Right. Good afternoon, everyone. I begin today by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, and pay my respects to elders, past, present, and emerging. I'm David Jones. I'm the Chairman of VG1. Thanks for joining our 2022 AGM. The Company Secretary has advised me that we have a quorum. I'll declare the meeting open. The notice of meeting, which was sent to shareholders on the 21st of October, will be taken as read. I am chairing today's meeting from Dexus Place in Sydney. With me in the room are my fellow directors, Lawrence Myers and Adelaide McDonald. Noel Whittaker, sadly, has had a mishap, and on Monday, he broke his ankle. He's in a hospital, and we do wish him a speedy recovery. I've heard of people avoiding AGMs, that's pretty much takes the cake. We have sent Noel a care package, and we wish him a speedy recovery. Also present are Ian Cameron and Belinda Hannover, our company secretaries. Brendan O'Connor, the CEO of Regal Partners, which is the manager of VG1, and representatives of our share registry Boardroom. Our auditors, Pitcher Partners, are represented by Scott Edden. We are pleased to be conducting today's meeting in a hybrid format, meaning that people can participate in person, online, or over the phone. This will provide plenty of opportunities for shareholders to ask questions during the meeting. Please refer to the meeting materials distributed to shareholders for information on how to participate, and I'll run through the key points shortly. As shown here, given the portfolio manager's webinar was held a few weeks ago on the 20th of October, today's meeting will be focused on the key items in the notice of meeting. I will firstly give a short introductory address. We will then move to the resolutions, where I'll take questions during each resolution. Following this, there will be an opportunity to ask general questions, and we will then collect the votes. We've gone for different colors to VG8. For those of you in the room who are registered today, you'll receive one of three colored cards. Blue cards were given to shareholders who have not submitted proxy forms prior to this meeting and proxy holders. Blue card holders can therefore vote on the resolutions being put forward. You're also entitled to ask questions when prompted throughout the course of the meeting. Red cards were given to shareholders who have submitted proxy forms prior to the meeting and who therefore cannot cast votes again during this meeting. You're welcome to ask questions when we reach the relevant parts of the meeting. White cards were given to non-shareholder guests who cannot vote or ask questions during the meeting. You can complete your voting at any time during the meeting. Just make sure that you give your card to one of our Boardroom representatives before we close voting at the end of the meeting. In terms of asking questions in the room, when we reach the relevant sections in the meeting, we will ask people with questions who have a blue or red card to make their way to a microphone and show their card before asking their question. Depending on time and the number of questions, we may need to limit each shareholder to two questions or comments per item of business. For those of you who have logged into the webcast with your username and password, you'll have the opportunities to submit questions online as well as vote on the resolutions. If you have already prepared a question, please submit it now, and we will aim to answer it at the appropriate stage. If your question relates to a specific resolution or the financial report, please state the resolution number or reference the financial report at the start of the question. All other questions will be considered during the section for general questions. If we receive multiple questions on the same topic, we may group them together. Again, depending on the time and the number of questions, we may also need to limit each shareholder to two questions or comments per item of business. With regards to online voting, to give you ample time to vote, we are gonna open the polls now. It means you can submit your online votes at any time between now and when we close the polls at the end of the meeting. If you change your mind about any vote, you can also override your original vote between now and when the polls close. For those of you who have logged into the webcast as a guest, you'll be able to view our webcast, but not submit questions or vote. The shareholders who have joined over the phone, if you've provided your passcode to the call center and been verified, you will be able to ask questions. Please note that the process for registering your questions is very different to the webcast. For those on the phones, please do not try to register for any questions or comments yet. We will only open the phone lines when we reach each item of business. When we arrive at the first item, we will ask if you wanna register for a question on that topic. You can register at that point by pressing star one. Once we have finished that item of business, we will move on to the next item of business and repeat the process. Please do not register to ask a question for an item of business before we reach that item. Again, we can give shareholders a reasonable opportunity to ask their questions, once we have answered a shareholder's question, we will move to the next person in the phone queue. If you have an additional question or comment on that same item of business, please press star one to register for the queue again. For other people on the phone, that is guests and shareholders who have not provided their passcode to this call center, please note that the phones will be listen only. I should also point out that if you are listening on the phone but viewing on the webcast as well, the webcast may lag the phone by 10 seconds or more. It may be simpler to just use the webcast for the sound as well. Note that you will not be able to vote over the phone. Now, with all those scintillating procedural matters handled, I'll deliver my formal address. On behalf of the VG1 board, I would like to welcome all shareholders to today's meeting. We thank you for your support of VG1. Regarding today's format, I hope you have all had the opportunity to hear the portfolio update that Robert Luciano and Marco Anselmi provided to shareholders a few weeks ago. This provided a comprehensive discussion of key stock holdings, earnings drivers, and the outlook for VG1. A link to this session is available on the VG1 website. Given this, today's meeting will be focused on the formal business as set out in the notice of meeting. To ensure ample time for shareholder questions on the resolutions, I will keep these opening remarks relatively short. As many of you will be aware, global equity markets experienced a challenging year to June 2022, especially the final six months. The company's portfolio was not immune, and the return of the investment portfolio in FY 2022 has been disappointing. Positive contributions from the short book did provide some protection. Commentary about fund performance was included in the annual report and in the investor letter, as well as discussed in the recent webinar. For FY 2022, we declared an interim dividend of AUD 0.045 per share and a final dividend of a further AUD 0.045 per share. Combining these equates to a yield of over 6% based on the company's share price as at June 30, 2022. These dividends were made possible due to VG1's profit reserves, which reflect past profits that have been set aside for dividends. These reserves were AUD 221 million as at 30 June, 2022. After adjusting for the dividend paid in September, they equate to over AUD 0.55 per share remaining available for future dividends. With regard to the board's activities since the last AGM, we've been closely monitoring VG1's portfolio performance and discount to net tangible assets. Late last year, we began a more in-depth review of any steps that could be taken to address these aspects. Shortly after the review began, it became known that VGI Partners, VG1's manager, was in preliminary merger discussions with Regal Funds Management. This took shape over the following months, with the merger completing on the 3rd of June this year. The new combined entity was renamed Regal Partners Limited and represents a union of two well-established investment management businesses, creating a market leading manager of alternative investment strategies. In our view, this merger has a number of potential benefits for V G1 shareholders. Firstly, on the investment side, whilst VGI Partners' investment team continues to manage VG1's portfolio, VGI Partners now has the ability to draw on Regal Funds Management specialist sector and regional expertise, including their analyst team in Singapore. Further, the structure of the merger has enabled VGI Partners' Chief Investment Officer, Robert Luciano, to materially reduce his operational commitments in managing the business. Lead portfolio management responsibilities for VGI's Asian portfolio, RG8, has also recently been transitioned to Regal Funds Management, allowing Robert to focus solely on VGI's global strategy, including VG1. Robert has also left the VGI Partners board on completion of the merger with Regal and resigned from the VG1 and RG8 boards in mid-June, freeing up his time further. On the operational side, the VG1 board met with key people from Regal prior to the merger to discuss potential benefits of the proposed transaction for VG1 shareholders. These meetings highlighted a number of areas where Regal could assist. In particular, it became clear that Regal's distribution and marketing team could materially increase the resources available to service VG1's existing shareholders and advisors. The Regal team also has deep experience and investor relationships in Australia and offshore, which can help identify new potential in investors. We saw the team organize an extensive broker roadshow for VG1 in October, which generated good interest. The board of VG1 has also taken a number of other steps this year to assist shareholders. This is including adjusting the dividend policy from a 4% annual yield target to an absolute amount. VG1 announced in August that it intends to continue paying six monthly dividends in the future and subject to board approval, aims to maintain a dividend of at least AUD 0.045 every six months with the intention to grow this over time. The board intends for these dividends to be franked to the fullest extent possible. Earlier this year, the board also reaffirmed an intention to continue with VG1's on-market buyback, and VG1 purchased just under 12 million shares for approximately AUD 22 million in FY 2022. Since then, the pace of the buyback has increased. With over 13 million further shares bought back from the start of the new financial year. In total, around 48 million shares or 12% of the register has been purchased since the buyback was originally launched. This has been accretive for VG1 shareholders as well as increasing liquidity in the market. In summary, we believe that improvements in investment performance, capital management, and shareholder engagement are all key to closing the discount. The Regal Partners merger has given the team much greater resources to deliver on portfolio performance and investor relations. While the VG1 board has listened to shareholder feedback on capital management, leading to the changes to dividends and the buyback program. In concluding, I would firstly like to thank Robert Luciano for his contribution to this board. We obviously wish him well with his portfolio management responsibilities for VG1. Thank you also to the employees of Regal Partners for their work during the year, as completing the merger required a significant effort on both sides. Finally, we thank the shareholders for their support, and we look forward to keeping you updated in the coming months. That now concludes my opening remarks. Thank you. We'll now turn to the formal business of the meeting. I will take each item and resolution in the order set out in the notice of meeting. Our meeting today involves tabling and reviewing the accounts and four resolutions to be decided. In terms of logistics, given it will take a few minutes for people to move to the microphones, when we reach the point for questions, we'll start with online questions from the webcast, then questions over the phone, then questions in the room. For those online, please remember you can submit questions at any time during the meeting. Please just clearly type at the top, whether it relates to our financial reports, or write the number of the resolution or if it is a general question. Noting we will cover general questions after the formal business. As a reminder for those on the phones, please wait until we reach each item of business before registering for a question on that item. Please press star one to register and star two to cancel. As I mentioned earlier, we'll conduct a poll on all resolutions today. Combining votes submitted before the meeting with votes that are cast during the meeting, both in the room and online. Since the online polls are already open, if you would like to vote now, please do so. Alternatively, it is also fine if you prefer to only vote after we've discussed each resolution. I'll also allow some time at the end of the meeting for you to finalize your votes. For those voting online, if you make a mistake or change your mind, please just select your preferred voting option, and that will override your original vote. I note that boardroom are the returning officers for today's meeting and will conduct our poll. Certain votes will be excluded in accordance with the Corporations Act and the ASX Listing Rules. The proxy votes will be shown after discussion of each individual resolution. I advise the meeting that I will be voting all undirected proxies in favor of all resolutions as indicated in the notice of meeting. As the results of the poll will not be available before the meeting closes, they'll be released to the ASX and made available on our website later today. Right. Now we can get into it. Turning to the first item of formal business, which is the tabling of the financial statements, the director's report and the auditor's report for the financial year ending June 30, 2022. The company is required to lay before the meeting the last audited financial statements and reports which were released to the ASX on the 16th of August 2022 as part of the company's annual report. No resolution on this matter is required. However, I now invite shareholders and their proxies to ask questions on the reports. Questions may also be asked of the auditors in relation to the conduct of the audit, content of the audit report, accounting policies adopted by the company, and the independence of the auditor in carrying out the audit. We'll start with online questions, and I'll ask Rebecca Fesq, the Head of Client Business and Strategic Partnerships at Regal Partners Limited, to read out if there are any questions on the webcast or the phone. Hi, David. There's no questions currently either online or on the phone now. Okay, great. Okay. Well, thank you. to the floor. sir, please. Simon Datt Asset Management. Simon. I think we're all agreed that the fund manager has done a pretty lousy job this year. Can you tell me two things? One, contractually, how long are we contracted to have this manager? Bearing in mind for VG8, that manager was exchanged for a different one. Secondly, if that is possible, would it not be a good plan to merge VG1 with RF1, Regal's bigger brother, if you like? That way, we get rid of the discount, we get liquidity, and hopefully we get a manager that the public are much more comfortable to trust and do a good job. Thanks, Simon. A set of good questions there. The management contract is quite clear. This board has a responsibility to make sure it's comfortable that the manager is performing within the guidelines and seeking to perform as best it can. Through the things I've just outlined, we're quite excited about the potential of this merger to address a number of the factors that can contribute to not only the distractions of the portfolio investment team, but also the capabilities around distribution and the broader operating platform at Regal. We're quite excited about that and the other capital management initiatives that I've spoken about, the dividends and the buyback. This board is comfortable and hopeful that we will see an improvement with the current structure now, post-merger. As for anything to do with RF1, it's a very different set of strategies, and it's a very different shareholder base. I think that's a less likely scenario. I don't know, Brendan, if you wanted to comment at all on that, but it's not really in this board's contemplation. I don't think the manager's contemplation. I think RF1's one thing, RG8 is one thing, VG8, RG8, and then VG1, quite different teams. Remember, RF1 is sort of a fund of funds, right? It's a grouping of a series of private products managed by Regal. What you suggest is not in our contemplation now, but I understand your points. I think where I was just saying to some other shareholders outside afterwards, prior to the meeting, you know, we're pretty excited about this merger. I know maybe June seems like a long time ago, but not for this sort of thing. We're really pleased with the breadth of the team on the portfolio management side. We're pleased with, we have made some additions to the or at least the manager has to the VGI Partners Global team and then accessing the broader Regal functions. So we're hopeful and committed to seeking to whatever we can do at VG1 to make sure that the manager is performing to the best of its ability. Yeah, this year, you know, FY 21, we did +25%, and FY 22, we did -27%. You know, it's more volatile than we would like. It's been a very poor year, this sort of year, just gone for sure. Could I get you to make some sort of vague commitment that if we are at this meeting in a year's time, nine months prior to forward, let's say, if we haven't got any further forward, i.e., the discount is still in the 20% region, the fund manager is lagging behind his peers. Can we do something to, as a board, to give us, the shareholders, an option to do something about it? Something more drastic than a buyback. As you know, it's having an effect. It only has a effect on the net value, to my view. You won't close the discount this way, but can we get some sort of commitment from you to say, we gotta do something else? Simon, what I'd say is this: we are super committed to seeking to do everything that we can. What we've done in the last year, or at least what the manager's done, to be more precise, is substantial. It's a substantial change. As I've said, it is early days, but we're really excited about how it's going so far. We are constantly monitoring it, but we also wanna give it time. I'm... You did give me the little out saying vague. I really don't wanna be precise or put times on it, but you have our commitment. We are focused on it. This is disappointing. The persistent discount is a disappointment, and the performance in the last 12 months has been really disappointing also, for sure. We're all shareholders, and we're not delighted either. Thank you for your questions and for coming. Anything else in the room? Hi, David. Hi, David. Look, unfortunately, the nightmare continues. We warned you in March 2021, you failed to take the right action. You keep on asking for more time. How much time do you want, David Jones? You've got a Harvard MBA. Shareholders deserve better from you. You've had another year of huge losses for shareholders. AUD 13 million of fees to Brendan O'Connor and Phil King at Regal Partners. David Jones, you're a smart guy. You understand you owe a fiduciary duty to look after the shareholders. Let's start with your letter attached to the annual report. Totally feeble whitewash. What a huge conflict you have. Chairman of VGI Partners and also Director of the manager. We called out VGI Partners' woeful shareholder value destruction early last year, you haven't fixed the problem. Your excuse this year, David Jones, in the Chairman's letter, is that global equity markets experienced a challenging year. Quote, "The Company's portfolio wasn't immune." Wow, what a euphemism. David, you're hiding from the disastrous year you've delivered. Indeed, it's not just last year, it's a disastrous five years. five years since the IPO. You won't, in my opinion, fairly spell out the facts, I'll do it for you. Last year's another horrible year of failure. Operating loss pre-tax, David, AUD 277 million down the gurgler under your watch. It's not just a bad 2021, 2022. The IPO, David, was at AUD 2 over five years ago, September 2017. You had a rights issue at AUD 2.35, but a shocking share price loss down to AUD 1.39. VGI clearly has been the Rob Luciano Punting Fund. The Luciano Casino wins with huge fees, the IPO loses, investors lose. Rob Luciano walks away with AUD 150 million of value in Regal Partners. The IPO investors lose heaps. Is that fair? The VGI brand is toxic and poisonous. The credibility after five disastrous years is lost. Many fundies analysts have left the sinking VGI ship. We keep on reading about it. Nothing, certainly not coming from me, but others about the devastation of the management team. The discount to NTA, David, under your watch, means shareholders are deprived of access to AUD 95 million. Current discount is 18%. David, you've represented as chairman a targeted and in the IPO, a targeted return of 10%-15% per annum. Misleading. We referred that to ASIC. You have recently dropped that representation. The October report shows NTA growth of 0.3% per annum after five years. That's irrelevant to investors as they can only sell at the discounted share price. VGI has delivered a shocking share price loss from AUD 2 - AUD 1.39. Unfortunately, David Jones, you have withdrawn the annualized loss based on the share price result, but clearly that's a big negative. Your monthly report, David Jones, continues to say that you are seeking to avoid permanent loss of capital. Last time I did math, AUD 2 down to AUD 1.39 over five years is a horrible loss of capital, but you continue, in my view, to mislead the market. Let's look at the egregious fees, David Jones, that you have paid to the manager. 2022, AUD 13.2 million. 2021, AUD 15.4 million and AUD 26.3 million performance fee. 2020, AUD 15.2 million and a small performance fee. 2019, AUD 2,012,800 performance fee. 2018, AUD 8.6 performance fee. David Jones, you've paid Regal Partners AUD 93.6 million, yet the shareholders under your watch have lost money. Brendan O'Brien, you are correct when you say the most important issue is investment performance. David Jones, this is not just about discount, it's about the woeful investment performance of the guy who is managing the portfolio. David Jones, your chairman's letter and today waffles about dividends. Again, in my opinion, very misleading. You talk about the dividend capacity. Due to VGI Partners' horrible losses, the recent dividend wasn't fully franked. As you would know, it's disadvantageous to many investors to receive partially or non-franked dividends. The total franking shown, which you don't refer to, David, is a very, very low AUD 7 million, and the last dividend was only partially franked. The problem with what you're doing, David, to try and in a futile manner, support the share price, you talk about this dividend, but what that's doing as the NTA declines or goes sideways, what that's doing is that the NTA per share drops, and you're converting capital into partly assessable income, which is really contrary to what most investors want. In reality, VGI has the worst attributes at funds management that gives fundies a bad name. It really is the dunce of the class. It's far worse than Sorry, VG1. It's far worse than VG8. The misleading representation of 10%-15%, huge fees to managers, terrible investment results, losses to IPO investors. My question, David, why do you keep punishing investors? Why not just wind it up, convert to unlisted fund or listed ETF? Hand back the AUD 1.70 per share. You've had five years, David, and you've failed miserably. You keep on asking for more time. Time's up, David. Question is, why don't you wind up, convert to unlisted fund or listed ETF? Thanks. Thanks, David. As you may expect, I disagree with many of your editorial comments through that long speech. As I've outlined in my chairman's address and in my letters, we're very comfortable with the current approach. We think it is the right approach. Over the last 12 months, this merger is a substantial change in the operating approach, and we are committed to seeing this through and making this work. Thank you. David, I have a question online. Sure. Thank you. The question is, how performance fees of the manager are calculated, what are the high and low watermarks, and how does the board ensure it is correctly computed? Yeah, thank you, whoever that is online. The fees are audited and checked before they're paid on a semi-annual basis. That's right. Citco, who check it all and manage it all. How they're levied is they are off a high watermark. The prior point where they were levied. Because the performance has been poor in recent times, we are materially below the high watermark. There is a long way of performance and of portfolio growth needed before the performance fees would kick in again. It is a very straightforward formula. Yeah. No performance fees paid unless the auditor has signed off. Yeah. Okay. They're all calculated by an external ad administrator, signed off by the auditors and then levied twice a year. Thank you. Thank you. No further questions online. Okay. On the phone. David. Thanks, David. There's a little bit of duplication with the previous meeting, this is a separate meeting for a separate company, I make no apologies for the duplication. There are a couple of differences also. You are chairman of this meeting. Lawrence was chairman of the previous one. A big difference with you, David, is you're also on the board of the manager, Regal Partners. Yes. Monumental conflict given the fees payable across to Regal Partners. I remind you, David, of your notorious letter of 16 March 2021. Quote, "We are in vigorous agreement with you that it's unacceptable for LICS to trade at a substantial discount for a sustained period." Your chairman's letter waffles on, David, that the conflicted manager had engaged external advisors to review options to remove the discount. The main action is pretty feeble, a buyback which is nowhere near sufficient to fix the problem. Moving deck chairs on the Titanic. It is concerning for a guy of your background to sit there with your conflict of interest, but also for the other VGI directors to abrogate the review of the options to remove the discount to the highly conflicted Regal Partners, who of course, want to continue reaping the huge fees. My question, David, to you is why have you failed to fix the shocking investment performance of VGI and the discount that you represented in your 2021 written letter that you would fix? In the context of that, will you resign and apologize to the shareholders for the huge pain that you have caused? Thanks, David. Again, as you'd expect, I refute a lot of the characterizations there. I will not resign. I am disappointed in the performance, as I've said many times, even in this meeting. Our view is that LIC structures are attractive for many investor types, giving them access to otherwise unavailable wholesale product. Regal and some of the other managers that we've discussed in the previous meeting have shown that. We have not abrogated our responsibilities at all. We did a thorough review, as I've said many times, including in the prior meeting, to a question from you. We have made substantial changes. We are excited about it, and we are looking forward to seeing some improved performance and an improvement in the discount. We expect they may take time, and we are committed to it, but also patient. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Malcolm. Thanks, David. Sorry to interrupt your texting, Lawrence, these questions do address you as well as Adelaide. David, I'm not gonna repeat all the numbers. They're horrible, they've been horrible since inception with a couple of years of some upticks. What really scares me is the size of the discount and the losses and the value destruction that Luciano has caused at VG1 relative to the performance that Phil King has done as portfolio manager since he took over in late June. It's actually horrendous, down 20% versus up 11 or thereabouts. I just can't see how you can continue with the charade of having Luciano as a portfolio manager now that he's an employee of Regal Partners Limited. I wanna know specifically, whether you've had a discussion with Regal Partners Limited, and its principal, Phil King, to replace Luciano as portfolio manager. If not, why not? Okay. Thanks, Malcolm. As you would imagine, any discussions about any matters like that are not, are not matters for this meeting or to be aired publicly. Thank you. I just can't see why you can't be open and transparent about this issue. Okay. Well, you and I see this differently. Do you have any other questions? if Luciano is here at Christmas. No, sorry. I'll go he. I do have another statement. Great. Another question. The infamous letter you wrote, David, to the other David and me on the 16th of March, 2021, a bit over 18 months ago, was five pages. It was an elaborate response to a couple of meetings that we had, which unfortunately didn't actually get anywhere. You made a dozen or so representations at that meeting. I'm just going to highlight a couple of them because David touched on one. It's unacceptable for LICs to trade at a substantial discount for a sustained period. Clearly, five years is a sustained period. You also said, "We established the LIC structures when we were focused on making them shareholder-friendly." Well, that's hardly been the result for the investors in VG1. Despite the current share price trading a discount to NTA, both underlying investment strategies of VG1 and VGA were delivering on their objectives. That didn't really work out either, did it? We're of the strong view that a substantial sustained discount to NTA is not acceptable. We agree on something at last. You went on to say, "Over the last 121 months," I think that should have been 12 months for VGI, "and since listing for VGA, our LICS have traded at a discount to NTA." That is absolutely correct. You'll say that, "VGI Partners is working with the independent directors of VG1 and VGA to explore options to address the discount to NTA." That really hasn't worked out either. Many investors see great benefits in our current listed structure. I don't think they do, David, any longer because the discount gap is so large, it's been so long, sustained for so long, and continues when there are clearly other viable opportunities for investors to participate in the leadership and portfolio management of Luciano or whoever it may be if Luciano walks the plank. I just don't buy the fact that you've got to have an ETF to access management. It's not exclusive anymore. It's. The world is flat again. You go on to say, "We agree that it's unacceptable for VGI Partners, LLC to trade at large discounts to NTA. We're focused on closure of the discounts as anyone." I just can't see that at all. We're working with our advisors to explore options to address the discount to NTA." You might have taken advice, but it might have been from the manager. Again, these are just passing the buck on the practical question of what you're gonna do. You write fancy letters, David, and they're very good, but they don't do anything to bring about structural change. We've been at this for some 18 months because we saw the light coming over the hill. It's incredibly disappointing that you've actually done 0 apart from a buyback, which has been a half-assed sort of buyback as well, as your only structural solution to the size of the discount. I think you should all walk the plank and do a Cranbrook and resign. I do want you to undertake to propose this issue and discuss it at each board meeting and respond to us before this AGM next year. Will you do that? Can you repeat the question? The whole thing, David? Please don't. Will you undertake to propose this issue? Which issue? The issue. Because you sort of highlighted about 17 issues. It's really simple. Thank you for reading out my wonderful letter. I didn't. Well, you did a fair bit of it. What issue? The issue that you'll consider converting to an unlisted fund or initiate a larger buyback or move to an ETF or wind VG up. You'll consider these issues at each board meeting. You'll report back this meeting next year. The board's job is to consider these matters continuously, and the board will continue to do its job. Thank you, Malcolm. Okay. Nothing else. Okay. That's the financial statements. I'll get back to the run sheet. We're gonna go to the Rem report. Under the Corps Act, listed companies are required to include as part of their directors' report, a remuneration report. The remuneration report for the financial year ended 30 June 2022 is included in the company's 2022 annual report. The Corporations Act requires companies to put to shareholders a non-binding vote to enable shareholders to voice their opinion on matters included in the remuneration report. Given the vote is advisory only, it does not bind the board or the company. However, the board will take the outcome of the vote into account when considering future remuneration decisions. At this point, it is worth noting that Regal Partners, the manager, pays the bulk of VG1's operating costs, including the cost of this AGM. Just to highlight that, in last financial year, that was AUD 940,000. This is a central plank of Regal Partners' philosophy of alignment. As a result, VG1 only bears the cost of its non-executive directors, plus the directors' and officers' insurance. The board recommends that shareholders vote in favor of adopting the 2022 Remuneration Report. I now move this resolution. Are there any questions on the Rem report? Phones, online, Rebecca? No questions online or on the phone line. Okay. David? Yeah. Thanks, David. Look, of the directors, key management personnel covered by the Rem report, the remuneration, I think from memory is AUD 60,000 or AUD 70,000 for attending four board meetings. This company's been running for five years. I believe, the directors have all been, foundation directors. My question is very simple. Do the directors who are covered by the Rem report, do they feel the pain of the over AUD 200 million loss of shareholder value presided by them? Do they feel the pain? Will they... Did they do what a lot of honorable directors did in COVID, and say that, shareholders are suffering, we will take a haircut on our remuneration? Simple question. Do the directors, care about the pain they have caused to the shareholders? Did they offer to take a haircut to their remuneration? Thank you. I'll go first and say we all feel the pain. We are shareholders too. As I've said before, we're disappointed with the discount and with the recent portfolio performance. We did not... We continue to work just as hard as always and, you know, including working through the ramifications of the merger, et cetera, et cetera. No, we've continued to work hard, and so we did not offer to reduce our fees. Lawrence or Adelaide, do you have anything to add? Nothing to add. Thanks, David. No. Thank you, David. Righto. Thanks, David. Is there any other questions or comments on the Rem report? If not, we will go. I'll show the proxy votes on the screen. Open proxies in favor of the chair of the meeting at the time of the meeting will be voted in favor of the resolution. Adjusting for these, the votes are... Do I need to read all these out? You can see them all, can't you? 64 million da, da. 162,000 proxies. 2 million against. Oh, I should read them out. We were told last year, weren't we, Ingrid? Are you gonna get grumpy? I'm gonna read it all out. Adjusting for these, the votes are 64,655,752 in favor, 162,729 other proxy discretion, and 2,005,261 against. This equates to 96.8% in favor, 0.2% other proxy discretion, and 3.0% against. For those in the room with blue cards, or if you're a shareholder or proxy holder and eligible to vote online, could you please now complete your vote for resolution 1. Alternatively, if you would prefer to wait, please complete your voting at any time between now and the end of the meeting. I'll now move to the second resolution, the re-election of Lawrence Myers as a director. Mr. Myers is retiring by rotation, being eligible, is standing for re-election in accordance with rule 6.7 of the company's constitution. Mr. Myers' details are set out in an explanatory memorandum of the notice of meeting. They are highlighted on this slide. In summary, Mr. Myers is the founder and managing director of MBP Advisory Pty. Limited, a prominent high-end Sydney firm of chartered accountants which he established in 1998. Mr. Myers is also the CFO of FIFO Investments Proprietary Limited, a family office for the Myers family and a number of other associated families. Mr. Myers' specialist areas of practice include mergers and acquisitions, corporate and business advisory, tax consulting and advisory, succession planning, and family office services. Mr. Myers is also a member of the Foundation Board of the Art Gallery of New South Wales. The board, with Lawrence, with Mr. Myers abstaining, supports the re-election of Lawrence Myers as a director. I would now move that Lawrence Myers is re-elected as a director of the company. I'll now move to questions. Ms. Fesq, nothing? No. Nothing online, no. Okay. Any questions about this resolution in the room? David? Just trying to understand the contribution of Lawrence. My understanding is, Lawrence, you're a foundation director five years ago. Under your watch, there's been a massive destruction of shareholder value. You're obviously aware you owe a fiduciary duty to each of the VG1 shareholders. In 26th of October, you bought nearly 347,000 shares at $498,000, $1.44 per share. That represents a discount to you from NTA of $100,000. Importantly, Lawrence, I'd like to understand your contribution to the saga of Rob Luciano. My understanding is that he is subject to termination on a 6-month notice period. We had a public expert's report that no one actually read in regards to the merger of Regal with VGI that publicly stated that Regal was at least 3% better performance per annum than VGI. That's the independent expert, which is pretty startling. It's interesting also that since VG8 terminated Luciano five months ago, VG8's NTA is up 11%. Over the same period, VGI is flat, 0 gain, so an 11% underperformance. My first question to you, Lawrence, is why have you left Luciano as CIO of VG1 with such woeful results? That is continuing to punish shareholders without an exit at near NTA, bad investment results and the discount. Why have you left Luciano there, please? Thank you, David. As you would appreciate, I'm not a director of Regal Partners, therefore his, Rob's employment by VGI Partners and his management and responsibility is not within my ambit. Everyone keeps on saying you talk to the Regal Partners and that you're very close and you work collaboratively together, and yet when there's a tricky question, you plead the Fifth Amendment. Anyway, I understand you pleaded the Fifth. My second question is, look, you've got an impressive CV, Lawrence, MD of a high-end accounting firm, CEO of a family office, sitting on a board with Solomon Lew, I believe, at Breville, or certainly as a major shareholder. You've certainly got plenty of ability. Do you feel ashamed, Lawrence? Do you feel guilty? Do you feel a sense of hurt? Do you want to apologize to the many shareholders who have lost a lot of money under your watch on the board of VG1? In excess of $200 million has gone down the drain while you've been sitting there for the last five years. Do you want to apologize, Lawrence? Again, as we had in the VG8 meeting, and I do appreciate that this is a different meeting, all directors of this company are shareholders in the company. To echo David's comments, we're all disappointed by the performance of the company. We're all disappointed with the discount to NTA. We've all incurred losses along with the shareholders, and we're doing whatever we can within our ambit to rectify the situation. Thanks, Lawrence. Malcolm? Hi, Lawrence. We all know you're a clever accountant, and we've negotiated in the past on other issues. You've pushed hard for your clients in those discussions, which is honorable. You blocked us in an email, some last year after we wanted to reach out to you and have a conversation with you. I thought that was just an incredibly arrogant thing to do and very disingenuous to all shareholders, not just us, as two shareholders who probably you might regard as informed. It's disappointing to see. As a director, your shareholders, I know, because we've spoken to literally hundreds of them, are very disappointed that you haven't pushed harder for them here and at VGI's. I wanna know specifically, what is your personal position, not the technical rules about whether you're wearing the VG1 director hat or whether you're having side conversations with Brendan or Phil or whatever. But what's your personal position on Luciano continuing to manage VG1 when the relative performance of VG8 under Phil King has been just far more effective in turning around the decline, chopping out the rot, and closing the discount gap? It's just not possible to form a reasonable opinion that Luciano is good for the future of VG1 based on past performance. Do you agree? Sorry, what was the question? I'll repeat it. I don't appreciate- What is your personal position? The lead into something sensible. What is your personal position on Luciano continuing to manage VG1 when the relative performance of VG8 under Phil King has been far more effective turning around the decline and closing the discount gap? I'm saying it's just not possible to form a reasonable opinion that Luciano is good for the future of VG1 based on past performance. What is your opinion? Well, it's quite simple. VG8 and VG1 have very different investment mandates. Their performance is not to be compared. They are different mandates, as you would appreciate, number one. Number two, I can speak for myself. I'm an investor in the VGI Partners Wholesale Fund, which is exactly the same portfolio as VG1. I've not withdrawn my investment. I don't intend to withdraw my investment. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Lawrence. Okay. Oh, yeah, Charlie, go man. Charlie Kingston. Just a question. For context, Rob Luciano, a few years back, said that: "Imagine saying to your family at Sunday dinner, 'You need to pay me a bonus for losing your money as I lost less money than the S&P/ASX 200.'" It's absurd. Now, as has been mentioned, VGI, VG1 has paid over AUD 90 million in fees since the IPO, yet trades at a significant amount below that IPO price, delivering serious losses to investors. Just a question for Lawrence. First question, do you think that is fair, and is it contributing that misaligned fee structure, whereby Well, the manager has been paid a significant fee, both performance and management fees, whereas the investors have lost significant amounts of money since IPO? Has that structure led or contributed to the chronic discount to NTA? Thanks, Charlie. Yeah, look, again, as we've said a few times today, we're all disappointed with the performance. There's no question about it. We're all disappointed with the share price performance, and we're all disappointed by the underlying investment portfolio performance. The investment terms, including the fees and the performance fees, are very clear. They're set out in the prospectus, and every investor in the company is very familiar with what they are. Thanks, Lawrence. Didn't answer the question whether or not you think it's fair. That's okay. If it contributes to the discount, do you think it does contribute? Does what contribute? The fee arrangement? The fee arrangement, yes. I don't believe it does. I think. No, no benchmark. Zero, benchmark. Do you think that contributes? No, I don't believe it does. Okay. Thank you. Secondly, just based off that, would you consider... You know, Platinum, multiple fund managers have reduced or altered their fees in the past. Has the board, including yourself, discussed that, based on the AUD 90 million that's been paid and the outcome that shareholders have received in exchange for that fee? Have you considered or actively discussed altering those fees, which plenty of other managers have done? Yeah. Again, it's not in my ambit. I don't work for Regal Partners. It's not within my control to adjust the fee arrangements. Okay. Thanks, Lawrence. Okay, if there are no further questions, I'll show the proxy votes here. Open proxies in favor of the chair at the meeting, at the time of the meeting will be voted in favor of the resolution. After adjusting for these, the votes are 74,619,060 in favor, 162,729 other proxy discretion, and 4,652,052 against. This equates to 93.9% in favor, 0.2% other proxy discretion, and 5.9% against. Could everyone who is eligible now please complete your vote on resolution 2? I will now move to resolution 3, the re-election of Noel Whittaker AM as a director. As I said, unfortunately, he is not available to join us. Mr. Whittaker is retiring by rotation and being ineligible is standing for re-election in accordance with rule 6.7 of the company's constitution. Mr. Whittaker's details are set out in the explanatory memorandum of the NOSM meeting, and they are shown here on this slide. In summary, Mr. Whittaker is a pioneer in the field of consumer financial education. He writes weekly columns in many major newspapers, including the Brisbane Sunday Mail, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Age. For 30 years, Mr. Whittaker was a director of Whittaker Macnaught, one of Australia's leading financial advisory companies with more than AUD 2 billion under management. In 2011, he was made a member of the Order of Australia for service to the community in raising awareness of personal finance. Mr. Whittaker is a chartered tax advisor, a member of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Regional Liaison Committee, and is currently an adjunct professor with the Faculty of Business at the Queensland University of Technology. The board, with Mr. Whittaker abstaining, supports the re-election of Noel Whittaker as a director. I will now move that Noel be re-elected as a director. I know this is a bit odd because we can't direct questions to Noel, but there are any online, Rebecca? No. Do you guys have any comments that... I mean, I'll try to answer them for him, maybe. David? Thanks, David. Look, it's a pity, Noel isn't here. Look, I respect Noel's achievements over the years, but look, got to be sensitive about talking about age, but Noel is older than Joe Biden. Whether his mental faculty, faculties are stronger is unclear because he's not here to communicate with. Apparently, he's 82 years old. In my opinion, it's an indictment on this board that you are endorsing Noel Whittaker to have another term. You know, he seems to have contributed nothing. We've endeavored to make communication with him. He's been unavailable. He's in hospital today, you know. Don't know why he can't sit in on a phone call to answer questions. Look, from the research I've done, David Jones, you know, a distinguished career, that's great, but there's a time to start to play golf, Noel Whittaker. Noel Whittaker has presided over a debacle, several hundred million AUD of losses. He's now 82 years. Apparently, he's written 22 books, David Jones, according to my research. Interestingly, one of his books is Making Money Made Simple, as well as multiple newspaper columns. Look, my assessment, and I make no apologies, it's a little bit hard without having the ability to ask him questions directly, but I will fire in the question and the comment. In my view, Noel Whittaker has either been asleep at the wheel for the last five years in his role as director or alternatively, he's a hypocrite. If he's gonna run out there and say, "I'm gonna write a book, Making Money Made Simple," and yet be one of the presiding directors in destroying a lot of shareholder money, either he hasn't been focusing on his undoubted career, which gives him some credibility in managing money, or alternatively, he's a hypocrite of writing this book and yet delivering the opposite result for shareholders. My question to you, David, on behalf of Noel Whittaker, are you asleep at the wheel or just a hypocrite? Look, for the record, I don't think this board endorses those ageist comments. I think they're offensive, I don't think anyone's age has anything to do with their ability to can tribute. I think I'd like the record to note that that's the view of this company, we stridently disagree with the ageism inherent in your comments. David, respectfully, I think they're offensive. This board has formed a view about Noel's contribution, and that's why we've all recommended his re-election. Thank you. Malcolm? Oh, thanks, David, and best wishes to Noel. I hope he makes a speedy recovery. It's no fun being laid up in hospital with broken bones. When I googled Noel, because Noel, we've tried to make contact with Noel, but he doesn't seem to have an email. He doesn't seem to answer any emails. It's a common issue with this entire board, including Lawrence in Adelaide, actually, they don't want to talk to any shareholders, which is extraordinary. I googled Noel anyway, and David, you'll get a laugh out of this. The first thing that came up was that this is the quote, "Noel Whittaker is Australia's financial The Wizard of Oz." Which is truly hilarious. Did you know that? carry on. To share it with the audience, it's a description that David has used about Luciano in the past, publicly and privately. I think actually- Found it quite extraordinary. Actually just privately, which you then put in the papers, but, carry on. I think it was an open discussion, as you previously told us. No, it actually wasn't, but carry on. Let's not dwell on that detail, David. Oh, okay. He's done a number of things and written a number of things, but his 20 commandments of wealth, I'm not gonna go through them, Lawrence. Thank you. I know you'll find that tedious. Yeah, well, let's. was number eight-. Cut to the chase. was always judge an investment on its merits. Malcolm. VG1 and VG have been big failures. Malcolm, I'd really like you to be respectful. Noel isn't here. We are endorsing his appointment. Could you be respectful and get to the point, please? I can't support this resolution. Okay. Thank you. Well, then. I'm just sharing that news with the audience. Thank you. I think you should vote no then. I'm going to. Okay. Thank you. Okay, nothing on the phones. Okay. I'll show the proxies on the screen for Noel. Open proxies in favor of the chair at the meeting. At the time of the meeting, we voted in favor of the resolution. Adjusting for these, the votes are AUD 74,298,700 in favor, AUD 162,729 other proxy discretion, and AUD 4,352,451 against. This equates to 94.3% in favor, 0.2% other proxy discretion, and 5.5% against, 5.5% against. Could everyone who's now eligible to complete your vote, please do for resolution three. I'll now move to resolution four, the increase in the non-executive director's fee cap. In accordance with ASX Listing Rule 10.17, shareholder approval is required to increase the aggregate amount that may be paid as remuneration to non-executive directors. Rule 6.5 of the company's constitution provides that the directors, other than any managing director or director whose salary is a salaried officer, and we don't have any of those, may be paid such remuneration determined from time to time by the company in general meeting. The current non-executive director's fee cap is AUD 225,000 per annum. If resolution 4 is passed, the fee cap will be increased by AUD 275,000 per annum to AUD 500,000 per annum. If resolution 4 is not passed, the fee cap will remain at AUD 225,000 per annum. It is important to state that there is no intention to change the salary of any individual director in the current financial year. However, due to a change in the duties of me at Regal Partners Limited on the 3rd of June, when I went to a non-executive role, I've now become a non-executive of VG1 rather than before when I was an executive of the manager. My role has changed to a non-executive status. Given this, subject to obtaining shareholder approval at the fee cap at today's AGM, my director's fees will be included in VG1's non-executive director fee cap for the financial year end, 30 June 2023. The proposed increase in the cap is therefore to facilitate the number of non-executive directors changing from three to four and to potentially assist with the transition to new directors in the future if the board considers it is appropriate to do so. We see resolution 4 as a key step in achieving a broad range of skills, experience, and expertise on the board and attracting and retaining directors of high caliber. Noting the board's interest in this item, the board is refraining from making a recommendation to shareholders in relation to the resolution to increase the non-executive directors' fee cap. I'll just repeat again, it's not to increase the salary of individual directors. I will now move this resolution to increase the non-executive directors' fee cap. Are there any questions online, Rebecca? No questions. Fine. Online. Mel? David. Sorry, I'm getting you two mixed up. David. We all look very similar. You're getting rattled, David. It's not like you. You sort of do. David, could you clarify what your remuneration will be if this company is gonna have to pay it? It's the same as what the other NEDs are. Is it 60? 70. $70,000. Okay. Bargain. Look, my question is, look, as everyone can glean, I think the performance is disgraceful. I think the board is responsible for a lot of that, notwithstanding the trying to draw a line between the board and Regal Partners. Question is very simple: Has anyone on the board, David or Lawrence or Adelaide, talked to Regal Partners about doing what Antipodes did, announcing a 20%-25% buyback, whereby if people didn't participate, other people could join in. In other words, if you do a 25% buyback, Brendan, at NTA, and if people don't participate, then the very disturbed shareholders you've got on the register, can exit to the extent of 50% at NTA. Has anyone on the board, before we vote on this resolution, talked to Brendan about that possibility? I can confirm, David, that the board has considered a range of options, as I've said many times in this meeting and in the written correspondence. Many structures have been considered. Yes. Why wouldn't you go down that track first? The board has determined the path that we're on is the best path for the reasons I've outlined multiple times. Is this a third question? Second one, David. Second one. Okay. I'm pretty sure you've already had two, but carry on. It's very circular, David. You're stonewalling everyone, as you've done for 20 months since we had meetings. You've come up with an appalling outcome for investors who you owe a fiduciary duty to. You keep on stonewalling them. What we know is that Regal Partners, Brendan, your firm, has commissioned a supposed expert to advise on options. Experts, very subjective opinion, Brendan, but I assume that that expert or advisor will come up with a bit of advice that would probably suit Regal Partners. You told us, David and Lawrence today, that the board of VG8 and VGI conducted a comprehensive review of the report that Brendan and Regal Partners obtained on the options to alleviate the acute distress of the shareholders you're meant to be acting for. It's all very circular. You now tell us, David, that you have landed on the amazing strategy of a buyback, an on-market buyback, which you yourself have said in meetings with us of itself is not sufficient to fix the problem. David, there's no plausible, credible explanation why, if you were to get Brendan's acquiescence and support to a 20% buyback, uncapped, so in other words, if only half the people participated, you double your exit at NTA. It's a choice for the shareholders you owe a fiduciary duty to look after who are suffering. If you were able to agree that with Brendan and Regal Partners, and you're also on that board, David, as we know your conflict, without any hesitation, it is 100% certain no one would disagree. That is in the interests of the shareholders that you are representing today. Why wouldn't you seek that option? Thanks, David. Look, Thanks for the suggestion about conflicts and about duties. I think I can speak for the whole board. We're well aware of our duties. This is a VG1 meeting, and when we attend VG1 meetings, we know who we are acting for. We are acting for VG1 shareholders solely. That's our clear duty, and that's what we do. We have not been stonewalling or whatever you like to characterize it as. As I outlined in the VG8 meeting, but I will go through it now because no one's got anything better to do. This might be the last thing. We conducted the review. The manager merged. It's early days, but we are pleased with what the manager, how the merge is going, and thrilled with the depth and breadth and capability of the manager. We genuinely are. I said that to you outside. The structure allows Rob and Marco and the team to focus solely on the global portfolio, both for private clients and for VG1. We've recently added a senior hire to that team. We've got broader investor relations capability here. We've ramped up the buyback. We've adjusted the dividend policy. To say we've just done one piddly little thing, this board is well aware of the potential of the merger of the manager, and so far, we're really pleased with how it's going. That's my response. Thank you. With that, we will do the votes on this final one, I think. Thank you. For the people on the phone, I'll show the proxy votes on the screen. Open proxies in favor of the chair of the meeting. At the time of the meeting, we voted in favor of the resolution. Adjusting for these, the votes are 56,717,983 in favor, 162,729 other proxy discretion, and 21,185,181 against. That equates to 72.7% in favor, 0.2 other proxy discretion, and 27.1% against. Everyone who's now eligible could please vote for resolution 4. That's it for the resolutions. Now, general questions. Rebecca, anyone with any general questions? No, nothing. No. Any general questions, anyone? Simon. Why would you not change the name of this one to Regal as well? Much better brand. We don't have the managers. Yeah, look, I, look, it. The change for VG8's really reflecting the portfolio management function that Phil is driving with the Regal team for VG8. Rob is still running this portfolio with Marco and the team, as I've just said. Look, it's something I don't think we're closed to, but it's something we're not contemplating. But we can absolutely consider it, Simon. Thank you. It is Simon, isn't it? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Dave? Again, if we can be a little bit less formal, David, at this stage. Last topic, Brendan, you've been kind enough both at the merger meeting six months ago to stand up and make some comments. You didn't have to, but appreciate your transparency. Clearly the flavor of the meeting is that no one supports Rob Luciano. In fact, legally, I, in my opinion, David, there's a strong legal argument that you could terminate the management agreement anyway. Fundamental breach of contract because the entity you appointed five years ago as manager has changed so dramatically. You've lost Douglas Tynan, you've lost Robert Poiner. I don't know the other people, but there are countless number of people who've left in droves. If you're prepared to do it, I think the audience here today, would be interested in your comments, if you're prepared to make them, on whether you see Rob being around in three months' time or not. Yeah. I think everyone knows who you are, but for people on the phone. Sure. Brendan O'Connor, CEO and Managing Director of Regal Partners Limited. Let me start out by saying I'm not gonna comment on any individual employee of Regal Partners Limited. Rob Luciano is an employee, and it would be unfair and wrong of me to do so. What I can say is that as manager of both VG8, and the lead portfolio manager there is Phil King, and as investment manager of VG1, and the lead portfolio manager there is Rob Luciano, we take our role as investment manager very seriously. We like to put our clients first, we like to invest alongside our clients, and I think that for the most part, we've got a very good track record of delivering great outcomes for our clients. Clearly, as has been a topic of conversation, we have work to do in respect of the performance of VG1, and we'll have more to say about that in due course. No one who's a shareholder of VG1 should be satisfied with that performance. It's a performance that we'd like to improve going forward, and as David's been articulating, I think we're recommending suggestions and solutions to the board that will ultimately improve that in time. It's disappointing that that hasn't started to have effect immediately, but I'll take a win while I get it, and it's great to see the impact of some of those changes in respect to VG8. I've got every confidence that ultimately we'll make a success of VG1, but we're not there yet. Thank you. Great, Brendan. Thank you. Charlie. Can I ask a follow-up to that one, please? Phil King, the founder of Regal, once said in relation to Rob Luciano, one or two disappointing years of returns doesn't diminish his abilities. As has been discussed at length, it's been, I think, roughly five years since the IPO, which has delivered some nasty losses to shareholders. Just a general, don't expect you to comment on Rob, the current manager, but in general, your portfolio managers, do you have a defined time period in which you will tolerate underperformance relative to a benchmark before you will remove them or, you know, swap them out with somebody else? You know, I'd imagine ratings agencies, they probably accept two to three years of underperformance before they change their recommendations. Clients certainly maybe two or three years before they withdraw funds. When you assess your portfolio managers at Regal Partners, and also to the board, you know, is there a defined period, say, three years of underperformance which you'll accept before making changes? appreciate any comments in regards to that. Thanks. I think the simple answer is, there's nothing as simple as a defined period of time. Clearly, we assess the performance of all our portfolio managers regularly, and certainly in a formal manner every 12 months. We don't like to tolerate underperformance, and ultimately we wouldn't have built the business that we have, and I think, you know, we've got a track record that demonstrates that had tolerated, we wouldn't be where we are today. As I said, whilst we've got further work to do, rest assured it's a key focus from our perspective. We think we've got a great team, and I think that we've got further work to do here, but I think as I said, rest assured, I think we'll have positive things to say about it in the in the, in the future. Great. All right. You have a defined timeframe. No. to which... No? No. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Charlie. Thanks, Brendan. All right, everyone. Look, thank you very, very much. I know you'll be disappointed to hear, but I think that concludes our section on general questions. In case you have not completed your voting during the meeting, I'll now give you a few moments to finalize your voting. As mentioned earlier, boardroom VG1's share registry, there will conduct a poll using the voting cards that you submit today in the room. Online votes that you submit and the votes that were cast before the meeting. There's any person in the room who believes they're entitled to vote but is not registered to vote, would you please raise your hand for assistance. As a reminder for those in the room, the persons entitled to vote on this poll are all shareholders and proxy holders holding blue voting cards. On the reverse side of your blue admission card is your voting paper instructions. Please ensure you print your name where indicated and sign the voting paper. When you have finished filling in your voting card, please provide it to boardroom staff to ensure your vote's counted. The boardroom staff will also be able to help if you need additional time or other assistance. If you do require any help, please raise your hand. Have all the votes been cast? I think that might be the last one. My gosh, it's exciting. I now declare the poll closed and formally charge boardroom to count the votes. Okay. The results of today's AGM will be released to the market and made available on VG1's website later today. Ladies and gentlemen, if there is no other formal business to the meeting, I declare this AGM of VGI Partners Global Investments Limited closed. I thank you all for attending today. By all means, reach out at any time to our investor relations team if you'd like further information or have questions about our company. Thank you.