Welcome to today's AGM of VGI. I will begin 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. My name is David Jones, and I am the Chairman of VGI. Again, thank you for joining us at the 2025 AGM. The company secretary has advised me we have a quorum, so I'll declare the meeting open. The notice of meeting, which was sent to shareholders on the 17th of October, will be taken as read. I'm chairing today's meeting from Corps Chambers Westgarth's office in Sydney. With me in the room are my fellow directors, Lawrence Myers, Adelaide McDonald, and Noel Whittaker. Also present is Ian Cameron and Candace Driver, who are our company secretaries, Rob Saunders, who's the Head of Distribution Australia for Regal Partners, which is the manager of VGI, Charlie Aitken, the Group Investment Director of Regal Partners, and representatives from our share registry Boardroom. Our auditors, KPMG, are here, represented by Graham Scott. We're 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 them. Now, turning to today's agenda, we will focus on the items as laid out here, the items in the notice of meeting. I'll firstly give a short introductory address, which we release to the market. I will then move to the resolutions, where I'll take questions on each resolution. Following this, there'll be an opportunity to ask general questions, and then we'll collect the votes. Now, here's a lot of boring gumf about the processes. I will whiz through this as fast as I can. For those of you in the room who are registered today, you will have received one of three colored cards. Blue cards were given to shareholders who have not submitted proxy forms prior to the meeting and proxy holders. Blue card holders can therefore vote on the resolutions being put forward. You're entitled to ask questions when prompted through the course of the meeting. Red cards were given to shareholders who have submitted proxy forms prior to this meeting and who therefore cannot cast votes again during this meeting. You're also welcome to ask questions when we reach the relevant part 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 the Boardroom representatives before we close the meeting. For those of you in the room who wish to ask a question of the board, when we reach the relevant part of the meeting, if you have a blue or red card, please put up your hand to show your card. We will then provide you with a microphone to ask your question. Depending on time and number of questions, we may need to limit each shareholder to two questions or comments per item. For those of you who are logged in the webcast with your username and password, you have the opportunity to submit questions online as well as to 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 general section. If we receive multiple questions on the same topic, we may group them together. Again, depending on the time and number of questions, we also need to limit each share to two questions or comments per item of business. Now, with regard to online voting, to give you ample time to vote, we're going to open the polls now. This means you can sit your vote on, submit your vote online 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 onto the webcast as a guest, you will be able to view our webcast but not submit questions or vote. For shareholders who have joined over the phone, if you've provided your passcode to the call center and been verified, you'll be able to ask questions. Please note that the process for registering your questions is different to the webcast. For those on the phones, please do not try to register for any question or comment yet, as 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 want to 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 to the next item of business and repeat the process. Do not register for a question or an item of business until we reach that item. In order to give all shareholders reasonable opportunity to ask questions, once we have answered a shareholder's question, we will move to the next person in the phone queue. If you have any additional questions or comments 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 or shareholders who have not provided their passcode to the call center, please note the phones will be listen only. I should also point out that if you're 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. Right, that's the boring stuff done. Now for my formal Chairman's address. This was released to the ASX this morning. On behalf of the board of VGI Partners Global Investments Limited, I would like to extend my warm welcome to all shareholders joining us for today's annual general meeting. We truly appreciate your ongoing support and commitment to VGI. Today's meeting will be focused on the formal business as set out in the notice of meeting, and I will keep my opening remarks relatively brief to allow ample time for shareholder questions. Let me begin with a look back at FY25. Over the 12 months to June, VGI delivered a net portfolio return of negative 3%, resulting in a loss after tax of AUD 17.6 million. This headline number reflects a year of mixed outcomes across the portfolio. On the positive side, several positions made strong contributions, most notably Rightmove, Entain, and the London Stock Exchange Group, LSEG. Both Rightmove and LSEG have since been successfully exited. However, in March 2025, there was a difficult performance period after an investment in biotech company Opthea was written down to zero following unsuccessful phase three clinical trials. This was a disappointing outcome for VGI investors and offset some of the positive contributions from sectors such as financials and communication services. Broader markets were also highly volatile around this period, especially in April 2025, when President Trump announced Liberation Day tariffs on wide-ranging US imports. Despite this, VGI's profit reserve, built from past years of strong portfolio performance, remains robust. Reflecting this, in February 2025, the company updated its dividend policy, lifting the semi-annual target from at least AUD 0.05 to AUD 0.06, fully franked where possible. In line with this commitment, dividends of AUD 0.06 were announced for both the half and the full year FY 2025 results. Following the most recent dividend payment in September 2025, the profit reserve sits at just over AUD 275 million. At the current annual dividend rate of AUD 0.12 a share, this provides over nine years of coverage, assuming no change in shares on issue. To put this in context for shareholders, the annualized dividend of AUD 0.12 per share represents a net yield of 6.1% based on yesterday's closing price or 8.7% on a grossed-up basis, assuming full franking. In terms of shareholder returns, VGI delivered a total return of negative 1.6% in FY 2025 pre-franking. While the portfolio return was negative, this figure reflects a modest improvement in the discount between our share price and the net tangible assets, or NTA, per share over the year. We also continue to make disciplined use of the on-market share buyback program. During FY 2025, over 39 million shares were acquired for AUD 73 million. Since the program began in mid-2020, approximately 162 million shares, or around 40% of VGI's issued capital, have been purchased. The board remains fully supportive of this program, as buybacks conducted at a discount are accretive to shareholders and provide valuable liquidity in the market. Now turning to corporate aspects, in August 2025, we announced the Chief Investment Officer responsibilities for VGI would transition from Phil King to Paul Moore on the 1st of September, following a realignment of responsibilities across the group. As many of you know, Paul joined Regal Partners in 2023 following Regal's acquisition of PM Capital. Paul's impressive track record in global equity spans decades, beginning at Bankers Trust, extending through the establishment of PM Capital in 1998, and continuing through to today. We are confident that his long-term perspective and experience will be of great benefit to VGI's portfolio going forward. Supporting Paul are VGI's existing portfolio managers, Marco Anselmi and Henry Hill, who continue in their current roles. They're also backed by a broader investment team of more than 90 professionals across Regal Partners. This deep pool of expertise, spanning multiple sectors, geographies, and asset classes, creates meaningful opportunities for collaboration and idea generation. We thank Phil for his stewardship of the portfolio over the past couple of years and look forward to the next chapter under Paul's leadership. On the distribution front, Regal Partners recently integrated the distribution teams from several acquired businesses into the core Regal platform. Over 20 dedicated team members are now focusing on engaging with financial advisors, brokers, and individual investors, enhancing VGI's presence across the market and strengthening shareholder engagement. Finally, we recognize the importance shareholders place on alignment between the manager and the investors. Regal Partners continues to own over 8 million shares in VGI, valued at approximately AUD 17 million. This significant holding ensures that Regal Partners remains strongly aligned with shareholders in its commitment to grow VGI's NTA and share price over time. I'm also pleased to report that the current financial year has started on an exceptionally strong note. For the four months over to the end of October, the portfolio has returned + 19.0%. Looking at performance over a longer time frame, VGI has made good progress since the merger of VGI and Regal Funds Management in June 2022. For the 40 months from July 1st of July 2022 to October 2025, so three years and four months, the net portfolio return is 55.0%, and the total shareholder return, including dividends grossed up for franking, is 78.5%. While this recent period of robust portfolio performance is encouraging, the share price has not fully kept pace, resulting in a widening of the discount to NTA. We have observed similar situations in the past. That is, when portfolio performance accelerates sharply, the share price often takes some time to catch up. We remain hopeful that this discount will narrow again soon. In closing, I want to express the board's sincere thanks to the investment and operations teams at Regal Partners for their hard work and dedication in managing VGI. Most importantly, thank you to you, our shareholders, for your continued support and engagement. We value the trust that you place in us and look forward to providing further updates into the future. That is my opening remarks. Thank you. We will 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, plus four resolutions to be decided. In terms of logistics, when we reach the point for questions, we will start with online questions from the webcast, then questions over the phone, then questions in the room. For those online, please remember that you can submit questions at any time during the meeting. Just please type clearly the number of the resolution that is relevant to your question or state whether it relates to our financial report or general questions, noting that 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, then press star one to register, star two to cancel. As I mentioned earlier, we will 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'd like to vote now, please do so. Alternatively, it is fine if you prefer to only vote after we've discussed each resolution. I will also allow some time at the end of the meeting for you to finalise your votes. For those voting online, if you make a mistake or change your mind, please select your preferred voting option. That will overwrite your original vote. I note that Boardroom is the returning officer 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 the discussion of each individual resolution. I advise the meeting that I'll be voting on 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 will be released to the ASX and made available on our website later today. Turning to the first item of formal business, the company is required to lay before the meeting the last audited financial statements and reports. These are released to the ASX on the 20th of August this year 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 to 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 will start with online questions. I will ask Ingrid Groer, Head of Corporate Affairs, to read out the questions as they come through on the webcast. Ingrid, please. Thanks, David. There are no online questions, and I do not think there are any phone questions, but could the operator just please confirm that? Yes, thank you. There are no phone questions currently. Okay, thanks, Ingrid. Question from the room. Shareholders' proxy holders who have a blue or red card, please put up your hand if you would like to ask a question. This is about the financials. Hello, sir. I remember you from prior years. Hello again. Our annual meeting. Welcome back. Sadly, yes. We'll see. Simon Samuel for Delta Asset Management. The company's made a tax loss of AUD 17.6 million, as you've announced. In the accounts, you show a massive franking credit deficit of in excess of AUD 21 million. That means you're paying frank dividends without having the franking to do that. My understanding is that if you do that, you have to pay a penalty tax for so doing. Are we doing that? If so, why? I am 99.9% sure the answer is no. We aren't paying penalty tax. I think it's because the accounts are at a certain period of time, and the dividends paid at another period of time. Depending on what we do with the portfolio, franking credits come and go, or they come, and then they go when we pay frank dividends. It's a timing thing, I believe. Ian or Graham, do you want to comment on that? If you do, grab a microphone. Thanks. Thank you. You're probably referring to what's known as the franking deficit tax. That will apply if the company has a negative franking balance at year-end. In the case of VGI, that's at 30 June. I can confirm that VGI had a positive franking account balance at 30 June. What that disclosure shows is that's an adjustment for not just the franking account balance at 30 June, but adjusting for what the current tax position is on the balance sheet, hence why there's a negative balance after making that adjustment. In terms of what the company has done, or the Regal Partners on behalf of the directors has been doing since 30 June, is paying corporate tax on a monthly basis to ensure that by 30 June next year, VGI has got a positive franking account balance. Please go again. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you said last year. We can see last year the deficit was AUD 7.5 million. In that, there was an item, additional franking generated from tax payments subsequent to year-end. There is no such entry for this year, which we've just had. This number is now over AUD 21 million. You've not accounted for where this magical AUD 21 million plus the next dividends franking is coming from. I'm not sure I believe you. It's on page 39 for anybody who's interested to look. No one else does that. If you haven't got franking credits, no one pays a dividend, a frank dividend anyway. All I can say is that. Yeah, take the microphone, mate. What we're doing, the approach the company is taking, is consistent with many, if not all, other listed investment companies. We are paying tax on a monthly basis to ensure that we satisfy all the relevant tax rules. We also need to take into account what VGI's investment performance is doing since 30 June this year, which has been very strong such that it's in a current tax payable position, which offsets some of that loss, current tax loss, or receivable position at 30 June 2025, such that sitting here today, I'm confident that VGI will have a positive franking account balance per the tax rules at 30 June next year. It won't show in the accounts, probably. What this tax note shows is you take your franking account balance at 30 June, at the end of every year, and then you adjust for what your current tax position is on the balance sheet, whether that is a receivable or a payable. It makes for that adjustment. It also adjusts for any upcoming dividend that has been announced. That is what you see in the note. This note will not take into account any tax, corporate tax that has been paid since 30 June 2025. What I'm telling you today is that the company has continued to pay corporate tax on a monthly basis to ensure we satisfy the relevant tax rules. I'd also note that VGI, as the global portfolio, doesn't receive the receipt of fully franked dividends, such that VGI, like most other listed investment companies that have a global portfolio, are in the similar position because they don't receive a free lunch from the receipt of fully franked dividends from overseas. Are you the auditor or the accountant? I'm the CFO of Regal Partners. With me here is. I don't know if I've got an answer from there. Yeah, Graham. Of course. That's the same thing you told me yesterday. It works. No one else does it like that. Yeah. When we've reviewed the note and we've reviewed the support from management as to the operation of the account and the timing of those payments, it's all consistent with what Ian has just walked you through in terms of those payments. I have not got anything sort of further to add to that other than there are some differences in timing, which Ian just sort of stepped through to when the accounts are drawn. We have gone through each of those steps as part of that reconciliation. Thanks, Simon. Any other questions on the accounts? David. I am sure this is okay, but it is just interesting that the profit reserve at 30 June is AUD 245 million, and the accumulated losses are AUD 294 million. There are plenty of other listed companies that have that, including on my right, the Wilson representative. A number of their companies have that as well. I am sure it is fine, but just if Ian or the auditors could clarify how that works and why they are not netted off. Thank you. The question is the profit reserve versus accounting losses elsewhere. What those disclosures are doing is consistent with what other listed companies do. I would say it is a quirk of the listed investment fund space that prompts these disclosures. At the time of any dividend payment, the board will consider a number of factors: the available cash, the strength of the balance sheet, available franking credits, and the availability of the profit reserve balance. Confirming this is consistent with what we are allowed to do. I think the question is more about why we do not have to net them off. Yeah. The accounting rules are very clear around not just the balance sheet, but also the cash flow statement that netting off is usually avoided for the purpose of additional disclosure. All I'd say, David, is obviously this is one of the benefits of LICs, is that you can, as opposed to an ETF, right, is that you can, when you have gains, you can transfer to the profit reserve for periods just like this. It is interesting currently we're out at, based on the current dividend rate, it's equivalent to nine years of future dividends with the current shares on issue. It's quite a nice buffer for trading through periods. Massive amount of food, but only one microphone. Look, I respect that. I totally respect that. I totally respect that. It is an advantage of LICs, but it is a bit of an anomaly because really, I think from memory, the IPO was done at AUD 2, and we're around about the same price. It seems that all the profits just go into the profit reserve. The losses go into separate provision. Net net, there's a small loss at 30 June. I accept the point. It's conventional. As Ian said, it's probably an anomaly. Look, I think it's been a very good four months. I actually bought a few more when Paul Moore took over. Excellent, David. That's great news. Good decision, though, about AUD 173. I thought the preview is part of the go-forward. AUD 173 on the day. I thought, even though we all admire and revere Phil, I think Paul, when he took over, I think that was a positive. One small thing, and again, it's fairly conventional, David, but I did have gone to a few fund managers' AGMs. Half of them have the fundy there. Half of them don't. I went to PGF's meeting to congratulate Paul. He didn't turn up. It looks like today none of the fundies for VGI are here. Look, it's up to the company to decide. To me, once a year, I would have thought it's— I think that's a fair comment. I mean, we will take that on board. What we do do is have separate briefings, and we try to do that closer to the end of the relevant period so that you can get a sort of a more current what happened last year. We generally go out—I think it goes in September because of August's reporting. We tend to do that because the problem with AGMs is it is a long way post the end of the financial year, obviously. I do hear your comment, David. We will consider it. Just one other general comment. I'm probably going ahead, but we had an extraordinary situation recently where Wilson and Saber acted together to change the directors on PIA. Jeff and the team assumed all the directorships, and Russell Palmer and the chairman were evicted, even though there's another four years left on the management contract. It's interesting here that, and I know all of them, I know Saber, and I know Jeff. It's interesting here that in the substantials, Jeff and Saber have nearly 13% combined. Conversely, Regal has a number of a significant holding, and also I think Phil King has got a holding. I think the company needs to be conscious of that precedent. It was a pretty remarkable transaction. It's possible that that could happen again here. Yeah, absolutely. We stand for election by rotation, including me today. That is absolutely the shareholders own the company. The sort of manager does not. Absolutely. Look, a final one. I think part of the reason it is interesting coming to these meetings and talking to the fundies is to get a feel for their investment strategy. You or Lawrence may be able, or Paul may be, Adelaide may be able to elaborate. We accept that we all get it wrong sometimes, and you feel back to Dud in the biotech and whatever. Let us write that off as just a one-off bad one. It is just interesting to, particularly at this inflection point, David, where there is a lot of crazy things happening in America. It is an absolute casino over there. Conversely, a lot of those hype stocks have halved in the last month or so, the Bitcoin treasury stocks, etc., etc. It would just be interesting to hear from someone today about how you are seeing the market. You're turning down the risk factor. You've got Goldman Sachs have come out saying that they think the S&P 500 for the next 10 years is only going to deliver 6.5% total return per annum. What I will do, even though we're drifting way off the financials, but I will cover it now, David, while you've got the microphone. Charlie, I might throw to you in a sec, but I will just make this general comment because I think it's interesting, David, and you've pointed it out, and I am genuinely pleased that you've bought some more shares. It's interesting. Paul has a general style of he may have 120% long. It's currently 115 or so, and he might have 20% short. The gross might only be 130-140. It's currently 135, and the net is still 95. Phil tends to go harder on the long and harder on the short, right? It might be 140 and 60 or 150 and 50. You end up at 200 gross, but still around 100 net. Quite a different character. It is interesting. We have only been here four months, and really, Paul's for two and a half months. I feel like it is kind of a bit of a reversion back to more of the original VGI style of that sort of gross long-short mix. It will be interesting because it is only a few months, so you cannot declare victory. Obviously, the performance has been terrific. Paul's long, long track record is outstanding. We are kind of excited to see where it might go. There is just some general. Charlie, do you want to add? David, can you just give the mic to Charlie for a sec? Charlie, please. Yeah, thanks, David, and thanks, David. Look, I'd say in regards to VGI, the material change that's happened under Paul is a lowering of the gross exposure. Under Phil's stewardship, the gross exposure usually ran around the full exposure at 200%, and we generally run 100%-110% net long. So Paul, in this transition phase, and it is still a transition phase as we transfer the portfolio more to Paul Moore's style and Marco and Henry's style. The biggest change would be the gross exposure dropping from 200% to about 135% this morning, and the net exposure is about 95%. In terms of exposure to the racist stocks in the world, you can assume we're not involved in those. They're not Paul Moore's cup of tea, and we're running some short exposure in some of those names as well. You can see from the weekly NTAs that the portfolio is hanging in pretty well in this environment. I think that's really the biggest change is the gross exposure coming down, taking leverage out of the portfolio. I think you can see Paul's footprints all over the portfolio now, but we do need to still keep making a few changes from the past. Look, thank you. Again, thanks for indulging my discussion on strategy because it's probably the single most important thing, David, particularly given the change from Phil, who's obviously a genius, but to Paul, who's a different style. We accept that the actual total exposure is going to drop under Paul. That makes sense. Thanks, Charlie, for clarifying that the risk-on will probably drop as well. There won't be any biotechs and whatever. If you look around the market briefly for comparison, the crack global managers like Chris Mackay, I think it's very, very good. He's at the moment 15% cash. He's probably about 20% in the American mega techs, but very conservative. He doesn't churn the portfolio. His performance has been outstanding for a long time. If we go to the other end of the spectrum, the superbly marketed L1 group, LSF actually has only delivered around about 12% since IPO. They claim to be the best long-short in Australia. That's because they talk about returns since inception of strategy when they only had $20 million or $30 million when they were private. The real number is 12%, and they're geared up 200%, $2 billion fund, but they've got $4 billion of assets. They're pretty aggressive, and their performance has been average considering the leverage. There are a whole lot of different approaches. I do respect what Paul did because, as you said, Charlie, he's not into the aggressive stocks. I don't think he's into any of the mega techs. He's certainly not into the high-risk stocks. Yet he's delivered, I think from memory, about 25% in the last two or three years, which is an outstanding performance. He's trading at a premium to NTA. You've got to give him credit. I would say that for a large-scale manager, he's probably about the best in Australia at the moment. It ebbs and flows and varies. I think it is a positive that Paul is going to focus on it. Clearly, he's not the day-to-day guy. I think in your monthly reports, you've got a couple of other guys who are handling the day-to-day, which is similar to what happens at PGF, where Paul headlines it, but there's a couple of guys who I met at the meeting who do it. They did come along at the meeting, those two guys, which was good. Say hello to them. I think it's an inflection point, David. I think you've been honest enough to say that last year was tough, but look, let's look forward. 16% in the first four months is great, and it looks like it's back on track. Yeah. Yeah. Great, David. Thank you. Now I'll be facetious and say any more questions on the accounts. Simon. Please, Simon. In the accounts, you state. Which page, man? On page six, second paragraph, the post-tax net tangible assets was $2.06. Once again, this post-tax reporting is not what the convention is with the other LICs. We need to know what the pre-tax numbers are because in post-tax, you can include all sorts of nasties like deferred tax assets, which may or may not be realized. The same thing happens in the monthly NTA reporting. You just show the post-tax numbers. You just show post-tax. You're arguing for pre. Everyone else shows pre. Pre. Both would be nice, but we will take it on board. We have looked at this a number of times, whether we do pre, post, so realized, unrealized. We will take it on board, Simon. Paul Moore's fund that has both. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions on the accounts? Okay. If not, we will now move on then to the four. Hang on. Done that. I am on the wrong page. Okay. We're going to go to resolution one, which is the REM report. Under the Corporations Act, listed companies are required to include as part of their directors' report a remuneration report. The remuneration report is for the financial year end of 30 June and is included in our annual report. The Corporations Act requires companies to put shares on non-binding vote to enable shareholders to voice their opinion on matters included in the REM report. Given the vote is advisory, it does not bind the company. However, we do take into account the outcome of the vote when considering future remuneration decisions. At this point, it's worth noting that Regal Partners, the manager, pays the bulk of VGI's operating costs, including the cost of this AGM. This is a central plank of the Regal Partners' philosophy of alignment. As a result, VGI only bears the cost of the non-executive directors plus the D&O insurance. This was really because it was not appropriate for the manager to pay for those. This is the world's smallest REM report, I think. The board, sorry, excuse me, recommends that shareholders vote in favor of adopting the 2025 REM report. I will now move this resolution. Are there any questions or comments on the REM report? Ingrid, start with the online and the phone, please. Anything on the REM? Currently, no questions online or on the phone. Anything in the room on the REM? David. As you say, David, the REM report here is a little bit redundant. Some REM reports these days are about 35-40 pages long. Look, it is an anomaly of the LIC industry and the funds management industry that quite correctly, I'm sure everything's done quite correctly, the real REM issues are more in the manager, not in the LICs. Again, I'm not being critical. You're doing it spot on, David, as you would expect. If anyone from government was here listening, ASIC or whatever, it would be much more interesting for investors in LICs to understand the alignment of the actual managers, the individual managers, rather than with respect to the board directors who play an important role, but perhaps not as critical as the managers. Nothing that you can change, but it's just a great anomaly, and it applies to every listed fund. The REM reports, to be frank, are a joke. Thanks. Okay. Thanks, David. Look, I could comment on the Regal REM structure, but generally, I do not think that is helpful. I do kind of agree with you, David. It is a bit of an anomaly. Okay. I will now put the proxy votes up on the screen. If there are no more questions or comments, open proxy in favor of the Chair of the meeting. The time of the meeting will be voted in favor, as I have said earlier. Adjusting for these is approximately 30.1 million in favor, 0.1 million at other proxy discretion, and 1.95 million against. That is a 93.6% in favor outcome. Those in the room with blue cards, or if you are a shareholder, proxy holders are eligible to vote online. Could you please now complete resolution one? You can always do them all later. Now we are going to go to resolution two, which relates to me. I'll have my colleague Lawrence come up and drive this bit, please. Do you want to? Oh, good. Thanks, David. We will now move on to resolution two, the reelection of Mr. David Jones as director of the company. With regard to this resolution, David Jones was appointed to the board in 2017. Mr. Jones is retiring by rotation and, being eligible, is standing for reelection in accordance with clause 6.7 of the company's constitution. Mr. Jones's details are set out in the explanatory memorandum of the notice of meeting and are highlighted here on this slide. In summary, Mr. Jones has more than 30 years' experience in investment markets, the majority as a general partner in private equity firms, and prior to that in general management and management consulting. Mr. Jones has been a board member of numerous private and public businesses, including in the wealth management sector. In 2021, Mr. Jones was made a member of the Order of Australia for significant services to the museums and gallery sector and to the community. In terms of other listed companies, Mr. Jones is currently a director of Regal Asian Investments Limited and the chair of Catalyst Metals Limited. Mr. Jones is also a member of VGI's audit and risk committee. The board, with Mr. Jones abstaining, supports the reelection of Mr. Jones as a director. I now move that David Jones be reelected as a director of the company. Ingrid, are there any online questions for this resolution? There are currently no online or phone questions. Okay. Are there any questions in the room? David? I'd just like to endorse the candidacy of Mr. Jones. He's charismatic. I'm just about to roll out the compliments. He's charismatic, erudite. At times, we've had a couple of interesting debates over the years, but that's probably all behind us. I think David's an eminently excellent chairman. Always cracks a few jokes. I'm sure that you'll be chairman at the end of this meeting, David. Well done. Thanks for your endorsement, David. Thank you. Are there any other questions in the room? Ingrid, are there any further questions online or on the phone? No further questions. Okay. I will now 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 approximately 32.2 million in favor, 0.1 million other proxy discretion, and 1.77 million against. This equates to 94.4% in favor, 0.4% other proxy discretion, and 5.2% against. Could everyone now please complete your vote for resolution two? Thank you. I would now like to invite David Jones back to chair the remainder of the AGM. Great. Thanks, Lawrence. Now, resolution three, the reelection of Adelaide McDonald. With regard to this resolution, Adelaide was appointed to the board in 2019. She's retiring by rotation and being eligible and standing for reelection in accordance with clause 6.7 of the company's constitution. Ms. McDonald's details are set out in the explanatory memorandum of the notice of meeting, and they're shown here on the slide. In summary, Adelaide has over 17 years' experience in corporate advisory and equity research. She's currently non-executive director of Highcom Limited, as well as a non-executive director of Future Generation Global, part of the WAM portfolio, or at least related entities, and is an independent non-executive director of Regal Asian Investments Limited. In addition, Adelaide's been a director of KPMG in the M&A practice and previous roles at Wilson, HTM, and BDO Kendalls. She's a member of the VGI Audit and Risk Committee, the board, with Adelaide abstaining. Supports the reelection of Ms. McDonald as a director. I now move that Adelaide McDonald be reelected as director of the company. Ingrid, any online or on phone? There are no questions online or on the phone. Anything here, David? Look, I'm sure Adelaide will be reelected, but I'm just interested in what's Regal and the company's strategy. I think I've had the pleasure of attending quite a lot of the AGMs in the last probably four or five years. Are you looking, chair, at some new directors? Because I think, not questioning the capability of the current team, but it has been the same group of directors for some time. Are you looking at refreshing the team at some stage in the future? Not immediately, however. We are coming up to our 10-year, our first manager contract. And that's September 27. It sort of means this time next year, we will have to start to be really thinking about what is the next chapter to approve. As I'm sure you know, David, but these things roll on a five-year manager contract. It's typical though at an IPO, you can get exemptions, so nearly everyone goes out with 10, which is what we did. We have two five-year periods. I think that matter will come more into the frame going forward, coming up to a renewal of the management contract, which is a question for shareholders. Hello? Yeah. Thanks for that. Very dangerous to say that, mention the 10 years with Wilson representative in the room. Be careful, David. I'm sure it's already on people's screens. Thanks. Thanks, David. Okay. Anything else for Adelaide? If not, I will show the proxies on the screen. Proxies in favor of the chair will be voted. Adjusting for these, the votes are 32.4 million in favor, 0.1 million other, and 1.9 million against. So 94% in favor. Please complete your vote for resolution three. Thank you. I'll now move to resolution four, change of the company name. As shown on the slide, resolution four is that for the purposes of section 157 of the Corps Act 2001, and for all other purposes, approval is given for the name of VGI Partners Global Investments Limited to be changed to Regal Partners Global Investments Limited. So changing VGI to Regal. The board believes this change of name appropriately reflects VGI's differentiated market proposition and the recent realignment of investment management responsibilities resulting in Chief Investment Officer oversight for VGI portfolio transitioning to Paul Moore, as we've discussed. Paul is Regal's CIO of global equities. Subject to shareholder approval of the change of the company's name, the company will change its ASX code from VGI to RGI. As you'll know, that'll bring it in line with RGI. The investment management agreement with Regal Partners will be amended to update the provisions relating to the company's right to use the VGI name, logo, and brand so that they instead refer to Regal. The board recommends that shareholders vote in favor of resolution four. I now move resolution four. Ingrid, anything online or on the phone? There is actually one online question which was submitted at the start of the meeting. At the time, they asked to further explain the rationale for the name change. As from their experience, this action normally occurs, it results in the renamed company performing badly and frequently ending up in liquidation. Yeah. I'm not sure about that last editorial comment. Look, I'll just sort of say that we and the manager, right? Please, Charlie, Rob, I welcome your comments here. We just thought that there's very little of the VGI Partners DNA left. We thought the time was right to do it now. We obviously moved quicker with VGI that became RGI. That was because at that time, Rob Luciano was still running the VGI long-short global portfolio, and Phil took over RGI, the Asian portfolio. We did not want to make that change. We have been thinking about this for some time, and frankly, we were going to look at it six months ago or 12 months ago. With some of the bumps we have talked about in the portfolio, we thought it was better to do it now. Yeah, I do not think it is a big deal, but I think it is more consistent with where reality is at, frankly. That would be my comments. Rob or Charlie, do you want to add anything to that, or are you fine? Fine? No, I think you summarized that very well. Right. The only thing I would add, sorry. Rob, just grab a mic. Sorry. The only thing I'd add, Rob Saunders, Head of Distribution at Regal, is this is also, I guess, ultimately a resolution that's been put to us by a number of investors around the name change. I think VGI Global Investments reflects ultimately a legacy group of individuals that were managing the portfolio. We're in a fortunate position that the Regal business in market does carry some weight. It's a AUD 20 billion asset manager. Part of our process here is delivering great returns, but it's also being out there and prosecuting the story and having the Regal brand behind it, in our view, is certainly a powerful additive to it. And then, as you said, solidifying Paul's position as the CIO with oversight over the portfolio and Paul's position as the CIO of global equities for Regal Partners itself, I think all coming together makes sense for this change to be made. Thanks, Rob. Assuming the person on the phone hasn't put in a subsequent comment or question. No? No further comments or questions. Okay. Thank you. In the room, anything on this? Some? Yeah. Look, the number of shareholders has dropped by 50% over the last five years. Changing the name probably helped. Changing the manager, that's obviously helped since Paul Moore has taken control, if you like. Could we give some thought to a merger of this company with the PM fund? Yeah. Look, that seems to be the—that's trading at a premium, I imagine, to NTA. You've not been able to get the discount out of this. We do the same things. We're going to have the same manager and likely the same assets in the fund. Surely it makes sense to put the two together. Yeah. What I'd say is, look, it's still very early days, but nothing's on the table. Nothing is off. When When I say it's very early days, very early days with Paul running this portfolio or overseeing it. Henry and Marco really run it, but Paul, and when you sit with Paul, he talks a lot about the P word, which is process. He's overseeing the processes and making sure that the investment process that he likes and has proven for him over decades is really driven through this portfolio, so through Marco and Henry. I'd say it is early days, and that's not on the table now, but I wouldn't rule anything out. Are we going to have further questions after these? Yep. Okay. Of course. David, just hang on for the microphone. Look, I think that's a sensible response, Chair. I remember in one of our meetings, someone asked you the question of whether there'd be a merger between VGI and RF1, and you, I think, quite correctly said no because RF1 has a very different strategy, multi-tranche type approach. I think Simon's question is obviously a valid one, particularly as Paul's overseeing both. Yeah, look, no urgency, but I think it's a valid issue to raise. We always crack a couple of jokes, David, but I think, as you would expect, I would endorse the change of name as you've proposed. I previously, a few years ago, suggested that in a jocular manner, that the name should be changed to the Rob Luciano Punting Fund, which obviously was a joke, but I think it made it into the press. I think it's a sensible approach. I think the comments from Rob Saunders are correct. It's time to move on. I think everyone would appreciate the change of name. Thanks. Great. Thanks for your comments there, David. Okay. That is resolution four then. Just on terms of the voting, as you've all suggested, overwhelming interest in doing this. These are the proxies: 32.7 million in favor. That's 98.9%. Everyone thinks this is a good idea. If you haven't voted, vote for resolution four now, please. Right. Now it's general questions. Ingrid, any general or others online or on the phone, please? There are no further questions at this point online or on the phone. Right. Simon, you were threatening something a minute ago, please. You've dropped the 20% buyback capability. You've not been using it much anyway, apart from the last few days where you seem to have hurried it up because this one's ending. Why is that? Why have we given up on doing buyback? Yeah. Look, I think I'd say a couple of things. We had thought we'd go harder, but frankly, we had some months of really bumpy performance. And whilst the buyback can help a bit, we think the buyback works best when you've got a lot of planets aligning, some sort of performance, some momentum, and you can tighten things up. Last year really did not present a lot of or as many opportunities for that as we would have thought, genuinely. On the days when we were buying, we were buying pretty hard, like of the order of a third of the stock that was traded. You have to be careful that you are not sort of going bananas. We saw the discount improve. Obviously, April, May, as we have spoken about, were really rough with Opthea and then with Donald Trump, etc. We are hopeful that it will—I am sorry. We are firmly of the view it will remain part of the mix. We have always said, if you like, there is this holy trinity, and they are kind of in this order of performance, distribution capability, and then capital management. Capital management is dividends and buyback. It is like A, B, C, C1, and C2. It has never been the thing. Some people have used the phrase that buybacks are a sugar hit in that they help, but then when you stop, they're gone. They're a—what do they say? High carb and low nutritional value idea. As part of that suite, we think they're real. We were genuine about trying to give it a crack last year. We didn't get as many opportunities as we had hoped. I wouldn't say we've given up at all. We just don't need approval to do the regular 1012 program. We're doing it. As part of—and hopefully with continued strong and most importantly, portfolio performance. All right. I'll throw another one into the mix for you to consider. Seems to work for other LICs. The investors don't seem to care what the makeup of the fund is. All you have to do is pay dividends monthly. That has closed up the discounts for several not very well-performing funds. The punters presumably love the idea of getting paid monthly. I know it is more expensive to do that for you, but the discount goes away. To be honest with you, that has not come up much. That is not really on the screen, I do not think. I mean, Charlie or Rob? No. I mean, we have some guys, and I am not just saying it, but Charlie and Rob are deep experts at this stuff. Would you guys like to seriously comment on it, please? Because look, I know this sounds facetious, but I really appreciate your thoughts, Simon, and David, and everyone. Simon, it is a fair question. In our travels, we do go around the country seeing all the stockbrokers, wealth advisors, etc. I cannot remember a monthly income question coming up about VG1. I take your point that there are some that have been re-rated, definitely on monthly income, but we have not encountered that question yet. I do not know the mechanics of how that would be easily manageable for us in a global portfolio, but I would have to say in our travels, we have not encountered that. Most people seem reasonably happy with semi-annual dividends and the dividend guidance, if you want to call it that, from the board and the maintainability of that dividend at this moment. I do not want to put her on the spot, but there is a gentleman from Wilson here. They have got a monthly fund. They cannot sell enough of it. It is flying out the door. It is performing terribly. Did someone say that? I have never seen it. We have just come out of it. Stay out of it. We've just come from the Sandon AGM, and even the manager there has acknowledged that the paying of monthly dividends, which has only happened in the last three months, the discount has halved. Wow. It is a smaller vehicle, but possibly, I mean, some of that depends on the direction of—Charlie, you will have to grab the mic just for people online. From my observation, some of that can be to do with the direction of cash rates at the same time. A lot of these retail LICs, if you want to put it that way, the discounts do seem to be somewhat related to the cash rate or at that, and cash rates have been falling up until recently. Look, it depends a little bit on the register, would be my view as well. This is probably more of a sophisticated wholesale-advised investor base that's on the VG1 register. Most of it is direct wholesale investors and also those advised by the larger wealth management firms. They seem quite comfortable with the semi-annual dividend policy, but they did react well to the guidance that was given from the board, I think, 12 months ago, about AUD 0.06 semi-annually. That did seem to help us with the discount at the time. By our own mistake, we'd made the Opthea mistake and undid a little bit of that at the time in terms of sentiment. I think it was well taken by advisors and investors, remembering that this LIC does have quite a wholesale investor base. Look, Simon, thank you. We will consider it. I will say, though, it's not near the top of the list. That's the sort of comment that you're hearing. I tried the other way, buybacks for years, and it hasn't worked. No, no. I absolutely concur with that. I can tell you that paying monthly does work. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. David. Look, I think the elephant in the room is the one that's opening up now that four months ago, Paul Moore took the reins. Secondly, you're changing the name. To me, it's a fairly easy decision to then move to a merger because you've got Paul Moore's entity, which has capped at around about AUD 1.3 billion. I think it'd be a little bit harder, David, if they were equal or if Paul Moore's entity was smaller. But because it's the one that's got the high rating, it's trading at a premium. Its performance has been outstanding for several years. Because it is AUD 1.3 billion versus sort of just under AUD 500 million here, I think that makes a merger a lot easier to deliver. I do think that is the way that you will really tighten the discount. Obviously, it is on the agenda. You have acknowledged it is on the agenda. I think it is a smart move if you do it, David, in the not-too-distant future. Thanks. Thanks for the comment. Just to correct it, I said it is not on the agenda, but nothing is off the agenda, David. See, David, as I said, and when I endorsed his re-election as a director, he is incredibly erudite, intelligent. He should be in politics because that was a nuance. I will defer to you, David. Thank you. Your precise recollection is probably more accurate, but I think the theme of what I said was correct, even if the semantics were not. I think it should be on the agenda, David. Thank you. Your comments and Simon's comments are noted. Thank you. Okay. Any other—hang on. Yeah, we are in general land. Yes. Any other general questions? Okay. Lots of granularity to the question that I asked you today. Yeah. Just hang on for the mic, Charlie. David asked a question about exposure to the raciest stocks in America. I just thought the shareholders probably appreciate a little bit more granularity on what we own on your behalf. The gross gearing of the portfolio at this moment in time is 135%. The net exposure is about 94%. That is reasonably conservative. If you look at the raciest part of the market, information technology, the VG1 portfolio currently maintains a weighting of 10.1%. The two largest investments there are Amazon.com and Taiwan Semiconductor, both to be considered high-quality liquid investments. So we're materially underweight IT. The material overweights are financials at 30%, which include Irish, U.K., and European banks. The other overweight is materials, which includes gold equities and other mining companies at about 34%. The overall PE of the portfolio would be quite low versus the benchmark, and we have materially underweight information technology. Thanks, Charlie. Hey, look, and thanks, shareholders. I'll conclude the meeting. And I've probably got some final comments I'm supposed to make here rather than just winging it. Other than I will say, Lawrence will tease me because this is twice as long as the RG8 meeting. Right. In case you haven't completed your voting during the meeting, I'll now give you a chance to vote. As mentioned earlier, Boardroom, who are our share registry, will conduct a poll using voting cards you can lodge in the room. The online votes that you submit today and the votes that were cast online before the meeting. Is there any person in the room who believes they're entitled to vote but not registered to vote? Could you please raise your hand for assistance? As a reminder for those in the room, the persons entitled to vote in this poll are all shareholders or proxy holders holding blue cards. On the reverse of the card is your voting paper and instructions. Please ensure you print your name where indicated. Sign the voting paper. When you finish your voting, please return your card to Boardroom to ensure your votes are counted. The Boardroom staff will be able to help you if you need more time and assistance. Assuming that's all done, I'll declare the poll closed, formally charge Boardroom to count the votes. The results of today's AGM will be released to the market and made available on VG1's website later today. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no other form of this meeting, so I declare this AGM of VGI Partners Global Investments Limited, soon to be called something else, closed. I would like to thank everyone for attending today's meeting. By all means, reach out if you would like to have any further questions about the company. Thank you, Simon and David, particularly, but all of you for coming. That is it. We are done. Thank you.