 2027. We'll continue to manage CapEx well as we have over the last three years. We retain our target of 15% NOI growth with underlying EBITDA margins of around 30%, this will come over the medium term as we cycle out of this investment phase. Trish has already given an excellent summary of the strategic review and the next steps, I won't repeat that. From my perspective, undertaking the strategic review was critical for shareholders, given our assessment at that time that external interest could lead to an unsolicited bid. Putting structure into the review gave us opportunity to assess all options rigorously. The work was carried out very thoroughly and productively, it led to a strong bid from a highly credible party for the board to recommend. Equals is an ambitious group who see a strong future for the program OFX has built. That gives me comfort on behalf of employees as well as shareholders that the transaction will progress well and that if the combination is delivered, it'll be a strong business that can compete globally. With that, I'll hand back to Tricia to conduct the formal business. Thank you, Skander. I will now turn to the formal business of the meeting, taking each resolution in the order set out in the notice of meeting. Before doing so, I note that item six is a conditional resolution. Whether that item is taken to be put to shareholders will depend on the outcome of item three. I will return to item six later in the meeting. There will be an opportunity to ask questions on each resolution. We kindly request shareholders to limit their questions to two per agenda item so that everyone has a fair opportunity to participate. Questions not related to the resolution should be held until the end of the formal business, when I will open the floor for general questions for discussion. Questions that have already been addressed are unlikely to be responded to again. A poll will be conducted on all resolutions. Some votes will be excluded in accordance with the Corporations Act and the ASX Listing Rules. The proxy votes and direct votes received prior to the AGM will be shown on screen after discussion of each resolution and before the resolution is put to the meeting. As indicated in the notice of meeting, I advise that at the meeting I will be voting all undirected proxies, first in favor of items two, three, four, and five, and against item six. To ensure that all shareholders and proxies have an opportunity to vote, I hereby open the polls now. Shareholders and proxy holders who are registered with their shareholder number or their proxy code can now vote in person or online. If you're a shareholder or proxy holder here in person and you were given a yellow voting card at registration this afternoon, please complete the voting card by ticking the for, against, or abstain box in respect of each resolution and hand it to the MUFG Corporate Markets staff sitting at the entrance table. If you have to leave prior to the completion of the meeting, please complete your voting card and place it in one of the ballot boxes held by MUFG Corporate Markets staff on your way out. If you have joined online, we have now opened the electronic voting card for the poll. It should have popped up on your screen. Please vote by selecting the for, against, or abstain box in respect of each resolution on the electronic voting card. After completing all items in the vote, you'll need to click the submit button at the bottom of the voting card. If you want to vote later, you can move the electronic voting card on your screen, or you can close the card by clicking X at the top right-hand corner. You will be able to vote at any time until the end of the meeting when I declare the voting closed. You just click on the poll button on the task bar to reveal the electronic voting card again, if you want. If you are not a shareholder or proxy holder, if you have already voted, please close the electronic voting card by clicking the X at the top right-hand corner of the electronic voting card. If you have already voted and you vote again during the meeting, your previous vote will be invalid. The votes will be counted by our share registrar, MUFG Corporate Markets, who will also act as scrutineer. Once the poll has closed and the votes are counted, we will announce the results to the ASX, which is expected to be before the market opens tomorrow. If you have any issues voting during the meeting, please look at the detailed instructions in the OFX online AGM guide or call the number that I gave you earlier, which was +612 8667 9160. The first item is the financial statements. There is no vote on this item, please check acknowledged if you have joined online. For items two to six, please lodge your vote. For those attending in person who have a yellow voting card or a blue card, could you please address all questions to me as chair, if you wish to speak, raise your hand and a microphone will be brought to you so that all shareholders can hear you. Please state your name before making your comment or asking a question. A reminder that if you have a red card, you're a visitor and are not entitled to speak or vote at this meeting. Shareholders or proxy holders who are attending online and have provided their shareholder number or proxy code when registering can ask questions verbally or by typing it into the Q&A box. You will need to navigate to the lowest section of your Zoom window and the bottom task bar will appear. Click on the Q&A button at any time. You will need to enter your full name and your shareholder number or proxy code, and then either type your question into the box and press send, or indicate that you would like to ask a question verbally. If you're online and want to ask a question verbally, at the appropriate time, we will indicate directly to you verbally that you can ask your question, and your microphone will be unmuted at that point in time. Please state your name before asking your question. Turning to item number one. The first item of formal business is the tabling of financial statements and reports of the directors and auditors for the year ended 31 March 2026. The company is required to lay before the meeting the last audited financial statements and reports which were released to the ASX on 19 May 2026 as part of the company's annual report. No resolution on this matter is required. I now invite shareholders and their proxies to comment or ask questions on reports. Questions may also be asked of the auditors in relation to the conduct of the audit, content of the audit report, accounting policies adopted by the company, and the independence of the auditor in carrying out the audit. Our auditor, Karen Hopkins, partner at KPMG, is present as part of the panel for this purpose. I will hand over to Skander to facilitate questions or comments on the financial statements and reports of the directors and auditors for the year ended 31 March 2026. Before I do that, remember, you ask questions with a yellow or blue card, by raising your hand, or for those attending online, by navigating to the Q&A button at the bottom of your screen. Bear with us, as we'll need some time to confirm that those who are asking questions are shareholders or proxy holders. Thank you, Tricia. First, let's take questions from those attending in person. If you do have a question on the financial statements, please raise your hand and Tara will bring you a microphone. I'd ask that you please introduce yourself before asking your question. Thank you. Thanks. Excellent address, Chair. I think a lot of chairs, to be honest, come up with motherhoods and waffle, your address was first-rate, transparent, concise, covered all the right issues, and quite importantly, I really like the fact that you take accountability, and you didn't duck the issue of the weak financial performance. Congratulations. I'm sorry you had to spend more than that time on the process issues, but that's endemic to AGMs. Your actual chair's address was excellent, so well done. I only have a couple of questions. I'm just intrigued as to what went wrong with the Canadian acquisition. I think that was before your time. The company spent a lot of money on that. There are ongoing bad debts and issues. The acquisition price represents, I believe, more than half of the value of the company, if you exclude cash. I'd just be interested in, with hindsight, what went wrong with the Canadian acquisition. Thanks. Thank you, David. I don't entirely agree that things went wrong with the Canadian acquisition, I might let Skander address that directly. Yeah, I understand your question, David. Just going back to when we did that acquisition, we actually generated about 30% EPS accretion in two years, which for the investment bankers is pretty unusual in a financial services setting. We've certainly seen since then that we've had some challenges which we've been very transparent around losing some high-value clients. That's actually the subject of litigation. In addition to that, we've had to migrate the portfolio and transfer both our business and the Canadian business onto the New Client Platform. There's been quite a lot of disruption, I would say, we probably could have done a better job in terms of retaining some of those key clients, that's really what's happened. Having said that, if we think about kind of the opportunities that we've got with the New Client Platform, starting out with, I think even today, we don't measure them as ex-Firma clients anymore, but we've still got thousands of corporate clients in Canada. We're already seeing, for example, win-backs, as a result of the New Client Platform, customers who are coming back to us now for the added functionality. Certainly, it was challenging to retain all those clients through effectively two integrations in a short space of time, and I wish we could have done that a little bit more strongly. The other thing I would add to that is, there's no question whatsoever that the scale that it gave us in North America allowed us to attract better staff. That's not always evident in some of the numbers. Clearly was a very attractive part of our OFX for Equals as well, having that in place. The final thing I'd add is that in terms of our push into the New Client Platform, the team really did a fantastic job up in Canada. We're the only and first direct issuing Visa card in Canada. Even all those competitors that you would know very well. I would argue that's not only the great work of the current team, but the fact that we have significant scale and strong people from the Firma acquisition as well. Okay, just to follow up, this isn't my second question, Trish. I do have a second question. This is just a follow-up. If you look at the enterprise value of the current proposal before the company, which adjusts for cash, obviously, the actual purchase price of Canada is over half of the current enterprise value. I would be very surprised if Trish or Skander could say that the interested party that's put forward the proposal would value Canada at over half of the value of the whole company. Does that mean that you paid too much, you've had bad luck, bad execution, or is this yet another example of Australian companies going overseas and finding it's a hell of a lot harder to actually execute well than they think on the whiteboard? Just interested in your thoughts there. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks, David. Hindsight's a wonderful thing. Very bad timing in terms of what happened with the world, and we all know that, A, Canada was particularly impacted by the beginning of the tariff regime and the changed world order. Secondly, that the Canadian dollar quarter was just more abundant and that killed trading. I will say that although we did lose some high-value clients with traders leaving, we have actually still do have thousands of corporate clients and good quality clients. Skander pointed out that Canada made OFX quite important to Equals, the fact is that some of the other bidders were very interested in Canada. We're not going to go into explicit detail about the other bidders because you never know what's going to happen, but certainly, that was part of it as well. Okay. Thank you. My second question, Trish. Again, excellent address. That's great. Could you just clarify a little bit more about the transaction before the company? The market is pricing the stock at AUD 0.80, which is a 20% discount to the proposed purchase price. Obviously, there is some degree of execution risk on everything, Could you just give a little bit of color about the timeline until the transaction goes unconditional? What's the length of due diligence? What's the length of approvals? You are subject to a lot of regulation. I think the market would appreciate knowing that. Thank you. Sure. Thanks, David. The short answer is possibly within six to nine months, you would see an actual completion according to our best estimates, if everything goes well. Okay. Just to pick that apart, the offer that we've received from Equals is still a non-binding offer, and it's subject to signing the scheme implementation deed, which is subject to financing. As I said in the address, the board considered that Equals was a much more likely party to complete the deal based on our initial analysis, looking at them in terms of their ability to be financed. A lot of us are bankers and all that and had a look at that. We also met with them and spoke quite directly about it. Furthermore, we understood the conversations that they were having with their bankers, and we have received quite a bit of comfort around the potential for financing. We anticipate that by the end of September that the financing will be done and that the scheme implementation deed will be signed. The transaction will still be subject to regulatory approvals. As you know, we have 52 or 53 licenses, quite a few in the U.S. especially. We're working on the scheme implementation deed so that it's not reliant on 100% of all of that. Certainly, there will be something related to regulatory approvals. You can never say never, especially in this highly volatile world, On the basis of weighing everything that we had to look at, the board does feel that it is likely to happen. Why do we have the gap in the market? We're not going to comment on the gap in the market. We're certainly getting a lot of volume. Clearly, to your point, David, until you have a scheme implementation deed, certain investors are going to decide the likelihood of getting that price is not 100%. I would suggest that's what it is. It's not me pricing the stock, to be blunt. Look, it seems there are three key things. There's, number one, financing. Number two, due diligence. Number three, regulatory approval. Yeah. I'd be a little bit surprised, if the bidder is as credible as you say, if regulatory approval wasn't forthcoming. Financing clearly is always an issue. It's a cash bid. I'm not sure of the likelihood of them getting the financing, sounds like they're making progress. We've seen plenty of deals, particularly from offshore bidders, where they might have buyer's regret and they change their mind. They use due diligence as an out. At the moment, it's totally non-binding. If you look at those three things, would you care to graduate the risk between the regulatory approval, due diligence, and financing, please? I think Trish has laid out regulatory and financing, just on due diligence, it's largely complete. There's a little bit of confirmatory, it's largely complete, including through their external advisors. Okay. My final question, I have some later on, Trish, you're excellent, brilliant skills. You're a great planner. You're tenacious. We all know that none of these deals are done until they're done. What's your plan B if it doesn't happen? Plan B, we continue to run the company and also to examine whether alternative offers come forward because we did leave some people at the altar or close to the altar. Certainly, we'd be incredibly excited about the company if we were private. We will continue to run the company. As Skander said in his address, we can see many things are starting to really pull forward in the New Client Platform. That's part of the reason why throughout this process, because it's so long, we will continue to run the company in the best interest of our shareholders and the company as a whole. Okay. It sounds like there were other credible parties not too far away from the pricing level that you've decided to proceed. Is that fair? We can't really comment on that. That's confidential, but thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from people here in the room? No. We don't have any online verbal questions. In terms of online written questions, we don't have any relating to the financial statements. That's resolution one, which is Yeah. Do you want to cover that one now? Yeah. You want to cover that one now? Sure. Okay. Yeah. I'll read out the question. PwC were our external auditor when we floated in 2013, and they were replaced by KPMG in 2021. The current issues around KPMG are centered on the Sydney-based audit team, and we're a Sydney-based company. Could the Sydney-based KPMG audit partner, Karen Hopkins, please provide her perspective on whether the rolling KPMG controversies impacted her team's ability to perform the OFX audit, and also how did the OFX board respond as the various revelations emerged? Thanks, Skander. I'm going to take that, Karen, if that's all right. That question's from Stephen Mayne. Thank you, Stephen, for that question. There are a couple of comments that I'd like to make on behalf of the board, if that's all right. The first is, as you'd expect, OFX regularly assesses the quality of the external audit. Goes through a very formal process of assessing this. We believe that KPMG performs a very high-quality audit, very responsive, very comprehensive, very detailed, and we've been extremely pleased with it. We can't see that there's been any impact from the current events in terms of the audit itself. The second comment that we'd make, though, is that we did confirm directly with KPMG that KPMG has maintained the confidentiality on all OFX and related documentation. KPMG, Karen in particular, did confirm, based on direct oversight of the engagement and knowledge of how the OFX information's been addressed and utilized, that there's been no adverse or untoward use of confidential information from OFX. Never been used outside the scope of the actual external audit itself. The third thing that I'd like to point out, that Karen confirmed, is that there are no members of the current OFX external audit team who are in any way involved or implicated in that confidentiality breach or matters that are now before the parliamentary inquiry. I'd like to leave it at that, if that's okay at this point. Thank you. We don't have any other written questions, I will hand back to you, Tricia, for item two. Thank you, Skander. Item two is the re-election of Rob Bazzani. Rob was appointed as a director of the company on 1st February 2024, he was last re-elected as a director of the company at the company's 2024 AGM. Rob will retire under Article 47B of the company's constitution, being eligible under Article 47C of the company's constitution, offers himself re-election as a director of the company. Details of Rob's experience are set out in the notice of meeting, I won't repeat those details, the board, with Rob abstaining, supports Rob's re-election as a non-executive director unanimously. I will hand over to Rob to briefly address you. Thank you, Chair, good afternoon, everyone. I'm standing for re-election today, I wanted to just to take a few minutes to explain why I believe I can continue to add value to our board and to you, our shareholders. I joined the OFX board in February 2024, since then, I've had the privilege of chairing the Audit, Risk, and Compliance Committee and being a member of the Nomination Committee. I have current governance experience with regulated financial payments and technology platform businesses operating at scale across North America and Asia, I understand what disciplined financial reporting and risk oversight are in these businesses. I've applied that to OFX over the past two years. I also bring a mergers and acquisitions and corporate advisory background that I believe are relevant today. I've held technology-adjacent board roles in listed companies spanning healthcare imaging, fintech SaaS, and EdTech. As current chair of ASX-listed Mach7 Technologies, I oversee a healthcare software platform business operating in North America, Asia, and opening up into the Middle East. I'm a former non-executive director of ASX-listed Keypath Ed platform that operates across the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and APAC. In these roles, they've provided me with exposure to operational, regulatory, and the growth challenges that come with scaling a digital platform across regulated borders. While at Class, I gained direct governance experience in the subscription platform software business, including how these companies scale, price, manage churn, and integration risk. At OFX, I also work to ensure that our company can pursue growth on a foundation of financial discipline and well-managed risk. I was pleased to receive strong shareholder support when I first stood for election two years ago, I don't take that for granted. I've tried to earn it through my work on the board and its various committees, and through active contribution to this board's broader strategic goals. I'm grateful for your continued support today, and I look forward to continuing to serve OFX and its shareholders. Thank you very much. Thanks, Rob. Are there any comments or questions regarding Rob Bazzani's re-election? David? Thanks. Rob, you referred to you wanted to continue the growth of OFX, which is a little bit grating given the opening address by the chair, which was very honest and transparent that, it hasn't been growth, Rob. There's been shareholder loss, and significant loss. You joined the board two and a half years ago. The price, I think at the time, was moving around, but let's say around about AUD 1.50, Rob. While you've been on the board, there's been, at the moment, almost a 50% loss of shareholder value. I've personally sat on quite a lot of boards, and I take it pretty seriously. I take personal accountability for results. My question to you is, I'm a bit surprised with your address. Unlike Trish's, which I think was excellent, she acknowledged the shareholder value loss, well done, and is accountable. Why aren't you accountable? What personal accountability do you take, Rob, for the substantial loss of shareholder value in the two and a half years you've been on the board? Thank you. I'm going to take that, David. Sorry, Rob. Thank you for your question. I think growth is a complex term, isn't it? As I said at the beginning, it's been a very complex judgment along the way, because we do very strongly feel that we have grown the capability of the company, very strong growth in terms of our platform. It's why we had so much interest in the company being taken over by multiple parties, different types of parties. There's just no doubt that we have a world-class, looking at you, Jaco, state-of-the-art platform, and we have state-of-the-art capability to deliver it. Really strong people that we have grown internationally. The fact is, the enigma is our financial performance has been lacking. The decision to plow so much of our profitability into the expense of doing the migration has not been well-received in light, especially, of macro climate, we all wear accountability for that. We ask ourselves, what would we have done differently? It is very hard to imagine a scenario, though, where we would've continued on that 1990s Northern Beaches platform. It was fabulous. It was actually called Admin. Fabulous at the time, really had to be changed. It wasn't just about the ease of making the implementation tweaks over time. It was about fundamentally changing ourselves so that we could deliver what customers need. I'm sure you'll be talking about it later, David, we have seen competition do very well in this respect. We made the choices that we made. We all acknowledge, Rob especially, that we haven't had the financial growth that we want. We do think that we have grown the company, oddly enough, bizarrely enough, in the most polite but recalcitrant fashion, I have to say that. Thank you. Very elegant, Trish but, Rob, looking at him, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him before, I do believe he's over 21 years of age. Yes, he is. It's a way that I chair the meeting. You just have to. Yeah. I do think Rob is a senior guy. Yeah. He's been involved in a number of companies. I understand you're trying to- No -provide a response. Trish, could you let Rob personally respond? No, I'm not. I'd rather not, if that's okay, David. Well- Can I just say also that we are very aware of our collective responsibility. Everything that we did was on a unanimous basis. As chair, I have to really accept that. Yes, Rob's a way bit over 21, but I prefer to just leave that as it is, please. Well, Trish, I congratulated you earlier on, which is very genuine, but I actually find your response poor. It's a relatively small board. Rob is a mature guy. It's almost as if you don't have any confidence in his ability to respond to the question. You're trying to shelter him. No, I'm not. You're trying to censor the question. It's just that there are certain things that I feel that I want to make sure that we answer on behalf of the Board, and I'm chairing the meeting, and it's the judgment that I've made, for right or wrong. Trish, he's made a speech as to why he should be reelected. He's up for reelection, Trish. He's over 21. He's experienced. Surely you have enough confidence in Rob to let him say a few words. I have plenty of confidence in Rob, but I'm going to move us on, David. I'm sure that Rob would be really happy to talk with you after the meeting if you'd like to have a one-on-one with him. Well, I'd just conclude by saying excellent opening remark. I think that's very poor chairmanship, Trish. Thank you. Thanks, David. Sorry that we have to agree to disagree. Right. Moving on. That takes me to any questions online. No, no written questions. Are there any online verbal questions, Kylie? Okay. Thank you. All right. The votes and proxies received for this resolution are now shown on the screen. As you can see, open proxies, as I said, in favor of the Chair of the meeting at the time of the meeting will be voting in favor of the resolution. Thank you very much. Okay. Now we're going to move on to item three, which is the remuneration report. This is a non-binding advisory vote on the FY 2026 remuneration report. The remuneration report is included in the 2026 annual report and sets out the company's remuneration framework and the remuneration outcomes for our key management personnel during FY 2026. As noted earlier, OFX received a first strike at the 2025 AGM, with 39.95% votes cast against the adoption of the remuneration report. Full details on the changes and the board's response to shareholder feedback is provided in the REM report in the 2026 annual report. As shareholders will be aware, item six is a conditional spill resolution that will only be taken to be put to shareholders if this resolution receives a second strike. Based on proxy votes and direct votes received prior to the AGM, we do not expect a second strike. I will return to item six later in the meeting, but note that the votes received prior to the meeting on item six indicate the spill resolution would not be carried in any event. Are there any comments or questions concerning the remuneration report? David? Thank you, Chair. I'd really like to address a question to the chief executive, if that's okay. I think he's more than capable of responding with his own words. I don't think you have to censor the question or protect him. Perhaps you can give a ruling on that, Trish, before I fire in the question. Sorry? Perhaps you can give a ruling. Why don't you ask me the question, and then I will Oh, gee, you're being cagey, aren't you? The question's a fairly general one, Trish. Again, I'm surprised if the question will determine your stance on how you respond to the question and whether you allow Skander to respond personally or not. Yeah. The question's a very general one. Skander, very capable guy. You present well. You communicate very well. I've had the pleasure of knowing you for a year or so, and a delightful person. I think you've been CEO for about eight years, maybe nine years. No one would say that you haven't had a decent crack at delivering shareholder value. I appreciate that not everything works. Business is complicated and competitive, so I appreciate not everything works. In this sector, there have been a couple of standouts. Obviously, Airwallex, whether you believe them or not, their market value's gone through the roof. You look at Wise, which is publicly listed. In the last couple of years, it's gone up significantly. OFX floated a number of years ago with a blaze of glory, sponsored by the great Macquarie Bank. Periodically it's gone up, periodically it's gone down. My question, Chair, if you would be so kind as to permit your Chief Executive, without the protection of Chair, answering it. My question is, Skander, with the benefit of hindsight over your eight to nine years where you haven't added value, in fact, shareholder value has been reduced significantly, what are the three things you would do differently if you had your time over again? Thank you. I will give that to Skander. However, it's an invidious position being a Chair and not being able to slag off at your competitors. I can say things private to you about Airwallex or Wise or anyone. I will say a little fact that you might not have caught is that Wise got rejected by their OCC application last week. Was it last week? That's got to tell you something. The shareholders are making money, Trish. Yeah, I got it. The investors in Airwallex thought so. At the end of the day, like it or not, I've been on a lot- Okay. Anyway, sorry. I'm just saying, it's a bit of an unfair dialogue to start talking about that because I'm not going to go through. I'm going to tell you to read the Fin Review again, to search it, et cetera, but I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole, and I am going to hand over to Skander. Thank you, Skander. Let me just respond, though, Trish. That at the end of the day, like it or not, when you are on a public company board, and you've been on many, and you're a very high-quality person, you're being voted on each and every day. Now, you may not agree with the voting, and I fully accept that there are short-term anomalies. Over the long run, if the share price goes down, that's an indictment. At the end of the day, you can say what you like about Airwallex and Wise and Revolut and whatever, but generally speaking, they've added a lot of shareholder value. The sector is okay if you get the execution right. Look, I'm not blaming anyone. I own businesses. They're challenging. There's a lot of moving parts. Skander's got a lot of skill and a lovely personality. Eight to nine years, just interested, as I'm sure other shareholders would be now that Trish is kind enough to let you speak for yourself, Skander. I'm interested in what you might do differently if you had your time over again so that you could have actually added value to shareholders. Thank you. Yeah, sure. First thing is, I think Wise is down 6% since 2020 when it floated. Just, that's a fact. Shareholders haven't actually gained. Setting that to one side, I think in fiscal year 2022 or 2023, we were actually the highest performing stock on the ASX. At that time, we chose to acquire Firma and we subsequently chose to acquire Paytron because we really did feel that there was a big shift in the industry. You look at the kind of structural change in cross-border payments, because there is a question later on Wise, too. Wise added 25%, I think, to active clients, but their cross-border value per client's actually gone down. Wise makes more than 50% of their revenue now from non-FX. We took a decision back then to set up the company for the future To generate revenue from non-FX, because that's where customers, particularly in a B2B but also in a B2C world, were going. We did it at the height of the value of the company. I think, I obviously serve at the discretion of the directors. We have very candid feedback and I can't tell you that me being in the role is their decision. I don't regret for one second the switch that we made. We were very careful in considering the different options. I think to Trish's point, I think we're a little unlucky, to your point, and we got hit at a hard time when we were deep in investment. If you look at the revenue per client, it's actually a function now at those companies that made those investments, that's what's growing. It's not cross-border. We had to take a difficult decision and I'm very glad we did. You don't get every decision right. I think we probably could've moved faster in some ways, and probably a bit more slowly in other ways. Generally speaking, I think we've done the right things to set up the company of the future. The market doesn't value us because we've taken a big hit on revenue. We're a very illiquid stock. As Trish said, if we were private, it might be a little bit different. From my perspective, I think we showed a lot of courage, and we've executed it pretty well. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to do that switchover into the faster revenue growth areas as quickly as we would've liked. Other than that, it's been a very collaborative effort, and that's where we are. Very humbling. There's plenty of motherhoods in that, Skander. Look, I make mistakes every day. If I get eight out of 10 things right, I'm happy. I own up to them, which I think Trish does. Because I think smart people, they own up to the mistakes. Yeah, I think everybody owns up to it on this board. I mean, we'll all put our hands up on that, none of us are thrilled with the past. We are very forward-looking, and that is a great credit to this board, that we did go very positively into that strategic review and in a very open-minded fashion. That's what we're asking our shareholders to do now, to consider the future, what's best for the future in terms of shareholders, in terms of the likelihood of different eventualities playing out, whether organic or inorganic. The likelihood, the certainty, and the type of price that they'll get in a certain time. Our focus is intensely on the future right now. That doesn't mean that we diminish the past. We do try to learn. However, our only choice now is to go forward. Okay. The final follow-up on that, Trish, is that this may well be the last AGM of OFX. That's the plan. The plan is to become private. I say again, your opening speech was fantastic. Well done. Perfect. I'd just love to hear a bit more detail, Skander, on surely there are two or three things that stand out in the eight to nine years where, I think from memory, the stock floated at AUD 2. Is that right? It did. Here we are today at AUD 0.80 with a potential deal at AUD 1. I think, yeah, David, I have a lot of respect for doing that. It's just the annual general meeting's not really the appropriate forum to do that in. I can assure you that we continuously have been asking those questions. Right now, for this meeting, we need to think about how we're going to take this company forward. With respect, Trish, I think this is likely to be the last AGM of the company. I think shareholders, as they consider AUD 1, which is half the IPO price. We'll have an EGM, David. If you want to get up, then have at it. Okay. Well, again, Skander, you may or may not want to respond. Again, the chair is protecting you. The chair is just trying to run an orderly meeting. Well, we've got plenty of time, Trish, and there's not a litany of people lining up to ask questions. Yeah. Either now or at the EGM, if it gets to that. Yeah That's a question that I think Skander should respond to. We appreciate that. Skander will have a chat with you after the meeting and we can decide if we take something forward. Okay? Thank you. Are there any other questions online about the REM report? This is a written question from Stephen Mayne? Yeah. Okay. At the 2024 AGM, OFX Group happily disclosed the proxies. Oh, he's talking about the disclosure around proxies. This isn't just about the REM report. I'm going to take this at the end. This is more general business. It's about the showing of proxies. Okay. Are there any online verbals? No? Okay. Thank you. The votes on. Can I just say a special thanks to Jackie. Jackie for being here, who has a really bad back condition. Temporary, she assures us. Thank you so much for the assistance you've done. Jackie has worked diligently and has an incredible intelligence and emotional intelligence in terms of how we've dealt with the remuneration issues. It is a journey. It's not a point in time. I really appreciate the backup that you've given on that. Thank you. I appreciate the shareholders for their support on the REM vote so far, which are shown up there. Open proxies will be directed in favor of the resolution. Item number four is the issue of performance rights to John Alexander Skander Malcolm under the OFX Group Ltd. Global Equity Plan in respect of FY 2026 short-term incentives. This item concerns the proposed issue of performance rights to Skander to reflect his achievement of short-term incentive for FY 2026. The issue of the securities under OFX's STI plan will be completed in accordance with the company's Global Equity Plan. The 2026 company performance measures are set out in detail in the remuneration report and the notice of meeting. Skander was also assessed against individual performance measures, the details of which were set out in the remuneration report and notice of meeting. For FY 2026, Skander's target STI was 115% of his total fixed remuneration, and his STI outcome, as assessed by the board, was 10%. His target was 115% and the outcome was 10%. The STI outcome was calculated based on a 10% funding outcome from the company performance metrics and an individual performance of meets expectations measured against his individual KPIs. Further details regarding the calculation of Skander's performance rights are set out in the notice of meeting, I will not repeat those details. Skander's STI is settled 50% in cash, and the remaining 50% subject to shareholder approval as deferred equity intended to be delivered in performance rights, 50% of which vest one year after issue and 50% which vest two years after issue. The board retains discretion to determine the form of delivery of Skander's deferred STI, including to satisfy all or part of the award in cash rather than by the grant or vesting of performance rights. The board, with Skander abstaining, unanimously recommends that shareholders vote in favor of this resolution. Are there any comments or questions concerning the issue of performance rights to Skander in respect of his FY 2026 STI under the Global Equity Plan? First, we'll take questions from those attending in person. Please raise your hand and Tara will bring you a microphone. There are no in-person questions. We'll move on to online verbal questions. Is there a written question? No. Oh, this one. No, I don't think so. Are there any verbal questions, Carly? Yes. Okay. There is a verbal question from Stephen Mayne. Is we going to unmute Stephen? Thank you. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. I just wanted to firstly back up David Kingston's position about the director candidates should be responding to questions. I directed a question at the KPMG auditor that wasn't answered either. I agree with David's position, Chair Trish, that you're unreasonably blocking AGM participants from answering questions. My question on this one, I have sort of written it, but I'm getting a bit frustrated at home here. Has there been a material proxy protest vote on either item four or five? Because it's often when you get incentive grants in change of control situations, the proportionality and sort of the windfall element of it does concern some shareholders. Has there been any material proxy protest votes? I know you only announced the transaction on July 23, which might have been after proxy advisors perhaps put out their reports. Can you also comment on whether any proxy advisors have issued a report today, or are we too small having fallen out of the relevant indices? There have not been any proxy comments that are negative about any of those items. The proxies have come out overwhelmingly in support. Jackie, do you want to add anything about our proxies? I'm just going to ask whether I can name them or otherwise say that the ones that we have seen have voted in favor with the board. I think it's their terms and conditions rather than us that's stopping that. The ones I've seen have all been voting in line with the board on all resolutions. Yeah. How many of them were there? Because you're quite small now. Was it a couple or? There were two that I'm aware of. Right. Okay. The two that you'd want. Yeah. Okay. All right. If you could read out my question four in general business at the end, and I'll just deal with my other two sort of questions now. I'm a bit confused why you've gone with Zoom when MUFG runs our register. They've got an excellent meeting platform. I own 6.4% of the company. Obviously you're maybe saving AUD 10 grand, I don't know. Just to make the point about two years ago, you disclosed the proxies earlier with the formal addresses, so disappointed that you didn't do it again today. If we have a scheme meeting, could you please include the proxy position with the formal addresses lodged with the ASX so we can have a fully informed discussion? It's a bit like Anthony Green discussing election results without having any voting results. The AGM is basically an election outcome announcement event, if you don't announce the votes, often you don't know what you're talking about. Early disclosure does help for a more fully informed AGM debate. I hope you get with the program at your next meeting. How should I break that down? The Zoom platform, we've had good feedback, actually, on the use of the Zoom platform at the AGM. Of course, that's something that the board will assess each year, evaluate how it went. We've been very happy with it. With all respect to MUFG, who we're also very happy with. On the matter of disclosed proxy votes, we do disclose them in the meeting. You can see where we're up to, and then obviously more votes might come in after that. I won't give my opinion on that, actually. I think it's a bit of a hoo-ha. We do disclose them at the meeting. You can see what's happening. The poll is still open, Stephen. You can do what you want. Anyone can do what they want. Do you want to add to that? Thank you. [inaudible]. [inaudible]. Right. Any other questions? Votes on item number four are up on the screen. The open proxies in favor of the chair of the meeting at the time of the meeting will be voted in favor of the resolution. Thank you. We now move on to the next item five. Item five is the issue of performance rights to Mr. John Alexander Skander Malcolm under the OFX Group Ltd. Global Equity Plan in respect of FY 2027 LTIs, long-term incentives. This concerns the incentive grant for FY 2027 to the CEO and managing director, Skander Malcolm. The issue of securities under OFX's LTI plan will be completed in accordance with the company's Global Equity Plan. There are two performance metrics for long-term incentives, the first being compound annual growth rate of earnings per share, and the second being compound annual growth rate of absolute total shareholder return, as set out in the explanatory memorandum. Details regarding Skander's proposed FY 2027 LTI grant are set out in the detail in the notice of the meeting. I will not repeat those details. Skander's FY 2027 LTI is intended to be granted in the form of performance rights issued under the Global Equity Plan. The board retains discretion to determine the form of delivery of Skander's LTI, including to satisfy all or part of the award in cash, rather than by the grant or vesting of performance rights. The board, with Skander abstaining, unanimously recommends that shareholders vote in favor of this resolution. Are there any comments or questions concerning the issue of these performance rights to Skander under the Global Equity Plan? I will start with questions from the floor from people attending in person. David? Thank you. Look, I'll back up Stephen Mayne's comment before that some of the performance criteria are distorted, Trish, when there's a corporate transaction, such as occurring here. I think from memory, the relevant benchmark price to judge TSR from is AUD 0.56 from memory. Is that right? Just discussing the fact that it's not been distorted because when the LTI is assessed, for example, on the past performance LTIs, it's on the previous performance. I'll let Jackie talk to you about that. Yeah. If there is a transaction at AUD 1.00, then the TSR is going to be obviously achieved. 50% weighting to TSR. The AUD 1.00 benefit coming through is going to be much higher than if the stock was at AUD 0.60 or AUD 0.70. Look, I don't think it matters much. I think if Skander receives the full entitlement, that's fantastic. Every shareholder will be thankful and appreciative of receiving the AUD 1.00. As I said, Stephen Mayne raised it. I haven't spoken to him, by the way. He raised it before. I agree with his comment, and I think it's more relevant here because the number of performance rights is much greater on the LTI basis. Particularly, Trish, because half of the weighting is attributed to TSR, which is distorted by the corporate transaction. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that. Thanks, David. I'll hand to Jackie first. Yeah. Thank you. Obviously, in the notice of meeting, we're setting up a LTI for Skander for an ongoing business, which I separate from a change of control. In the ongoing business LTI, as we do every year, we look at should we be changing the framework, should we keep it the same? What are the right measures that we need for the business? What are the right targets? This year, we decided to keep the framework the same and the measures the same, but we did increase the targets quite substantially, which you may have noticed in the notice of meeting. This was done for two reasons. One, because, I would say whole management and the board knew that there was ambitions that we needed to achieve in an ongoing business environment to ensure that we were delivering in the future what investors need. Secondly, we got feedback from our rem strike last year in talking to investors that this was an area that they wanted us to focus on. Even though we haven't paid out LTIs in the last couple of years, they did want us to make sure these targets were appropriate. We will disclose in the future. We haven't disclosed now the base point, but we have looked at the past number of years to set a starting base point, and then we've put improvements on that. For ATSR, it's 22% to get to threshold, for example, and then goes up to 40% for stretch. For EPS, effectively, we're asking the management team to deliver on double-digit growth year-on-year, and for ATSR, they will need to improve the share price around two to three times. I say this is set for the ongoing business, which is what we need to do in the notice of meeting. I hope that gives you some flavor to what we were thinking about when we set these. Well, thank you. No issue at all on EPS. That's fine. I think you would agree, if my recollection's correct, that the base was around about AUD 0.56. Having a corporate transaction makes achievement of the TSR component, which is half of the component, dramatically easier, even if part of it's measured by virtue of the value on a go-forward basis when it's private. Who knows how TSR is going to be measured then. Already there is a TSR of, assuming the AUD 1 goes through, of 80-odd%. With hindsight, do you think you've set the framework in the right manner? Look, I think we have, because in the notice of meeting, as I say, we're setting it for an ongoing business. Then when we get to the scheme booklet, we'll obviously talk about how we're setting remuneration going forward in a change of control event. Just looking at the notice of meeting, really, we were looking at what do we need to do to run the business on an ongoing basis. Just a final one, though. I think you would agree that having a corporate transaction makes the achievement of a substantial TSR dramatically easier. Is that fair? I think what I'd say is if we get to a change of control event, we'll look at that situation, and there's board discretion involved. You should look at the notice of meeting vote as a vote for an ongoing activity where the business continues. Okay. When we get to the scheme booklet, you'll look at if a change of control transaction had occurred and the whole deal is finalized. You'll be voting on that then. Today, you're just voting on LTI, assuming that the business continues. Thanks. Thanks, David. It was actually AUD 0.48 undisturbed share price. Sorry. All right. Are there any other questions on the floor on agenda item number five? No. Thank you. Are there some written questions here? No. Okay. Any verbal questions, Kylie? No. Thank you. The direct votes and proxies received for this resolution are now shown on the screen. The open proxies in favor of the chair of the meeting will be voted in favor of the resolution. This takes us to item number six, which is the spill resolution. It's up on the screen, it's only taken to be put to shareholders if 25% or more votes cast on item three are against adoption of the 2026 Remuneration Report, resulting in a second strike. As mentioned earlier, based on the votes received prior to the AGM, we do not expect a second strike. As the outcome of the vote on item three will not be finalized until all votes cast at the meeting have been counted, we will nevertheless conduct the poll on item six. In the event there is no second strike, item six will not be taken to have been put to the meeting, and any votes cast on this item will be disregarded. Yes, it's a bit convoluted. For completeness, the proxy votes and direct votes received prior to the AGM indicate that the spill resolution would not be carried in any event. The board unanimously recommends shareholders vote against this item. Are there any comments or questions concerning item six? In the room? No. Online verbally, Kylie? No. No written questions. Okay. Thank you. You can see on the screen the direct votes and proxies received for this resolution. Open proxies in favor of the chair of the meeting at the time of the meeting will be voted against the resolution. That concludes the formal business of the meeting. I will now hand over to Skander, and we invite shareholders who may have questions or comments that have not already been addressed. Skander. Again, following the usual format, let's start with in-person questions. If you have a question, please raise your hand, and Tara will. Yep. I've got a question about the scheme of arrangement, the mechanics of the scheme of arrangement. When the acquirer comes along, he gets access to a body of data on the company. I'm just wondering if that's the same body of data that the independent expert gets to look at. Yes. Yes. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. We have quite a few written questions. I will go through these. Some of them are on the same theme. Some of them have been somewhat covered by the questions that David asked. The first one from Simon Griffin is, "I note the reference to the challenging operating environment and how it has impacted performance. At the same time, other competitors offering broadly similar products to both consumers and businesses in many of the same markets have grown considerably. For example, Wise grew volume 31%, net revenue 19%. What do the board think it's about OFX that means it's so much more susceptible to challenging economic environments than the other competitors?" I would just refer back to my answer before. Actually, Wise volume per client and revenue per client is going down. They're doing a fantastic job on acquiring new clients. They're up 25% on corporate active clients, I should add. They've increased their marketing by over 60% to $170 million last year, which is good. In fact, another example in the public space would be Payoneer. They actually went down fourth quarter over third quarter. They're similar-ish to us. They also do a lot of accounts receivables business. Corpay numbers are very, very heavily influenced by acquisitions, so it's not really like for like. Airwallex is private, so I don't have any access to their numbers in any kind of auditable format. That was that question. I think we've covered Stephen's question on the online platform. We talked about the proxy one. This question here, perhaps also from Stephen Mayne for you, Tricia, which is, shareholder activist David Kingston put a lot of pressure on the CEO and the board at last year's AGM with an overall message, which was, "Time's up. Do something." Is this partly why you announced a strategic review in February and then the AUD 247 million takeover deal with Equals on July 23rd? Also, did we run a full tender before appointing Goldman Sachs to be our investment banking advisors during the negotiation? What's our history with Goldman Sachs? Thank you, Skander. I'll take that. With respect to the first part of the question, the timing of the strategic review came, as I said earlier in my address, because we were in the process of doing our annual planning. We were also, Skander and I were having many conversations with other market participants to better inform ourselves about what was going on in the market. It's always best to hear straight from the players. At the same time, it became obvious to us that there was going to be incoming interest in OFX, and we felt that it would be in OFX's best interest for us to run any type of process that might ensue. We didn't want to be simply responding to NBIO and having to make piece-by-piece decisions about what to announce and when. We thought it best to do an all-encompassing strategic review which compared the organic possibilities versus what we got inorganically. That answers that part of the question. Sorry, the second part of this question was about Goldman Sachs. With Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs has been advising OFX for quite a few years now. Is it about six years, Skander? They have done a very exceptional job. They know the company very, very well. We did not conduct a tender because we have been working with them on an ongoing basis, even before I came along, but certainly amped up when I came along because it was apparent to all of us that OFX could be a target at some point in time. We definitely increased our focus on the valuation of the company and the value drivers of the company and what might impact value and who the participants would be. Goldman Sachs provided us with invaluable advice over time. When it came to the point of doing the transaction, we kept Goldman Sachs in the role. Goldman Sachs did an excellent job during the process. We had the type of wrangling that you would expect at the beginning on value because the board of OFX is of the opinion that OFX is a valuable company and was certainly much more valuable than what was reflected in the share price. We did have wrangling with good, healthy investment banking wrangling with Goldman Sachs, but we're delighted to say that the board's view prevailed. We're at this point in the process right now. Next question. Regarding the strategic review, can you please provide more information about the strategic review process to help shareholders assess, one, the risk of Equals walking away, and two, the opportunity of a competing or higher bid? I'm happy to speak to that. Skander, you have had a lot of direct-- I've spoken directly with the chair of Equals, for example, but Skander has ongoing almost weekly conversations with the CEO of Equals. They have put an incredible amount of money and time and emotional effort into the transaction. I would assess the risk as being very low. I think the shareholders could benefit from hearing from you. On the process, as Tricia outlined earlier on, the next step is for Equals to complete their financing and then for us to sign the scheme implementation deed. That is very, very well advanced. There are no material issues between us at this point on that. We will, assuming they get their finance, I think the risk on that is quite low. Beyond that, as Tricia said, they are incredibly serious. We've been in conversation on an informal basis for a number of years. They have had a very significant transformation themselves. They are very, very clear on the rationale. They are very attracted to our North American presence. They are very similar to us in the sense that they produce a very strong digital platform, but they complement that with service. They want to be global. 85% of their revenues are effectively U.K., Europe, they want to be more global. There are aspects of the business that we need to deliver as part of that scheme implementation deed, that's obviously a risk. As I touched on earlier on, or sorry, Tricia did, there's obviously the regulatory matter. Again, we would assess that risk as not negatively material because of who they are, the fact that it's a transfer of licenses, and the fact that we've got a good track record. We are proceeding on the basis that we believe it to be a credible bid that we think we could complete. I don't know if you want to touch on the opportunity of a competing or a higher bid. Do you want to touch on that? Yeah, it's a possibility. Obviously, we're in an exclusive point right now. It's certainly a possibility that given the performance of the company, as it improves, there were other credible parties who were very interested, who know the company very well, who may decide at a later stage to come back with a competing or higher bid. It's certainly not unknown, for someone we don't know today to come in at a later stage. That's a possibility as well. That's this one and the next one. The next one is why prioritize and pursue a non-binding indicative offer from Equals Group versus chasing and moving forward with all of the multiple credible offers that were on the table. Are you so confident the deal with Equals result in a binding offer that you can walk away from the others? Yes, is the short answer to that. We assessed those others against that concept of certainty. That's an incredibly important concept because there's a lot of work that goes into these processes, and we felt giving exclusivity and working directly with Equals was a worthwhile step. Can you give a sense for which component of OFX the bidders were most attracted to, such as the technology platform, the licenses, the customer base, et cetera? There were a number of factors. Basically, those listed. I would say on top of that, the team. It's very difficult actually over time to build a really strong regional team, and we have excellent people in different parts of the world, and they're very attracted to that. Clearly, the ability as well to compete in a, let's call it a 2.0 sense, is also very attractive because standalone FX businesses are much less attractive than the business that we have now. Okay. I think that's all of them. I'll just triple-check. I think there's no other questions on here. I'll hand it back to you. Thank you, Skander. As there are no further questions, I'm about to close the meeting, before doing so, I would remind shareholders and proxy holders who are attending online to complete their voting cards immediately if you haven't done so already. Once completed, press the submit button at the bottom of the screen. That's very important to hit submit. As advised earlier, the results of the polls will be released to the ASX as soon as these are available. If you are attending in person, MUFG Corporate Markets staff are walking around now to collect your voting cards for anyone who hasn't already voted. Is there anyone here who has not completed and submitted their voting card that wishes to do so? Thank you. Any others? The polls are now closed. Thank you for your attendance today and for your support of OFX. I know we can't keep everybody happy all of the time, David and Stephen, but we've done our best. Finally, many thanks again for all of your support. Meeting's now closed.