Well, good morning, everyone. My name's Greg Cooper, and I'm the Chair of Perpetual Limited. It's 10:00 A.M., and as I've been advised that a quorum is present, I declare the 2026 annual general meeting open, and I welcome you all to Perpetual's AGM. We acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we're present today, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, as the custodians of this land, recognizing their connection to land, waters, and the community. We pay our respect to Australia's first people and to their elders, past and present, and we'd like to extend our respect to, and welcome any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people who are joining us today. We also acknowledge the traditional owners of the many lands where our attendees are situated today, both here in Australia and overseas. I'd like to welcome our shareholders, proxy holders and guests, both here in person and online. In particular, welcome to our new shareholders. I'll say a few words shortly concerning how I propose to run today's hybrid meeting and the procedures for voting and submitting questions. Before I move on to some instructions, I would like to add for those attending in person, in the event of any emergency, please listen for instructions from the hotel and follow the directions of venue staff. I'd also like to take this opportunity to introduce our board and management team and our auditor. In the room, seated here on the main table, I'm joined by Bernard Reilly, our Managing Director and CEO; Sylvie Dimarco, our Company Secretary; Paul Ruiz, a non-executive director; Mona Aboelnaga Kanaan, our non-executive director; Phil Wagstaff, a non-executive director; Fiona Trafford-Walker, a non-executive director and Chair of the People and Remuneration Committee. I'd also like to introduce Chris Jones, in very large screenshot there, non-executive director, who's currently joining us remotely from New York. I would like to thank Mona and Phil in particular for traveling to attend the AGM in person. I'd also like to inform you that our senior executives who are also attending here in person are seated in the front row and available to answer any of your questions. I kindly ask that each of the executives stands while I mention your name. They are our Chief Financial Officer, Suzanne Evans; our Chief Operating Officer, James MacNevin; our Chief Executive for Corporate Trust, Richard McCarthy; our Chief Executive for Wealth Management, Mark Smith; our Chief Risk Officer, Allan Lo Proto; and our General Counsel, Helen Mediati. Karen Hopkins of KPMG, who is the company's auditor. Karen is available to answer any questions that shareholders may have in relation to the conduct of the audit and the auditor's report on the FY 2026 financial statements, the climate report, the auditor's independence, and we'll deal with those questions under the first item of the agenda. In terms of today's business, we have the following items to consider: presentation of the FY 2026, approval of the FY 2026 variable incentive equity grants to the CEO and Managing Director, and the adoption of the remuneration report for FY 2026. There'll also be opportunities to ask questions. Further information about each of the items for considerations today is set out in the notice of meeting, and I will take the notice of meeting as read. As described in the notice of meeting, proxy appointments were able to be lodged up to 48 hours before the meeting, where I, as Chair of the meeting, have been appointed as a shareholder's proxy or become their proxy by default. I will vote directed proxies as directed in the proxy appointment, and I will vote any unavailable undirected proxies in favor of each resolution. If you are participating as a shareholder and hold proxies, then you would have received an email setting out instructions on how to vote for those proxies using the voting mechanism on the platform. I will now turn to the important formalities for voting and asking questions. Following comments and questions for the voting resolutions, I will confirm the proxy votes received before shareholders participating online. Each resolution before the meeting today is an ordinary resolution and will be passed by a simple majority. Firstly, the important formalities for voting. For voting shareholders in the room, voting on each resolution will be conducted by way of a poll. Regi Harbron of MUFG Corporate Markets Services Limited is the returning officer for the purposes of the poll. You will have each received a yellow voting card when you registered today, and you should use this card to cast your vote on each resolution. For online voting, the poll is now open. The poll will remain open for five minutes after the end of today's meeting. To vote online, follow the steps in the virtual meeting platform. If you experience any difficulties with the virtual meeting platform or you are unsure how to vote or ask questions, there is a helpline number available, which is 1800 990 363 within Australia, and which is also displayed on the screen. Now the formalities for asking questions. I will introduce each resolution, and there will be an opportunity to ask a question in the room. We will first take questions from shareholders in the room, then from shareholders using the virtual meeting platform, and then take any questions received via the phone. Questions will be addressed under the relevant item of business. If you wish to ask a question, please move at the appropriate time to one of the two standing microphones located in the back on either side of the room. Please provide your full name to the staff member standing there so they can introduce you prior to asking your question. We encourage you to use the microphones at the back, but for any guests that are not able to make it to a microphone, please raise your hand and we will get a roving microphone to you as quickly as we can. In the interest of all shareholders attending, please only ask one question at a time and keep your question relatively brief so that as many shareholders as possible have an opportunity to speak. Questions should be relevant to shareholders as a whole, and also I will not be responding to questions of a personal nature or those that relate to individual client matters. On screen now, there are instructions on how to submit questions online or by phone, and you can submit a question at any time, and it will be addressed at the appropriate time. This completes the formalities. In a moment, I will invite our CEO, Bern Reilly, to deliver his address. But before I do that, I will provide some comments on the FY 2026 year. So good morning again, everyone, and thank you for joining us for Perpetual's 2026 annual general meeting. FY 2026 was a year of significant change for Perpetual. The decisions taken during the year have been guided by a clear objective, to create a simpler, financially stronger company with a sharper focus on the areas where we believe we can deliver sustainable long-term value. We recognize that shareholders have closely considered the decisions taken by the board during this period, particularly the proposed sale of Wealth Management and the proposals received from an entity associated with EQT AB, which I will refer to as EQT throughout this address. Today, I want to explain the board's approach to these matters, the progress we have made against our strategic priorities, and the priorities that will guide Perpetual from here. Before turning to these matters, I will briefly address our financial performance. The group delivered underlying profit after tax of AUD 217 million for FY 2026, an increase of 6% on FY 2025. Statutory net profit after tax was AUD 88.9 million, compared with a statutory loss last year of AUD 58.2 million. The board declared a final dividend of AUD 0.63 per share unfranked, bringing total dividends for FY 2026 to AUD 1.22 per share, an increase of 6% on the prior year. This represented a payout ratio of 65% of full-year underlying profit after tax and is consistent with Perpetual's dividend policy. The board recognizes the importance of dividends to many Perpetual shareholders and acknowledges in recent years they have been below historical levels. At the same time, we acknowledge the decline in total shareholder returns and consequently Perpetual's share price over the period. Subject to completion of the Wealth Management transaction, the final tax outcomes from the sale and Perpetual's financial position at that time, we currently expect that the franking credits to be generated by the sale may support a return to partially franked dividends from the second half of FY 2027. Bern will provide some more context as to the financial results in his address shortly. Turning now to some of the key strategic matters of the past year. A key priority for the board and management this year has been the sale of the Wealth Management business. In March, following a thorough sale process, we announced that Perpetual had entered into a binding agreement to sell the Wealth business to Bain Capital. Under the agreement and subject to completion of the sale, Perpetual will receive an upfront cash payment of AUD 500 million at completion, subject to customary adjustments. Incremental performance related to the advice business could deliver an additional consideration of up to AUD 50 million, with a midpoint of AUD 25 million at completion. And a further earn-out payment of up to AUD 50 million related to the performance of the advice business will be tested and payable two years after completion. Net cash proceeds from the transaction are intended to reduce debt and support organic investment opportunities in Asset Management and Corporate Trust. Importantly, Perpetual will retain ownership of the Perpetual brand and will license the Perpetual Wealth and Perpetual Private brands to Bain Capital for 15 years. This transaction is progressing well and remains on track to complete before the end of calendar year 2026. However, completion and timing remain subject to the satisfaction of the remaining conditions precedent, including obtaining the necessary regulatory and court approvals. Based on current estimates, completion of the transaction is expected to strengthen Perpetual's balance sheet and move the group into a net cash position after taking into account expected transaction and separation costs, tax, and other adjustments. This would provide greater financial flexibility, including the capacity to consider capital management opportunities over time. Moving now to the proposals from EQT that Perpetual received after the end of the 2026 financial year. As disclosed in ASX announcements on 1 July 2026, Perpetual received an unsolicited, non-binding proposal from Windflower Pte Limited, an entity Perpetual understands is indirectly controlled by EQT to acquire all of the shares in Perpetual. Following a period of engagement with EQT, Perpetual provided limited access to non-public information during August and September on a non-exclusive basis. EQT subsequently submitted a best and final non-binding proposal offering cash scheme consideration of AUD 22.50 per share with an allowance for a dividend of up to AUD 0.60 per share. In assessing each proposal put forward by EQT, the board was conscious of its fiduciary obligations and statutory duties to act in good faith in the best interests of shareholders. This included the cash consideration offered, the terms and conditions, execution risk, the anticipated timetable, and the treatment of payments to shareholders. Having considered those matters with the assistance of its financial and legal advisors, the board concluded that the proposal was not capable of being recommended, and on 21st of September, we announced that the proposal had been rejected. The board stands behind this process, does not alter our strategic priorities. We remain focused on the Wealth Management transaction. Against that backdrop, our focus remains on the matters within our control: discipline cost management, client engagement, product development, investment performance, and targeted growth initiatives. Subject to the satisfactory completion of the sale of Wealth Management, Perpetual will comprise two core businesses: Asset Management and Corporate Trust. In Asset Management, our near-term priorities are to retain and grow our strong position in the Australian market, improve the performance and financial contribution of the J O Hambro boutique, expand our products offerings in the United States and Australia. In Corporate Trust, we will continue to protect and strengthen our position through organic growth initiatives, selected bolt-on acquisitions, and digital transformation. We also remain committed to the simplification program. We have now delivered AUD 72.6 million in annualized cost savings as at 30 June 2026, ahead of the AUD 60 million FY 2026 target. The company has made good progress on its cost management strategy, which, together with debt reduction, has strengthened cash generation and financial flexibility. During the year, we also launched a refreshed sustainability strategy focused on people, environment, and communities. The strategy concentrates our efforts on the areas most closely aligned with our business and stakeholders and supports our commitment to acting with integrity and creating long-term value. Before I close, I would like to acknowledge Christopher Jones, who will retire from the board following today's annual general meeting after three years of service with Perpetual and five years prior to that with Pendal. On behalf of the board, I thank Christopher his judgment, dedicated service, and contribution to Perpetual, and wish him well for the future. The board has commenced a search for an independent non-executive director and will update shareholders on any appointment in due course. Finally, this year also represents an important milestone in Perpetual's history. In September 2026, we marked 140 years since the company was founded in 1886. Throughout that time, Perpetual has adapted to changing markets and client needs while remaining focused on creating enduring prosperity. That capacity to evolve remains one of the company's greatest strengths. I thank our shareholders for your continued support and engagement and our people for their resilience, dedication, and commitment to clients during a period of significant change. The decisions taken this year have established a clear direction for Perpetual. The task is now execution, completing the Wealth Management transaction, strengthening and growing our Asset Management and Corporate Trust businesses, and maintaining disciplined cost management. The board will remain focused on management's delivery against these priorities and on creating sustainable long-term value for shareholders. I will now hand over to Bern for his address. Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. Before I spend time taking you through the progress the business has made over the past 12 months, I wanted to revisit the priorities that have guided our actions over that period. In August last year, we announced a refreshed strategy focused on simplifying the business, delivering operational excellence, and investing for growth. Our objective is to build Perpetual into a strong financial services group with differentiated businesses that operate with discipline and seek to deliver improved returns for shareholders over time. At last year's AGM, we outlined a number of initiatives aligned with this strategy, and I am pleased to say we have made significant progress. The sale of Wealth Management to Bain Capital, which Greg covered in detail, is well progressed. We have obtained the required AFSL variations from ASIC, and Bain Capital have received ACCC approval. The transaction remains on track to complete before the end of calendar year 2026, subject to satisfying the remaining conditions precedent. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that many shareholders may feel that this has been a long chapter for Perpetual, and I understand that sentiment. The transaction is intended to deliver value for shareholders and reduce company debt. Board and management have remained focused on working through the complexities of that process. We now have greater clarity and a clear pathway forward. Moving now to our simplification program, which continues to deliver tangible results. As at the end of FY 2026, annualized savings were AUD 72.6 million, ahead of our FY 2026 aim and already within our FY 2027 target. The majority of these savings have been delivered through implementing simpler processes, removing duplication, and improving our operating model. Based on progress to date and our current plans and assumptions, we remain on track to deliver annualized savings of up to AUD 80 million by the end of FY 2027. Importantly, this program is about creating a simpler business with clearer accountability, more disciplined capital allocation, and an operating model that can move faster. Cost savings are a natural outcome of that simplification. This discipline has flowed through to our balance sheet, which is now materially stronger than it was 12 months ago. Gross debt reduced by 15% over the year to 30 June of 2026, driven by higher cash generation and disciplined capital management. A stronger balance sheet and higher quality earnings supported the board's decision to increase the second half dividend. Future dividends and the level of franking will be determined by the board based on the continued financial performance of Perpetual. Franking credits are generated when Perpetual pays Australian company tax. As more of our earnings come from overseas, we generate fewer franking credits, which reduces the level of sustainable franking on our dividends. The work undertaken over the past year has put Perpetual in a stronger financial position. This gives us flexibility to invest in disciplined ways in areas where we have scale and see opportunities for growth, alongside potential capital management initiatives. Any such decisions will be considered by the board in light of our capital requirements, the opportunities available to us, and the market conditions at the time. Turning now to our FY 2026 results and the September quarter business update. We delivered a solid result in FY 2026 in a year of geopolitical and economic uncertainty, along with ongoing corporate activity. FY 2026 demonstrated that earnings can improve even without strong top-line growth. As the group becomes more focused, we expect value for shareholders to be driven increasingly by the quality of earnings and the returns on capital. Rather than repeat the headline results, I want to focus on the performance of our businesses and what sits behind them. Asset Management recorded revenue of AUD 880.5 million, down 3%, while underlying profit before tax was up 3% to AUD 207.5 million, supported by continued cost discipline. The business finished FY 2026 with total assets under management, or AUM, of AUD 224.4 billion, with improved contributions from Barrow Hanley in the U.S. and our Australian boutiques, Perpetual and Pendal, partially offset by net outflows of 20— challenging across the business and active management industry more generally. Our focus remains on the areas within our control. This includes driving growth through product development and leveraging our global platform. I'll touch more on that a little bit later. Corporate Trust is an integral part of Australia's capital markets infrastructure. In FY 2026, it delivered another strong year of growth with revenue up 8% to AUD 220.8 million and underlying profit before tax up 9% to AUD 98.8 million, supported by growth across all three business lines, debt market services, managed fund services, digital and markets. Within Wealth Management, revenue of AUD 233.5 million was down 1%, and underlying profit before tax of AUD 44 million was down 15%, reflecting softer non-market revenue and continued investment in staff and technology to support the business as it prepares to separate. Funds under advice increased 3%, and the business achieved a record high net promoter score, reflecting the strength of its relationships and continued focus on delivering for clients through a period of significant change. Looking briefly at our first quarter results for FY 2027, which were announced last week, we saw another quarter of growth in Corporate Trust, with funds under administration reaching a record AUD 1.4 trillion. This was offset by outflows in Asset Management of AUD 9.6 billion, or AUD 8.4 billion excluding cash, bringing total assets under management to AUD 212 billion. In Wealth Management, funds under advice remained stable at AUD 22.1 billion. Flows and investment performance in parts of Asset Management have been disappointing. These outcomes reflect a combination of industry-wide pressures, client portfolio decisions, and performance in certain strategies. We are responding with a clear focus on areas that we can influence. In J O Hambro, for example, under the new leadership of Bill Street, we have a clear plan to build a more scalable and resilient business, with priorities focused on adapting products and strategies, improving investment performance, and identifying opportunities to simplify its operating model. We recognize that progress will not always be linear and that the timing and extent of improvement cannot be certain. What we can control is the execution of our strategy, and we are taking disciplined action to improve the position of our Asset Management business over time. I would like now to spend some time outlining the work we have done and continue to do to position both businesses for future growth. Subject to the completion of the wealth sale, Perpetual will be a simpler, stronger, and more focused company comprising two core businesses, Asset Management and Corporate Trust. The natural next step is to focus on opportunities available to those businesses, improving returns over time, and applying a disciplined approach to investment. The two businesses bring different but complementary strengths. Asset Management provides exposure to global investment markets through a broad range of differentiated capabilities, with earnings influenced by markets, investment performance, and client flows. Corporate Trust provides a different earnings profile, supported by its established market position and long-standing client relationships. Together, they provide diversification across geographies and client channels, as well as presenting distinct potential growth opportunities. In Asset Management, we believe industry consolidation may continue, increasing the value of differentiated investment capabilities, while high index concentration may support the investment case for active management. We have continued to selectively invest in product development, bringing our investment capabilities to clients through new products, vehicles, and markets. This includes active ETFs, which represent a growth opportunity for Perpetual. In FY 2026, we launched the Perpetual Diversified Income Active ETF, which has generated strong early interest and, as at the 30th of September, had already grown to AUD 335 million in AUM. Looking ahead, we have further products in the pipeline, including plans for two ETFs targeting the U.S. wholesale market. In Corporate Trust, we continue to see growth from existing clients as well as new clients, reflecting the strength of our client relationships and the value of our established fiduciary capabilities. Credit markets and sustained securitization activity continue to support debt market services growth, while the expansion of non-bank lending and private capital is broadening our addressable market. We believe the business has attractive structural growth opportunities, and we have a strong technology and data foundation, and we will continue to invest selectively in capabilities that strengthen our client offering. As securitization lending and broader capital markets grow and evolve, we see opportunities to combine our existing fiduciary administration and data capabilities with digital solutions that extend our participation in these markets. We are investing to build on that position. For example, in late FY 2026, we acquired a majority interest in Interfi, an Australian-based business that supports the full loan life cycle for non-bank lenders, with approximately AUD 55 billion in assets under administration. Interfi provides a digital solution in the growing market segment of lending, broadening Perpetual's exposure, and creating additional opportunities to add value for new and existing clients. Underpinning all of this are the foundations of a company that last month celebrated its 140th anniversary. That heritage is also reflected in our investment capabilities. One of our oldest managed funds, the Perpetual Industrial Share Fund, has operated for over 60 years, investing through many different economic, political, and market cycles. It is one example of the depth of our investment experience within the group and of our long-standing commitment to active investment management. Our responsibility is to protect what has made Perpetual enduring while continuing to adapt the business for the future. The simpler, more focused Perpetual we are creating today is the next chapter in that history. Looking ahead, our priorities for FY 2027 are clear. The focus is on execution of our strategy. First, we remain committed to completing the sale of Wealth Management, and following the completion, further strengthen the balance sheet to increase our financial flexibility. We will continue to deliver on our cost reduction commitments and build a leaner, more efficient operating model. In Corporate Trust, our priorities are to protect and strengthen our market position and to invest selectively in expanding our capabilities through innovation, partnerships, and selective bolt-on acquisitions where they make sense. In Asset Management, our priorities are to pursue targeted product innovation and selective investment capabilities where we have identified opportunities for sustainable growth. Finally, we will continue to invest selectively in technology and productivity initiatives designed to support scalable growth across the group. FY 2026 was a big year for Perpetual. We made good progress against our strategic priorities. There is more work to do, particularly in Asset Management, and we are very focused on that work. But the actions we have taken have given us a stronger platform from which to perform and grow. I want to thank our people across the group for their continued dedication through a period of considerable change, and our shareholders for your ongoing support. We remain confident in our direction and in our ability to execute our strategy as we build a simpler, stronger, and more focused business for the years ahead. Thank you, and I now hand back to Greg. Thank you, Bern. Now to the formal business. The first item of business is to receive and consider the financial statements ended 30 June 2026. I now formally table the financial statements, the climate report, the directors' report, and the auditors' reports for the financial year ended 30 June 2026. There is no voting on this item, but shareholders will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments on this item. Once again, the way I intend to handle this section of the meeting is as follows. I will invite any questions from shareholders in the room, then I will answer any written questions we receive online during the meeting. Please use the online question box to ask a question, and then I will then move to questions on this particular item. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce William Prentice. Thank you, Mr. Prentice. Thank you. I have got a number of questions, but I will just ask one and then other people. Yep, sure. If they want, that is fine. My first question is in relation to the takeover 50, plus the— Questions here is for any questions in relation to the auditor's report and for the auditor. And the accounts? The accounts, yeah. Okay. A question about the accounts, happy to. Okay. Can I ask you a question about the accounts? Sure. Yep. Two questions there then. Can you explain the difference between the statutory profit of AUD 85 million and the underlying profit of AUD 217 million, and how that ties in with your cash flow, which has not been tremendous, I wouldn't say. That gets me to worry about future growth and dividends. The AUD 217 million versus AUD 88 million is a huge difference, and you pay out your dividends based on a percentage, I presume, of the underlying profit. Yeah. I might invite our CFO, Suzanne Evans, to make a couple of comments. But it predominantly relates to the difference between significant. Do you want to add any further color? Sure. Is the microphone with— Yeah, just hold it close, I think. Okay. There you go. Thank you. As the Chair saw, quite a large reduction in those that are cash-based versus those which relate principally to fair valuation of assets that come through the accounts. I guess importantly, it is underlying profit after tax that drives the dividend payment. I think in terms of capacity going forward, we are going to see much closer alignment between the cash flow that is coming through and the actual underlying profit numbers. A lot of the items in significant items going forward will be non-cash in nature. It should be a better correlation in future years. Because if we look at your cash flow statement, I guess our net cash went up around AUD 3 million overall after you paid out your dividends of about AUD 127 million. Correct. Your cash generation, it will have to significantly increase to maintain and increase dividends in the future. Yeah. I think as was called out by both the Chair and the [inaudible], some of the cash during the year that has been applied to the reduction in the gross debt balance. Well, it looks to me that the debt's gone down about AUD 100 million. Correct, on a— I'll come back later. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Any. Yep. I'd like to introduce David Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Kingston. I want to make a few comments to put it in context, and then I will ask one question, but I will come back for some others later on. I welcome the sale of Wealth Management business for around AUD 500 million, which is expected to settle late 2026. I would describe Perpetual as bipolar. I think it has been described as two businesses which are complementary. I think they are very, very different and incompatible. If you cut to the chase, it is an outstanding Corporate Trust business which continues to deliver. So that is the start. Conversely, the company has made seriously overpriced acquisitions, particularly Pendal in 2022, 2023, which was commonly regarded as massively overpriced, over AUD 2 billion. It has continued to struggle to deliver proper ROI, and also they are lower multiple businesses. The accounts show that you have written off goodwill of AUD 700 million, Chair, including AUD 63 million from TSW in FY 2026. So that is a lot of money to write off. The five years EPS, Chair, in 2022 is AUD 2.58. In 2023, AUD 1.97; 2024, AUD 1.79; 2025, AUD 1.81; and 2026, AUD 1.86. So over that five-year period, the EPS has dropped substantially. The accounts, Chair, also show that your five-year CAGR TSR is -10.5%. That has resulted, Chair, in a situation where in the past 10 years, Perpetual shares were over AUD 50. They are now one third of that, which is several billion dollars of torched money. I would also comment on the corporate deals, but later on, because you want that in a different section. My question, Chair, and noting that in your address you said that the company is focused on sustainable long-term value for shareholders. That is contrary to what this company has delivered for many years. Does the board take accountability, Chair, for the value destruction caused substantially by its Pendal acquisition, but other overpriced funds management acquisitions, and will the board apologize to shareholders for the very substantial value destruction? Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Kingston. Look, I certainly wouldn't disagree with your factual statements because they are exactly that, factual statements, and the board absolutely acknowledges the share price performance over a long period of time, as we addressed in last year's AGM. I think we also talked to some degree about this. You've seen quite a substantial and a largely new executive team brought in since that time. Our focus going forward is very clearly on delivering sustainable long-term value have not performed in the way that the company would've liked over that period of time. Would you like to apologize for that? Happy to. It's definitely not been a great experience for shareholders and I'm sorry for shareholders who have had to wear through that. Any other questions in relation to the audited accounts? Yeah. Chair, I'd like to introduce Brian Perkis. Thank you, Mr. Perkis. Good morning. I'm a shareholder in Perpetual. I also have shares in the investment company, and I have a substantial amount of money in Perpetual Wealth. My question will revolve around the superannuation. Now, July last year, you handed over, my understanding was, the administration of the superannuation to Equity Trustees. In the annual report, I can't find one mention anywhere of superannuation in the Corporate Trust, the Asset Management or the Wealth Management. The only mention I found was on page 159. Now, considering there's four means that it doesn't get a mention. Now, my question is, there's been a lot of bad press about Equity Trustees. They're the people who are supposedly administrating the policy holders' money. I went online, and I found that as of July this year. Can you advise me of what is the position of the policy holders in relation to that? Do you have a say in who they sell it to, or can you move it away from them? Look, that's not obviously related to the audit and the annual accounts, but I'll take it anyway, just given you've noted the reference in the annual report. Your own superannuation, the decisions that you can take, or that the manager, which is part of, if it's that part of our business that relates to Perpetual Wealth, that Perpetual Wealth take. Equity Trustees, and I would just call out the difference between, because there is sometimes confusion. The EQT being referred to here is the Equity Trustees listed ASX business, not the EQT that made a proposal to acquire the shares in Perpetual. They're two completely separate businesses. EQT is the administrator of that and will therefore respond to whatever instructions are given by whoever is making those instructions. Over the back here. Again, if we could keep this to related to the annual report and accounts, and we'll have an opportunity for further questions later. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Ch— Sorry, just to tie it to the accounts, to stay appropriate for this item. But just for context, again, back when KKR bid for the Corporate Trust and advice business, I forget the exact numbers, but I think it was roughly AUD 500 million odd in tax and transaction costs. But if we look at the balance sheet today, there is roughly AUD 130 million of deferred tax liabilities. My guess is that relates to the intangibles of AUD 1.5 billion. But the question really is, clearly with EQT, and there's been numerous bidders that have wanted the CT business, given its continued growth. It's a great business, but the KKR deal didn't go ahead given those taxes and transaction costs. But is there anything that you as the board can do yourself to make that split? Well done on selling the advice business. One is going through the roof, the other one is shrinking rapidly, but related to the CT business. More specifically, can you find a way, yourself, to do a demerger of sorts between the Corporate Trust business and the Asset Management business? Because it puts a very low value on the funds management business. I think, if you look at Schroders, your old shop, Greg, I think they were just taken over by, I forget the name, but Nuveen at well north of 1% of funds under management. I think we are trading at a discount to 1%, notwithstanding the huge value of Corporate Trust. Is there anything that you as a board, could you sell the Asset Management business standalone, given there would probably be huge tax losses in that business? Or do to split up the two divisions and help crystallize value for shareholders? Thanks. Yeah, look, I think a very fair question. Maybe I will get Suzanne to comment on the deferred tax piece. Just more generally in relation to your question, the board is actually pretty constantly looking at options, and what we can do to generate shareholder value. A large part of responding to the proposal made was EQT, was us looking at the business and making a fair assessment of what that business would be worth, and what we could do with that. Bern has already outlined, and I mentioned at this point, our plan going forward is to continue to simplify, extract cost savings in the business, and look for bolt-on opportunities on Corporate Trust, as well as streamlining, and growing certain selected parts of the asset. Open to and considering different options that may maximize shareholder value from time to time. But Suzanne, did you want to comment on the deferred tax? Thank you. Deferred tax is in the normal course of business, so there is nothing specific to Corporate Trust. Whilst I was not here at the time, as I understand, under the KKR construct, the crystallization of capital gains on sale was what would have driven a very large tax bill. So that is distinct and separate from anything you are seeing in the accounts today. Thank you. Are there ways around that I'm hoping you would have looked at? Could you demerge the two? There— Is there something that you are proactively— There are— looking at given— —different options that we are always looking at in terms of how we can maximize shareholder value. In terms of, and careful to that, but we will be conscious of net tax proceeds delivered to shareholders in any sort of different structure that might be considered from time to time. Thank you. Then just second question, again, pre the Bain sale advice. So if you get AUD 500 million, let's just exclude the additional potential AUD 100 million, less your transaction costs, et cetera. I think you had around AUD 150 million of co-invest that wasn't attached to provisions for employee pay, et cetera. So on a pro forma basis, you are going to have AUD 200 million- AUD 300 million of cash and co-invest. Firstly, is that roughly accurate? Then secondly, what do you intend on doing with those proceeds? Clearly the empire-building and acquisitions of the past have failed spectacularly. So just any guidance on the use of that net cash— Yeah. —once it comes in the door. Can you rule out any further, you have just spoken to bolt-ons, which is a bit scary, but— Yeah, I think bolt-ons— —thoughts please. —in Corporate Trust, much like the Interfi acquisition would be a good example of the case in point. We are not considering, at this point in time, any large-scale acquisitions, particularly related to Asset Management, noting some of your prior commentary, which I wouldn't disagree with around the performance of those. As for the exact net cash position, we'll wait until the transaction actually completes, then we'll announce to market what the position is, post that. As you rightly point out, we will have and so forth in the business. Then the board is basically open to considering how we might look to structure the balance alongside that. Thank you. Chair, I'd like to introduce Rita Mazalevskis. Welcome, Ms. Mazalevskis. Good morning, board. I'm here in my capacity as an advocate for financially aggrieved customers, including myself. I just want to put in the record that I have come from Perth. I did request a meeting with the CEO, which was declined, and I did write to the board early this morning. Page 45 of Perpetual's annual report, it outlines. While page 152 discloses approximately AUD 6.82 million in audit assurance and other fees across KPMG firms. KPMG has faced serious parliamentary scrutiny following allegations commissioned independent review identified serious ethical governance and accountability failures, and the government has extended the pause on new Commonwealth engagements. In these findings, why has the board not initiated a process to remove and replace KPMG as Perpetual's external auditor appointment? The other part of my question, sorry, is relevant to myself and any other of your customers. Has KPMG, the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee, or internal audit ever matters, and its implications for Perpetual's internal controls, regulatory compliance, and financial reporting? If not, who determines that such scrutiny is unnecessary? Your KPMG remark firstly. I would start by saying, as we announced at last year's AGM, we were undertaking an audit process, sorry, the tender process. The audit tender was put out to market. That went through a fairly rigorous internal process, and the subsequent result of that was the reappointment of KPMG. That occurred before the parliamentary inquiry and some of the results, and we take those findings very seriously. We have spent considerable time with KPMG, and interviewed, and had the opportunity to interview, a number of their senior executives, including the CEO. We feel at this point in time that the service that we get from KPMG, that their conduct of the audit processes and the resources that they supply for that audit, are all entirely appropriate. It is something, and particularly as new allegations might come to light from time to time, that we will continue to assess. As you would appreciate, the change of an audit firm is not a sort of flick-the-switch activity. It does require a fair degree of time and consideration, and it is a process one has to go through to change audit firms. It is something that we will continue to investigate and look at in light of the parliamentary results from that inquiry. Just addressing your second question, we do have well-established internal and external audit practices around all aspects of our business. The sorts of, if something is raised in respect of a particular client matter, then that will be passed along and investigated as well as if it is an area that represents some compliance or risk factor, then we will ask internal audit and potentially external assurance processes to take place over that. Okay, then maybe I'll ask my second question because that will tie into that. Pages 85- 87 of Perpetual's annual report disclose its extensive securitization, trustee, and document custody operations, including approximately AUD 739 billion in securitization related funds under administration. Perpetual's own website states that it verifies the accuracy and completeness of loan security documentation for approximately 26,000 loans monthly, including validation for enforceability and arrangements to correct defective documentation. Given Perpetual's published representations concerning mortgage verification, how does the board reconcile those commitments with its position that responsibility for approvals for my loan amongst other customers that I'm aware of and documentation rested with third parties, not Perpetual? Ms. Mazalevskis, as I mentioned at the start, I'm not going to comment on anything in particular in relation to your— I haven't raised anything about my case. I'm talking about mine and others, and I haven't provided any details. Yep. It's a general question. Yep, and I appreciate that. But I am not going to comment on any particular aspects in relation to any one individual loan or other. But I'd say we will remain very comfortable with the processes and procedures that we have around that. I do not know, Dickie. Richard, do you want to comment a little bit more about some of the external work that we do there? Yeah, no, thanks. No, we do actually have a very rigorous process for investment in people technology. We run a three lines of accountability. We have strict governance risk compliance at the first line, which is the business line. Second line through our risk and compliance teams. We are regularly audited internally as well as external assurance, and we are very comfortable with our governance and processes. Thanks, Richard. Can I just ask, AUSTRAC's Operation Claw is looking at mortgage fraud across financial institutions. Has AUSTRAC contacted Perpetual? I would not be in a position to say if they had or they hadn't, because that would be a legal matter for AUSTRAC. I think that is right. I am just looking at our General Counsel here. AUSTRAC has publicly advertised banks that they have approached, so why wouldn't Perpetual acknowledge? Well, if they have publicly advertised who they have approached and we are not on that list, then I think that probably answers your question. So that is a no, is it? As I said, I am not legally allowed to say. If a regulator approaches us and commences an active investigation, we are generally not allowed to comment on that. Then they are allowed to comment. Okay There is no. I think that probably answers your question. Oh, not really, but I will be here next year with the result from AUSTRAC, thanks. That is perfectly fine. Look forward to it. Any other questions about the audit or the auditor's accounts from the room? Yep. Chair, I would like to introduce David Kingston. Yep. Thank you. Chair, you laid out the rules and I complied. Only one question first up, and then you became very generous and allowed people with multiple questions. I was looking around the room, Mr. Kingston, so if you have a number of questions, you could ask them, but I did not see anyone else standing up at the time. Look, just appreciate some color because I think you are doing the right thing by getting rid of Wealth Management, becoming debt-free. Thank you. A little bit of color, I think it is the elephant in the room, that the Corporate Trust business is fantastic. It is an iconic business. It has been growing consistently. The economic moat is massive. It is a very high multiple business. It is the jewel in the crown. Last year, linking with the accounts, it delivered AUD 98 million underlying PBT. That is before head office allocation. In contrast, the lemon in the group of funds management, Pendal was an outrageously overpriced deal, but it is delivering AUD 207 million of underlying PBT. It is a little bit strange in that the jewel is delivering half the contribution that the funds managers are. Conversely, my supposition would be that the Corporate Trust business may attract a multiple of 20 x, and the funds management might attract a multiple of 5x or 6x. No doubt in my mind, Corporate Trust is the more valuable of the two. Just appreciate a little bit of color maybe from Bernard. Yes, thank you for saying the word sorry. Some of those acquisitions were terrible, and I think, Chair, you have been on the board since 2019, along with Fiona, I believe. So you were part and parcel of those decisions. Going forward, just appreciate a bit of color. We accept, Bernard, that active funds management is challenging. Rates tend to be coming down. A lot of people are moving to ETFs. It is not an easy game. I was at Magellan meeting the other day, and they put the white flag up on a lot of their international funds and passed them on to Vinva at dramatically lower rates. It is such a big issue that the majority of your earnings are coming from funds management. Just appreciate some color about your personal views as Chief Executive about the trends. Is this trend going to continue, that active funds managers, that the rates are going lower? I think we all know that amazingly, I think the stats indicate that 80% of professional funds managers actually underperform the index, which is a pretty extraordinary stat, and that is one of the reasons why maybe not your funds, Bernard, but I think it is a generalized comment, and that is clearly contributing to this trend towards ETFs and away from active managers. Just appreciate some color because it really is a huge issue for the value of Perpetual going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Kingston, can you hear me okay? Yes. Thank you for your question. As my CV will tell you, I have spent almost 38 years in and around funds management, so I can make the comment that 38 years ago, it was far easier than it is today, for a whole variety of reasons. You have definitely seen the market move to passive. I think in the Australian context as well, the role that superannuation funds have played, and I have played a part of that, have played in that. The performance test, and I could go on about all those sort of things. It does create a difficult environment, and you are seeing that I need to touch on in my remarks about I think you are going to continue to see consolidation. Whether people put up the white flag or other things, you are going to continue to see consolidation. I think the perversity of that, I think, makes active management more valuable, as long as you deliver on the promise that you make to your clients. So your comment about funds underperforming is a real one, obviously, and that has an impact. The other thing, when I think about the Perpetual platform, the Australian distribution platform that we have, and I did not really talk about it today, but when I think about the jewels as well, that is a real jewel in our business. That platform, which a number of shareholders here today, I suspect, use, either in Perpetual products or other Pendal products and the like. When you think about that platform, if it is not the largest distribution platform in the market, it is one of the largest. We have relationships with 11,000, 15,000 financial advisors, and being able to attack that market that way with products that we have here on the ground, but also being able to, and we have done it very successfully with Barrow Hanley, where we have got on the platform AUD 4 billion we have raised for them from Australian clients on our Australian platform, is a real advantage. That tells you there is demand there for global products that are high quality, deliver on the promise, right? So our challenge has to be continuing to look at the capabilities that we have, weed out those that are not doing what they are supposed to be doing on behalf of clients, and continue to think about innovation. ETFs is another part of that, and I mentioned the Diversified Income Active ETF that we launched last year, which was a product that we had been managing for 10 years, but not in an ETF form. It had about AUD 4 billion in it, and we were able to offer that as an ETF. Different channel, but still, again, using that platform to be able to get assets there, I think traction with clients. Long-winded answer, I think, Mr. Kingston, but I wouldn't be in the job if I didn't think that there was an opportunity for our— we need to continue to simplify and think about the offering to be, but that's an area of our focus, in particular in the next 12 months. Yeah. Thank you very much. I think we've slipped a little bit into general business, I'll bring it back to the accounts. Sorry. Is there any further questions in the room on the accounts? Yep, Mr. Kingston. Thank you. Not sure if the last quarterly was within the accounts, but the preceding quarterly I am hoping was, but just following up on those comments, Bernard, I think you said we have the largest distribution One of. One of. Okay. That may be great, but for whatever reason, it does not appear to be working. I mean, the last quarterly outflow, apart from, I think, Perpetual, was in outflow. I think it was AUD 9 billion from base. But you look at the Pinnacles of the world, and long live active asset managers, given that is my world, so I hope they do continue. But Pinnacle, what they did with Life Cycle, they went from zero to AUD 40-odd billion. Clearly, they have a very strong distribution team. Some managers are underperforming, some are outperforming, but whatever their model is, it is working very well. But you look at the distribution team that we have here. I think J O Hambro, what is it, halved since the acquisition in terms of the FUM? The previous quarterly, I think it was down about, in aggregate, AUD 20 billion of outflows. This quarter was down AUD 9 billion. The rate of outflows is quite scary. Just notwithstanding your comments around the distribution team and platform that we do have, it does not seem to be working. I would just appreciate if you could elaborate on that. Why is— I think you want to double J O Hambro's FUM by 2030, but That's our ambition, yes. I mean, the facts as it is today, it's not working. Perpetual, clearly, you look at GQG, they're in outflow. There's lots of managers in outflow, but it doesn't seem to be working. Just what specifically do we own, and are you implementing that? Because you've had the platform for a while. Appreciate there's been a lot of distraction with takeovers and the like, but just some more color would be great. Thank you. Mr. Kingston, a couple of observations. The point I was making, I was clear about the Australian platform. If you look at the flows that you're referring to in the first quarter of FY 2027, the majority of those outflows are actually coming from offshore, so not from the Australian platform. That's just the first point, because I feel like the disparaging remarks around the Australian distribution team aren't fair because they've actually done, I think, a good job in garnering assets, firstly. Relative to others, perhaps not, in using your other example of other firms. But where we've seen the challenges in the last quarter was clearly offshore. A large chunk of that came actually from our Barrow Hanley boutique, was the largest contributor to that. Client asset allocation decisions that go against you. Clients decide to allocate, in the case of Barrow, was global and U.S. equities. That could be when you're performing, when you're not performing, right? Sometimes when you're the best performing manager in the stable, you get money allocated away from you, as you know. Unpleasant as it is. We've also seen, I think, the corporate uncertainty doesn't help. If you look at the flow that you're referring to, that is the net outflow. We had inflows during the quarter as well as outflows. But when you see in a period of uncertainty, the inflows generally slow down, but the outflows don't. The uncertainty is clearly not a friend in that sense. The third part, when we think about the structural change more broadly, you don't see that quarter to quarter, you see that over a broader period of time. Whether that is the move to index, the moves we are making around product innovation, which take time to actually be able to come to fruition. They do not happen in particular in 2027. Thanks. Any further questions in the room on the audited accounts? Yep. Chair, I would like to introduce Rita Mazalevskis. Comment about outflows. On page 123 of the annual report, it discloses a further AUD 63.5 million goodwill impairment relating to Thompson, Siegel & Walmsley, reducing its remaining goodwill balance to zero. Given the significant acquisition-related impairments recorded over recent years, what independent post-acquisition reviews has the board undertaken to establish whether its acquisition strategy has created or destroyed shareholder value? I think we know the answer to that. And how does the board hold directors and executives accountable where acquisitions fail to deliver their anticipated financial returns? I think we've already answered the question around accountability to a large extent. As I mentioned, if you look at the senior management team that's in place today, that's very different from what it was at the point in time of those acquisitions. As for reviewing the acquisitions and the process, that has been a process that's undertaken as you would with any acquisition, to constantly check whether your assumptions and processes in terms of making acquisitions or divestments remain appropriate and you've done the right thing. To the extent that that doesn't always work, we have to kind of feed that into the future and the way that we think about things. There has definitely been a level of accountability to senior executives particularly, and we'll get onto this in the next part of the meeting. Where we have hurdled incentive payments, those hurdled incentive payments have generally not vested and not paid out. So there has also been accountability in a more stricter financial sense around that. Are all these reviews available publicly? No, they're not public reviews, and they never would be public reviews. Internal documentation. Confidential. Yeah. No. They're business confidential. Any other questions in relation to the audited accounts? All right. Any questions online, Sylvie? Thank you, Chair. There's a question from Steven May. AI tells me that Perpetual reappointed KPMG following an audit tender process in 2006 under your policy reviewing the audit every seven years. How long has KPMG been our auditor? When was the last tender? When is the next tender likely to occur? Given the confidentiality issues in the KPMG Sydney audit team, could the current audit signing partner comment on how communications were handled to retain the Perpetual account as the mishandled whistleblower issues evolved throughout the year? I think I've already commented in relation to the tender process that was undertaken in the last 12 months. Paul, did you want to add anything before I carry on? Sorry. I don't think there's anything useful that I can add. Yeah. I don't have any knowledge of that, I'm afraid. But anyway, as I mentioned, we have just done an audit tender process. As a result of that process, we have had consistent engagement with KPMG throughout this process, and particularly as issues have been disclosed publicly and also privately from KPMG around some of the allegations that have been made and the results of the parliamentary inquiry. It's been a constant area of focus from both the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee, but also the general board. I'm entirely comfortable with the responses at this point in time that we've received from KPMG and the level of engagement— the organization. We are also entirely comfortable with the level, what is fundamentally very important, with the level of resourcing and the service level that we've got from KPMG, particularly during what has been a fairly busy period in relation to division. I remain entirely comfortable with that and the process. But looking forward, it's something that we have to remain open to and will continue to look to, and particularly if any allegations were made that were relevant to Perpetual or any of the people involved in the Perpetual account. That is something that we would take very seriously and investigate very closely. Sylvie, any other online questions? There are no further questions, Chair. Okay. Operator, any questions on the phone in relation to this item? There are no questions. Further questions on this item of business. For each resolution, we will show you the proxies received prior to the meeting, the final number of votes, including the votes cast through the virtual meeting platform from today. They will be collated after the meeting and released to the ASX. I wish to confirm that I am holding open proxies in my capacity as Chair, and it is my intention to vote all available undirected proxies in favor of all resolutions. The next item of business is to consider the reappointment of Fiona Trafford-Walker. This is resolution number one. Fiona was appointed as a director of Perpetual Limited in December 2019 and last stood for— she will retire as a director of the company today and stands for reappointment. Ms. Trafford-Walker chairs the People and Remuneration Committee and is a member of the Investment Committee, Technology and Cybersecurity Committee, Audit and Risk Compliance Committee, and the Nominations Committee. Ms. Trafford-Walker has over 30 years of experience within the investment industry, bringing extensive knowledge of investment management and a strong institutional and international perspective to the Perpetual board. Fiona began her career in institutional investment consulting in 1992, spending most of her career at Frontier Advisors, where she was, at various times, its Managing Director, Director of Consulting, and Investment Director. Currently, Ms. Trafford-Walker is a non-executive director of FleetPartners Group, an Investment Committee Member of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, an Independent Advisor to the Investment Committee of the Australian Retirement Trust, and an Independent Member of the IFM Real Estate Investment Committee. The board considers Ms. Trafford-Walker to be an independent director. Unanimously support the reappointment of Ms. Trafford- alker to the board and recommend shareholders vote in favor of resolution 1. As chair of the meeting, I intend to vote all available proxies in favor of that resolution. I will now invite Fiona to say a few words. Thank you, Greg, and good morning, everyone. Excuse me. I would like to add my welcome to those in attendance at the AGM today, both online and in the room. In the spirit of reconciliation, I also echo Greg's acknowledgment of country. My name is Fiona Trafford-Walker, and I am standing for re-election to the board today. I have been an independent member of the Perpetual board since December 2019. Just acknowledging Mr. Kingston's comments, the lowlights of my tenure, that is definitely the lowlight, so would apologize to shareholders for that as well. The past few years have been a period of considerable change, challenge, and opportunity for Perpetual. I recognize the varied experiences of our shareholders through that period. As a director, I see my role as bringing independent judgment and constructive challenge to the board's deliberations, holding management appropriately to account, and continuing to deliver disciplined decision-making and oversight. As Perpetual continues to evolve, I believe those responsibilities are particularly important. As Chair of the People and Remuneration Committee, I think a lot about how we can fairly and transparently align outcomes between management's remuneration that appropriately reflects performance and risk and the experience of shareholders over time. I will continue to be an active, independent, and constructive contributor to the board and all the committees of which I am a member. As Greg noted, I bring to the Perpetual board more than 30 years of experience in investments, governance, and superannuation, as well as experience in business strategy, people, and management. Over the last decade, I have also developed experience in technology-enabled businesses. Since stepping away from full-time executive work in 2019, I have taken on a number of non-executive roles, including FleetPartners Group, and more recently as a guardian on the Future Fund board. I believe that this combination of experience and skills is relevant to Perpetual and the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. I take my responsibilities as a director seriously and am confident that I have the time to continue to contribute and to make a strong contribution to the board. I welcome the opportunity to be re-elected and to continue to work for you as the shareholders. I would like to thank my fellow directors for their endorsement, and I thank the shareholders for their consideration. Thank you, Fiona. I have been advised there are no written questions regarding this resolution received in advance of the AGM, but I will invite any shareholders in the room who would like to ask a question on this item to walk over to one of the microphones. Who wants to be first? Mr. Chair, I would like to introduce Mr. David Kingston. Yeah, thank you. Anyway, thank you for your comments. I appreciate your approach of recognizing that things have not gone particularly well for shareholders. I do not want to dwell on it, but bearing in mind you have been on the board since 2019, look, we all make mistakes. If I get eight out of 10 things right, I am pretty happy with that. But what I do personally is when I make a mistake, I analyze it and you know the old story. You make a mistake once, shame on the other person. You make the same mistake twice, shame on me or you. Just be interested without dwelling on it too much. You agreed as a director to pay AUD 2.5 billion for Pendal. The entire cap of the company today is less than that. If you bear in mind, it is effectively going to be debt-free. The funds management's been really tough, and the star of the company, obviously, is Corporate Trust. But just briefly, just interested in what you've learnt from that and how you're going to learn from that experience of losing a lot of money for shareholders so that that doesn't ever happen again. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. That's a really fair question. I'm a pretty introspective person. I spend a lot of time thinking about decisions, what did we know at the time? What did we think could happen at the time? What was the best case, the worst case? If I reflect on my whole non-executive director career, which certainly started in 2015, the first rule is you have to have the right people in the right roles. I think, as Greg said a couple of times today, we look at the team now, and I feel very confident in the team that we have now, and that I think as I reflect back, it's a combination of that. It's also a combination of being very clear about the things you can control and the things you can't control. The things that we thought would happen in terms of some of the strategy scenarios for outflows and things, we did map some of the outflows that actually ended up occurring, but they were not considered to be the base case. We considered the base case was quite more positive than it's turned out to be. If I look at that and think again, there's things in there like the market has shifted a lot in that time, and the best response to that would've been to have been better diversified. As we thought about the businesses we bought, we had a big business in equities here, which to be honest, if we still had just that business here, we would be probably in a worse situation. But we bought more equities businesses, and at that point, we should've thought more strategically about the nature of the businesses and what areas they were in to bring better diversification to the business today. Pendal also was a lot of equities businesses, even though they're different styles and strategies and locations. If I look back, I think the value of genuine diversification, which is, you say, PCT, and you're going to give Dickie a big head telling him how great his business is all the time. But you're right, it is a great business. It's a great business that shareholders own. It's connected to another business that's going through a bit of a tough time, there's no doubt about that. But I think, as I look back over that tenure, thinking more carefully about the genuine value of diversification and Asset Management in its own right, not just relative to Corporate Trust, I think that's probably something that we should've done differently as well. I want to say, I think about it. I know that the rest of the board think about it a lot as well, and I'd like to think that as you look back at the last couple of years, you think we've made hopefully some good decisions that will set the business up more strongly for the future from today. You can't undo the past, but you are right, you have to learn from it, and those are the things that I've taken away from it. Thank you. Ms. Mazalevskis, another question? Yes, I do, for Fiona. I, too, have come to Perpetual for the duration that you've been here. On page 75 and 76 of Perpetual's annual report outlines the board's responsibilities for governance, conduct, and risk management, including independent assurance under its three lines of accountability. In your capacity under the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee, do they independently investigate matters raised with Perpetual, or are these referred to KPMG for assessment of any implications for internal controls, regulatory compliance, and financial reporting? Because there doesn't seem to have been much change since 2019 that I'm aware of. What can you assure going forward? Are you speaking specifically about anything? Because we, as I think various people have mentioned, and Dickie spoke about PCT, and I can get Allan to talk about risk and others. I'm a member of the Audit and Risk Committee, too, and Paul's the Chair, so I can talk about my experience as a member. But the role of the Audit and Risk Committee is to bring that independent lens to everything. We work with KPMG, but we test what they say. We don't take what they say as gospel. Risk and perspectives to things and signing off on compliance and so on. We also have a very strong internal audit team, and they do many, many audits every year on all sorts of things across the group that brings an independent lens, and they are independent of the business, and they report separately to Paul as Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee. Anyone can escalate anything to me as Chair of the People and Remuneration Committee if there's a people-related risk matter, or alternatively, of course, to the Chair of the board. There's lots of different ways that independence is through the risk management process. Okay. If I want to refine it in my capacity of what I do, in regards to consumer complaints with Perpetual. We receive— Are they done in-house through the Board committees and sub-committees, or are they referred to KPMG? Are they independently looked at? If not, why not? They are independently looked at. There are independent whistleblower lines and independent customer complaint lines, and there are independent people in the business who deal with the customer complaints. Anything that is escalated goes through our General Counsel, Helen Mediati. Wherever we would receive any complaint that we felt where there was something systematic or elsewhere that required further investigation, that would make its way up through to the Audit and Risk Committee to ensure not just that that matter had been appropriately dealt with, but also that we had the right procedures and processes in place to ensure regular review of whatever happened to whatever the particular issue was. As far as possible, ensure that those things do not happen again. There is a process, as I expect with most businesses today, a fairly continuous improvement around that. The marketplace is evolving, obviously. Therefore, one has to kind of keep on looking at the way we do things and how we do it to ensure that it is best practice. Sorry. Can I just clarify? Is that all held in-house within the board and the board sub-committees, or do you refer cases to KPMG for an independent audit review? Sorry. It depends very much on the nature of it. KPMG's role is as auditor, and they also provide sort of assurance around aspects of their audit. But it would depend very much. We may bring in independence from time to time. Depends very much on the nature of the individual issue or whatever it is that's being looked at. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Fiona? Mr. Kingston? Thank you. Charlie Kingston again. Sorry, as was previously mentioned, not to dwell on the past, but maybe turn it into an opportunity. Clearly, there is a lot of consolidation going on. Ours didn't work, but others are acquiring. Do you think that we on potential interest in the Asset Management division, do you think that we should be actively trying to be the beneficiary of that sell to a larger group that wants to pay? I mean, geez, 1% of FUM would be a phenomenal, that would be our market cap today. But yeah, is that something that you think we should be pursuing, given previous strategy hasn't worked for whatever reason? And ask it again, but when further tax, potential tax within the CT business. Thanks. Yeah. No, it is another fair question. Thank you. The way that I think about it, the way I approach all these things is you have to make a decision on whatever actual offer you have got at the time. The market, as it relates to Perpetual, as you would all know, is always full of all sorts of rumors. They, as Chair of the People and Remuneration Committee, there is negativity about that because it affects our people who are just trying to go in and go on and do their job every day. I would actually like it if there were fewer rumors and more facts. If someone does want to make an offer, then make the offer, and so give the board something to actually look at, to actually assess and to think about. What you do, what I do as a board member is think about, what is the offer or offers that are before me today, and are they in the best interest of shareholders relative to all the other things we could do? Which is the current plan A strategy, which could be lots and lots of other things that we think about a lot. You mentioned de-mergers and all sorts of things. All those things are always on the table to be thought about to try to work out what is the best thing to do from today. I try not to have strong prior views about anything, but rather wait until someone comes with something that can actually be done. I think the KKR learning for me— last minute. I think the learning from me from that is you have got to think very carefully about how anything is structured. You have got to think about what the after-tax outcomes are highly likely to be. You have to think about the executability of it. You need to think about the counterparty you are dealing with. You have to think about, do they understand the business such that they can take it and be the next best owner for it and all those sorts of things, notwithstanding that it might not be the same group of shareholders, but you have to deliver the proceeds and do something else with it. I think about that. I do not deal a lot in that kind of hypothetical, but I am always thinking about what the options could be and how do we best explore them. As Greg said, we spend a lot of time thinking about the strategy for the company. Hopefully, that is clear to people today. Lessons have been learned. There is no plan to do any major acquisition. We do not have the license to do that. We are not going to do that other than some smaller things that it could be very confident about being value accretive, like the Interfi acquisition for PCT. That is a long way of saying everything is on the table, but let us actually get it on the table and have something to look at or things to look at rather than speculation in the Financial Review, which half the time turns out to not actually be correct. Right. I mean, it is funny when you kind of know what actually is going on and you read The Fin and, half the time they have joined dots that actually should not be joined, and that is not only for Perpetual but for other companies as well where I have been involved. I think half the time is a very generous assessment. Yeah, maybe. Maybe. I guess I'd encourage our shareholders, what you read isn't necessarily what's actually happening. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. But what I can assure you is the board takes any offer really seriously, because our job is to get the best outcome for shareholders, whether that's the plan A we have and the confidence in that or a plan B of someone coming with an amazing offer, which of course we would absolutely look at. Thank you. Maybe just a comment, but yes, of course, nice if somebody does put something on the table and it is true. But when you were acquiring, you were actively pursuing others. You as a board can actively pursue— Yes. —for an acquirer to benefit from that consolidation. If you know there is a lot of consolidation happening. Yeah. Obviously, it is an active choice that you as a board can make to say, let's go be the beneficiary of that. Yes. Yeah. Rather than just waiting for an offer to come because— Yeah. We have a lot of. —that's not great. Okay. Yeah. We do have a lot of broader conversations. I guess it's a bit hard to talk specifically about anything because obviously there's continuous disclosure and all those things we have to be careful about. We do think a lot about what is the right path for this company and what is the best outcome for shareholders, I guess as a global comment. Just specifically, do you think if you were to sell Asset Management, would that have a better after-tax outcome than the KKR construct? I would need to take advice on that, I think. I don't— Yeah, it depends very much on the cost base of the— Yeah. —individual business in question and what the final sale price was. Have you done the work to understand— We— —if that business division was sold, you would know what the tax implications are? We have the numbers on the various components of the business. Depending on— Yes. Yeah. Okay. So thank you. There is another question at the back, I think, here was waiting. Mr. Prentice, is it? Yeah. Good memory, Mr. Prentice. The Kingstons help when I've got two. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is, and I guess there's previous questions about acquisition sort of things. I'll bring it up again. With the EQT offer, and that was an offer that was on the table, and I'm not sure what's the appropriate time to bring it up. Let's address it now. You're fine. Okay. Can I ask you, as a shareholder, and you might say, well, there was an execution risk, and that is true with any transaction, that they put AUD 22.50 on the table. It was an unconditional plus a AUD 0.60 dividend, which I presume would have been fully franked, so that brings it up about AUD 0.90. It was unfranked, was it? Okay. The only, sorry, just to address that bit. Yeah. The only way a franked dividend could be paid out is if the business actually had a franking credit balance to pay it out. Oh, so you do not have that balance. Okay, fine. So we are looking at. The shares are sitting at AUD 17. So as a shareholder, potentially, and I would say probably likely, I would have got AUD 23.10 for it. There is an opportunity cost with that money for me in that I could take that AUD 23.10 and I can invest it somewhere. And most analyses, they go on a risk. I think it is around about 5%. So what I can draw from that, my question is, what do you think is the intrinsic. Selling in the market at AUD 17, we could have got AUD 23.10. What do you think is the intrinsic value of the actual share today? Yeah, maybe I'll take that one. Yeah, sure. Yeah. So look, firstly, in relation to the actual offer, it was non-binding, and it was conditional. Yes. Subject to further due diligence. So whether or not the final price would have been the prices that were disclosed is still an open question. Secondly, just in relation, you've identified very much some of the factors that the board would look at, the time value of money and so forth, and the risk involved, in continuing to run the business and sort of work on our strategic plan for value creation and how that might play out against any individual offer that we happen to receive. The headline price, I would also add, there would be a considerable amount of time that would elapse between the acceptance of any binding offer and final completion. And the board also would take into consideration what payment shareholders may or may not receive during that time as a result of dividends. Generally, when an offer is made, there are no further. This one said one more dividend payment of AUD 0.60, of up to AUD 0.60. The time taken from completion was likely to have meant that shareholders would not have received what otherwise in the normal course of business might have been another dividend as well. Rather than adding that number, I would probably be more inclined to subtract it to get a better indication of where the headline price offered was, and then obviously subject to further changes in that based on their due diligence and further work that might do. The board's view very clearly was that there is more intrinsic value. Can you put a number on that intrinsic value? I am not allowed to do that. I am sorry. Well, if I am looking at it just from an objective point of view here, you can certainly give a range, for example. I would say north of that number. Well, north of AUD 23. As I said, the— Well, it has to be, doesn't it? It has to be more than AUD 23. Otherwise, it has to be signi— If you look at it now, the difference between AUD 17 and AUD 23, yes, there may be some time value there, but in the next five years, I sort of worked out a back of the envelope that you'd have to get a return of about 17% compound, after you take away the time value of money or the value that you can use. So I'm looking at this company, I'm saying, well, the board must have, when they did their— felt the valuation of this company was, which you won't disclose, but it has to be at a significant growth rate from where we are now. Because we're behind the eight ball right now. We're AUD 6 or AUD 7, and if it incurred in a year's time, then you could adjust your numbers or whatever. But yes, it may not have occurred, but we didn't even go down that route. Yeah, no, as I said, the board absolutely does that analysis. The pricing conditions on offer were not in the best interest of shareholders and therefore we couldn't recommend that. Well, can we have a little transparency in relation to, because you're acting on behalf of the shareholders here. Let me just put it to you, if they said AUD 24— I'm not absolutely— You're not going to say anything. No, I'm not allowed to say anything in response to that question, I'm afraid. You know what I mean? It's sort of there's no transparency, the board, with the shareholders here. It's sort of like we've done our numbers here. We're not going to give you any indication what assumptions we had, what inflation rate we had. You've obviously, or you should've anyway, used future cash flows— Yep. —discounted them back, all those sorts of things that someone did in there. There were assumptions in that. Yep. Can't you even release anything like, what interest rate did we use? Because the interest rates now are going up, which— We look at our weighted average cost of capital when we make those calculations, which is partly based off interest rate, but a number somewhat higher than where current interest rates are. Well, as interest rates rise, generally shares go down. Your growth has to be sort of taken into account what you feel future interest rates are going to be. My feeling is interest rates will continue to rise. I think taxes will continue to rise. I think it is going to be a very, very hard environment. I am not really sure the basis that you rejected the bid. The basis we rejected the bid was numerous. One was price, but it was also conditions and executability around that and the risk— Well. —to shareholders. I am afraid I actually cannot go into any more details about the Well, I think you probably could, but anyway, you won't, so that is fine. I would add that some of our major shareholders have also come out and publicly supported the board's position on that. Well, I hope you listen to all shareholders, just not the major ones. We certainly do. Maybe I just add, so that if we were sure we could just be talking to you one-on-one and you wouldn't tell anybody. Yes. We could do that. But the problem is, when you have a lot of continuous disclosure issues, it's a bit like when you want to sell your house, put it out and say, okay, what are other people prepared to pay? You've done your numbers about what you think it's worth. But once you flag to people that there's a number, any board to be really fulsome. Well— It's not that we don't want to tell you, it's just we're trying to think about what a negotiating strategy might look like in future. Look, I put it to you that the main number is what you can achieve, not what somebody else can achieve. It is, and so that's always the benchmark. And it's what you can achieve, what you say, this is a damn good price. Sorry for the swearing. This is a very— money than us. Well, good on them. Because it's sort of been cutting your nose to spite your face type of scenario. So, maybe EQT, they said, well, we can go at a certain price. They have probably buffers. Whatever they do, they do their numbers and they say, we've got to have a risk buffer, and so forth. But encourage a bidding process. If you say, AUD 24, that's a really good price. If we get that, we'll accept it. But, EQT might sort of say, you know what? AUD 24 is not good enough for us. But somebody else might say that. Now, when you said, if you told me and I didn't tell anyone, or you'd have to kill me, I suppose. We wouldn't do that. It wouldn't be that [inaudible]. Confidentiality of the number that you've got. Now, that exists at a board level, I assume, and probably the CFO or the finance director did a lot of these numbers and that sort of stuff. Yeah, and our financial advisors too. Yeah. Oh, okay. Yep. Okay. Well, it seemed to me when it sort of came in, it was rejected very quickly, which either indicated, it is way below or, like, go away. We think you are wasting our time. I can understand if you felt that they came and you said, look, these people really are not genuine in their offer, or, they are going to try and squeeze us. As a result, let's not waste the board's time in pursuing this matter, so. Yeah. I think that's— And about executability as well. Yeah. Greg mentioned that it was conditional. It was highly conditional. Oh, yeah. And another board that I am on, we just did a deal to sell the company where, it was a totally different situation where the price was very good and the conditions were very much in favor of the company. Did you release those conditions? No. EQT provides those conditions in private letters to the board to say, we will buy you for this much, and here are all the conditions. Well, I read that— The board has to say, well, is that a good price? Can they deliver on all of that? Well, I— We balance that. —I forget the name of the company, but they were, I am not too sure what the name of the company is, but they received an offer and they were told by the person or the company making the offer, and you probably know the company. I cannot remember the name. That if you disclose this, the offer is off the table. Yeah. That was us. It's a common strategy as well. Yeah. That was us. Yeah. Oh, okay. Then you— That happened. That was you. Well, I think that was right that you went and disclosed it like that. Yeah. So. Yeah. We've again, so— Sorry, I forgot who it was, but. Well, no, that was [inaudible]. You say the board decided very quickly, as we disclosed on 1st of July, an approach from EQT. We did not reject the final offer until 21st of September, so there was a fair degree of time that was elapsed during that, and during which time EQT came along with a number of subsequent offers, including the so-called exploding offer that they put to the board. Can I just ask you, did you speak to institutional shareholders that own most of the company or whatever and got their opinion on these sorts of things? Under continuous disclosure, we are not generally permitted to go out having because that also has implications for the shareholder if that was to leak. They are not aware of anything that other shareholders are aware of? No. No. That would be a breach of our continuous disclosure obligations if one shareholder who wasn't subject to a particular NDA or some other legal agreement. No other shareholders are not in receipt of any more information than— Well, probably what I'm saying now is sort of just general for shareholders, and that is when I look at Perpetual, and I look at another company, I have to look at where should I deploy my capital and where do I think that that capital is going to be best used and the best returns I get. Now, I understand that Perpetual's had a very— growing company that's been around a long time and probably would be sad to see it go, but there's a lot of companies that have been in that situation as well. I don't think that should be a factor. No, I think, our job is getting the best value for shareholders. I know you said that, but, I'd also like to know a bit more detail. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any more questions for Fiona? Oh, sorry, I got Ms. Mazalevskis here. Are the People and Remuneration Committee, member of the Technology and Cybersecurity Committee, and member of the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee. Just touching on the announcement of the cost cutting and all of the jobs that are going to be axed at Perpetual, and large parts of its operations are going to be outsourced to American multinational State Street. I wanted to ask, how does Perpetual manage customer data and in-data protection regulation, the GDPR, which is a global obligation for organizations? That's probably not so much a question for you, Fiona. Why don't I take that one? Okay. Firstly, can I go back to the don't believe everything you read in the press? I'm not going to comment specifically on every article that comes along, but the vast bulk of them are non-factual, and I would put that one in that category. The process around, we're continually looking at the operations and the most efficient way to manage those operations, particularly in order to control aggregate cost growth going for some time, and it relates to some of our transaction processing and operations within the back office for the investment management business. As regards to the data privacy component of it, obviously we comply with all of our data privacy obligations and any supplier or provider to the business, we require their assertion that they also require where customer data is actually being cast across. In some cases, we use a number of suppliers where customer data isn't being passed across. But if it was, we would comply with any of those requirements and require their assertion that they also meet those requirements. Yeah. Perpetual would use a lot of third parties' relationships. Has Perpetual had any breaches of the GDPR? No. Not in the last 12 months. Not in the last 12 months. What about before that? I cannot necessarily comment. I do not believe so, no. Never? Not that I am aware of. Is there any, can I— in the last 10 years? I am saying now that I am not aware of any that there have been in the last 10 years. Okay. All right. Thank you. No. Sorry, getting some nods from. Any other question for Fiona? I think there was one on this side first. Mr. Kingston, sorry. Who was there? Yep. Mr. Chair, I would like to introduce Roman Knizhnikov. Thank you, Mr. Knizhnikov. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Roman Knizhnikov. I am a shareholder representing my personal shareholdings and my self-managed super fund. Some of the question which I wanted to ask actually was raised by previous speakers, but I would like just reconfirm, since David mentioned at the beginning, our share price went from AUD 50 to AUD 17. It is a lot of— when Bernard took his Chair a couple years ago, he going to fix, but apparently we continue going north or south, depend how you are looking at it. More than your management to start to do things right. My second question is, why you are not using your power for shares? We are holding millions of shares. Why you are not using, when company not perform, to force the company start to perform? Me also, when we put non-confidence in the company, the company actually start to produce better results. Why are you not using your power? Thank you. Yeah, maybe I'll take that one too, Fiona. Firstly, thank you very much for the question. I guess just in relation to, I'm not quite sure how you think about using our power. Obviously, we manage quite a large amount of money on behalf of our clients, but that's managed in a very arm's length basis, and we have a fiduciary duty to continue to do that. We certainly wouldn't utilize those funds for anything that was in Perpetual's own interest, where those monies are on behalf of clients. I'm not sure if that's what you were potentially suggesting. But there has also been quite a considerable change in both management and board over the course of the last few years. As I mentioned, a new CEO, new CFO, a number of new members of the management team. There's been a fair change there, and also quite a cycling, both in terms of Chair and other members of the board. That's a process that has gone on, and in fact, will continue to evolve going forward. I think in relation to turning the business around, that's very much where our focus is, and certainly, to Bernard's presentation and to the results that we've announced, we have seen an increase in EPS and an increase in dividends, and our genuine hope and strategy is to continue that process looking forward. What I mention is, you remember Star Entertainment. The company was holding over 9% of their shareholders. When we shareholders start to remove the failing management and board, you guys actually supported the board if you remember this. Yeah, can I just comment? That is some of the holdings within our underlying funds that we manage on behalf of other clients, that is not a Perpetual decision. That is a decision taken by individual Perpetual fund managers, bearing in mind the objectives that they have for their own underlying funds. It is not a corporate decision, it is a funds management decision. Okay, and what about Pendal, which you guys overpaid for this. Overpaid a lot of this. When they got your offer, they were enjoying themselves. I am sorry, I am not sure what is the question that you have around Pendal? Again, there is a decision which you guys are making. You need to take accountability about it. I think we have probably addressed that to some degree already. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Kingston. Just a final one from me, Chair. I can understand the board's position on some of these offers. Clearly, the Corporate Trust business is worth a lot of money. All I would say is that momentum is challenging at the moment, Chair. You have had a bit of a flavor today from a range of shareholders. You mentioned that some institutions were supportive of you rejecting the offer. Conversely, and I acknowledge you have said half or maybe more of the Fin Review is not accurate, Chair. But there was a ferocious Street Talk article on the 21st of September 2026 that said, multiple investors told this column that rejecting the bid was unjustifiable and called for a board refresh. It also said, which is a gratuitous comment, but which I am sure you will disagree with, but, quote, from where Street Talk is sitting, Perpetual shareholders have collectively cottoned onto the fact that the company's board are only looking out for themselves. Now, that is gratuitous and perhaps inappropriate, but all I would say and leave with you, Chair, is that because of the checkered history of this company, I think there is some general frustration with shareholders. And I welcome what you are doing of selling the Wealth Management for AUD 500 million, becoming debt-free again. But as Charlie Kingston said, I do think the two core businesses do not sit particularly well splitting them. But you can form your own view, and I do not expect you to agree with Street Talk's article. It would be a very surprising outcome if I did. Yeah. So, and you prefaced that by your comment about AFR not always being accurate. But I hope the board comes away from today's meeting with some dialogue with a range of shareholders that there is a sense of frustration. There have been— you partly rectifying the things with the issues Bernard is embarking upon, so well done. I think the sale of Wealth Management is good. But I think there is an overriding sense of frustration that this company has had too many missteps over the years, and a corporate transaction would be welcome by a lot of shareholders. But it is probably more a comment, Chair, than a question but— I will just note that comment. Thank you. Anyway, thanks for your time, and I appreciate the transparency of the responses. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Kingston. Any online questions? Sylvie, any questions? Chair, there are no online questions. Thank you. Operator, any questions on the phone? Chair, there are no questions via the phone lines. Thank you. All right. It appears there is no further questions on this item of business. The proxies received in relation to this are displayed on the screen. I will not read them all out. You can read them there. For those of you who are voting in the room or online, if you can please cast your vote now if you have not already, by selecting either for, against, or abstain for resolution 1 on your voting card or through the virtual meeting platform. Thank you. Thank you, Fiona. All right, the next item of business is resolution 2(a) in relation to the grant of share rights to the CEO and Managing Director. I won't read out the exact resolutions in the notice of meeting, but further information on the grant of share rights to Bern has been provided in the explanatory memorandum to the notice of meeting, and the board unanimously supports this resolution. I've been advised that there were no written questions regarding this resolution in advance of the AGM, and I now invite any shareholders in the room who'd like to ask a question to go ahead. And Ms. Mazalevskis, you've beat me to the jump. Yes. Okay. Perpetual's annual report identifies the board's responsibility for governance, executive conduct, and remuneration. Yet page 31 discloses a - 10.5% annualized five-year total shareholder return, while the CEO's FY 2026 variable incentive was awarded at 106% of target. Page 28 also reports that only 51% of funds met their three-year investment objectives against a target of 60%. How does the board reconcile these outcomes with its commitment to align executive remuneration with shareholder return, that serious concerns involving executives or directors are appropriately investigated in evaluations and remuneration decisions, and how does the board hold directors and executives accountable? Just to reiterate, in relation to obviously, we have a malus and clawback policy. We also have a review policy in respect of any executive, that goes through the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee and the People and Remuneration Committee to see if there's any justification for any reduction in remuneration granted to executives. So that's a process that's fairly well established. And any part of that where we felt there was a complaint that was requiring substantiation is something that would be taken into account by those committees before it would be recommended to the board. Just in terms of, obviously, this is in relation to Bernard's share rights. And he has only been here since, it might feel like a lot longer, but September 2024. The individual nature of what makes up that award is based on a number of different factors. It is a balanced scorecard approach that we use. Certainly things like fund flows would have impacted negatively on that assessment. Other elements such as NPAT and growth in NPAT would react more positively. The Remuneration Committee, those awards and the way they have been calculated are appropriate for the current calendar year in question. In regard to the longer term alignment, I think that very much comes through the LTI program we have, and that is the next item under here. In terms of long-term incentive awards that are awarded to executives, they have total shareholder return hurdles attached to them. They do not pay out unless there is an underlying total shareholder return that meets the thresholds in those. There is definite alignment, and you can see that in relation to some of the historical executives and historical payments that were not made as a result of that. No further questions in the room on this item. Any online questions, Sylvie? Chair, there are— None by the phone lines. Thank you. So it appears there is no further questions on this item of business. So again, the proxies for this resolution will be displayed on the screen. So again, please cast your votes now if you haven't already, by selecting for, against, or abstain for resolution 2(a) on your voting card or through the virtual meeting platform. I will move on to resolution 2(b). This is in relation to the approval of performance rights to the CEO and Managing Director. Once again, it is in the notice of meeting, and I will not read it out. But further information on the grant of performance rights has been provided in the explanatory memorandum to the notice of meeting, and the board unanimously supports that resolution. I have been advised there is no written questions regarding the resolution received in advance of the AGM, and I am happy to take any in-room questions that shareholders may have. Questions, Chair. Operator, any questions over the phone? Chair, there are no questions by the phone lines. Thank you. So appears there is no further questions on this item of business. So once again, the proxies for this item displayed on screen. If I can ask you again to vote, if you have not already, by selecting for, against, or abstain for resolution 2(b) on your voting cards or through the virtual meeting online platform. The next item of business is the advisory resolution to adopt the remuneration report. This is resolution three. In accordance with Section 250R of the Corporations Act 2001, the vote on resolution three will be advisory only and does not bind the directors or the company. I will invite Fiona as Chair of the People and Remuneration Committee to now address the meeting. Okay. Thank you, Greg. Me again. Okay, I will now address resolution 3, as Greg has noted, which is a recommendation to adopt the remuneration report for the financial year ended 30 June 2026. I know there are some of you here today who have not yet voted, so I do welcome the opportunity to have any further questions or feedback you have got on the rem report. In considering remuneration outcomes for the year, I want to recognize, as has been clear, I think, the last couple of hours, that FY 2026 was a disappointing year for shareholders from a share price perspective. The board acknowledges the underperformance of Perpetual share price and the negative returns for FY 2026. We share your concerns, and confirm that restoring shareholder value remains our most important objective. In line with the commitment to review the remuneration framework at the last AGM, I also want to re— strong performance, prudent risk management, and the creation of sustainable long-term value for shareholders, while ensuring that Perpetual can continue to attract and retain the leadership needed to deliver the strategy. Importantly, it is designed to maintain alignment between executive outcomes and total shareholder returns over time. In FY 2026, under Chief Executive Officer Bernard Reilly, the Group continued to make significant progress against strategic priorities in the business. This included entering into a binding agreement to sell the Wealth Management business, making further inroads into the turnaround of J O Hambro, and continued progress with the Group's simplification program, with annualized cost savings of approximately AUD 72.6 million delivered by the end of the year, exceeding the FY 2026 target of AUD 60 million. These were important factors considered by the board in assessing performance for the year. Excuse me. At the Group level, net profit after tax, or NPAT, was AUD 88.9 million, above the target of AUD 67.3 million, and this is the metric applied in the scorecards used to evaluate executive performance. NPAT was again impacted by significant items. In FY 2026, NPAT was positively affected by significant items relating to a tax credit associated with the sale of Wealth Management, as well as the simplification program, and negatively affected by the non-cash impairment of TSW. The Board carefully considered the impact of significant items and the appropriateness of the financial metric used in the scorecard. Following that review, the Board determined that no further adjustment to the scorecard outcome was warranted. That said, underlying profit after tax, or UPAT, was AUD 217 million, up 6% on last year. I note that for completeness only, as it was not used in the determination of the scorecard outcome. Across the three businesses, financial performance was mixed. Corporate Trust continued to perform strongly, and Asset Management exceeded its profitability target despite ongoing industry headwinds and outflows. Wealth Management faced more challenging conditions, reflecting uncertainty associated with the sale process and the broader operating environment. The board recognizes company performance. While remuneration outcomes reflect— the board remains focused on ensuring that executive remuneration supports the delivery of sustainable long-term shareholder value. Reflecting all of the above, the Chief Executive Officer was awarded a short-term incentive outcome of 106% of target, or 61% of maximum opportunity for FY 2026. On average, the key management personnel, or KMP, achieved 103% of target and 59% of maximum opportunity. This excludes the incentives payable to the Chief Executive Officer of Corporate Trust, whose remuneration was restructured during FY 2026 to directly link his variable remuneration opportunity to the underlying profit before tax performance of the Corporate Trust business, the business for which he is responsible. Notwithstanding that the calculation differed from other KMP, the remuneration structure is similar to other KMP in that it includes fixed remuneration, variable cash incentives, and variable share-based incentives. We also listened carefully to feedback from shareholders and major proxy advisors. That feedback identified several areas for ongoing consideration, including the contribution of statutory NPAT to short-term incentive outcomes, the impact of significant items on financial results, incentive outcomes for certain executives, and aspects of the design of our long-term incentive arrangements. The board values this feedback and will carefully consider these matters in the years ahead. Our remuneration framework also contains strong shareholder alignment mechanisms. 50% of short-term incentive awards are deferred into Perpetual shares, with executives remaining exposed to future outcomes through a combination of vesting and restriction periods extending out over four years. No long-term incentive awards vested during FY 2026, reflecting the alignment of the framework with long-term shareholder outcomes. The board believes that the remuneration outcomes for FY 2026 are fair for both the shareholders and the team, reflect the resilient organizational performance delivered during a year of significant change, and are consistent with the long-term interests of the company and the shareholders. Accordingly, the board recommends that shareholders vote in favor of resolution 3, the adoption of the remuneration report. Now the thank yous. I want to sincerely thank our shareholders for their feedback and support over what has been a transformational year for Perpetual. Your feedback is important to the board and will continue to inform our approach, and I want to assure you that we have listened to all of the feedback today and received on other occasions. It's very important. I believe I've given you some comfort about the remuneration decisions taken by the board in FY 2026, and also given you confidence that we are committed to a fair, transparent, and performance-driven remuneration framework that supports Perpetual's strategic goals and long-term success. I'd like to extend my sincere thanks to our team in all our locations. Our people are the ones who are consistently dedicated to delivering exceptional service to our clients, and they have experienced a sustained period of transition and yet have displayed remarkable resilience, so thank everyone for that. I'd like to thank Bern and the leadership team for their commitment, resilience, and flexibility. Thank you also to my fellow board members for guidance and support. In closing, just one final thank you to the shareholders for your continued support. I welcome any additional feedback or questions. Thank you. Thank you, Fiona. I have been advised there are no written questions regarding this resolution received in advance of the AGM. I will now invite any shareholders in the room who would like to ask a question. Ms. Mazalevskis. I guess we have heard a lot about the board has heard us and heard shareholders, and we have had apologies over the years. There has been strategic reviews and potential restructuring, abandonment of the KKR transaction. Then there was Bain Capital. Has the board undertaken an independent assessment of the total financial consequences of these decisions, including the aborted transaction costs, advisory fees, restructuring expenditure, and their impact on shareholder value? While the board has acknowledged shareholder disappointment, how does the board hold itself accountable where expected benefits have not materialized? You want to take that one? Yeah. So maybe in relation to the first part of your question, we absolutely— value creation and value destruction in the business. I do not know about requiring an independent assessment of that. We have got plenty of internal and other assessments of that. So I am not quite sure what the nature of that question is driving at. But we absolutely understand where value has been created and where value has been lost. And I think in relation to accountability, probably already addressed that a number of times in the meeting. But if there is something more specific that you were asking. No, you said the optimal words, value destruction, and there has been a lot of apologies. But how is that put into practice to help shareholders, give them confidence, or confirm that the board is making any additional actions to try and rectify what they are doing? Because we have been going through this year after year. Even though shareholders have expressed concern about potential arrangements, they have been ignored and continue to be ignored. They have not been ignored, nor will they ever be ignored. We take shareholder feedback very seriously. Obviously, there is quite a range of factors that go into decisions that have been addressed earlier. We do have a fairly rigorous process for ensuring that where decisions are made, we reflect on those decisions and learn from any particular mistakes or otherwise, that may occur, both the positive learnings and the negative learnings that come out of that process. So, I feel very comfortable with the way that process is working, and I think, once again, in terms of accountability, we have already addressed that in terms of its flow-through, in terms of remuneration outcomes for prior executives, and as well looking forward for current. All right. There are no further questions in the room in relation to this one. I will now respond to any online questions, Sylvie. No questions, Chair. Thank you. Operator, any questions on the phone? Chair, there are no questions via the phone lines. Thank you. It appears there's no further questions on this item of business. The proxy received are as displayed. By selecting For, Against, or Abstain for resolution 3 on your voting card through the virtual meeting platform. All right. Now to take any further questions that individual shareholders may have concerning any of the business in the meeting today. Are there any more questions in the room? Any further questions online, Sylvie? How many full-time equivalent staff do we currently have, and is this likely to fall over the coming 12 months with the rapid rollout of AI? Which parts of our business and operations are the most prospective for AI productivity gains, and how energetically are we embracing those opportunities? Also, to what extent do we allow third-party AI bot agents, like the way Amazon initially blocked Meta's Muse when it was first launched? I might. Sure. Yeah, Bern. Why don't I take that? Thank you for— she also asked James MacNevin, our COO, who is in charge of our AI initiatives, to give some perspective as well. I don't have the actual number of staff that we currently have. At post-Wealth, it's in the order of 1,200 staff, but I don't have the actual number in front of me, so I can't give that to you, but I'm happy to give that to you at another point. We look at AI in two ways. One is, yes, clearly from efficiency, and the second part is also from the additional work you can do with the existing staff that you have. We don't believe it is just a tool to reduce headcount. It is a tool to provide greater efficiency, and that can be done in two different ways. When we look at that, there are areas in our business, because as we mentioned earlier around the diversity of our business, there are quite different approaches in different parts of our business. If you think about it from a portfolio manager, for example, applying AI into their daily work enables them to do deeper analysis or look at a broader range of companies with the same resources that they have today. Therefore, ultimately, you expect better outcomes from investing in that way. If you think about it in Dickie's business in Corporate Trust, clearly where you have AI, but I will also add to that automation, not just AI, there is the ability for us to automate manual processes, and that can do two things. One is that can reduce the headcount. I also think it can increase the accuracy as well, because by using automation or AI techniques, you can reduce the error rate associated with human beings. So there is a benefit that that delivers for us as well. James, do you want to just touch on the AI tools we use and some of the areas, some of the initiatives that we are focused on at the moment? Sure. Thank you. Everyone hear me? Yes. I think, following on from Bernard's comments, there is no doubt that AI represents a significant opportunity for Perpetual. I look at it through two lenses. One is productivity, which, as Bernard referenced, is a tremendous opportunity for us to work more efficiently and more effectively leveraging some of these tools. Across the organization, there is certainly opportunity there. Just as importantly, if not more, there is an opportunity for us to use AI and leverage that capability in a broader sense to grow the business, to be more effective, to develop more product, to respond more promptly to opportunities in the market. On both those sides, we have a tremendous array of initiatives and opportunities there that we are working on. Over the years to come, we look forward to really driving some results, leveraging the AI capability that we are working on. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, James. Okay, any other online questions, Sylvie? Chair, there are no other questions. Thank you. Operator, any questions on the phone? Chair, there are no phone questions at this time. Okay, thank you. All right, I will now ask you to ensure to complete your voting for each resolution, and the MUFG staff will come around and collect your voting cards to be placed in the ballot boxes. For the shareholders online, if you are uncertain about any aspect of the voting process, please use that helpline number that was mentioned earlier and that is available through the platform. Voting will close five minutes after I close the meeting. Once voting is closed, the returning officer will count the votes. Results of the poll will be released to the ASX later today and made available on the AGM section of Perpetual's website. There being no other business, I declare the 2026 annual general meeting of Perpetual Limited closed. Thank you for your participation and for your ongoing support. I will also invite you to join directors for some refreshments, which will be served just outside the entrance to this room. Thank you very much. Thank you.