Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today for the WAM Alternative Assets FY 2026 Results Webinar. I'm April Lowis from our investor relations team, and today I'm joined by WAM Alternative Assets Portfolio Manager, Nick Kelly, and Investment Analyst, Jacob Grover. On your screen, you'll see a disclaimer. Everything we discuss today is general in nature and is not financial advice. During today's webinar, Nick will discuss the portfolio's FY 2026 results, before Jacob provides an update on the dividends and the broader outlook for the portfolio. Please submit your questions throughout the webinar, and we'll answer them in the latter part of the webinar. I'll now pass over to Nick. Wonderful. Thanks, April, and good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. On the screen here, you can see the results for the year ended June 30 2026. Importantly, the WMA portfolio had a strong year. The underlying investment portfolio, we delivered 9.1% returns, which is quite a bit higher than the last few years. It's obviously been, we've talked about this portfolio taking time to mature, and particularly the private equity investments coming out of that J-curve, and so we're pleased with those results. Interestingly, of the 9.1%, we delivered 11.3% returns with the newer investments that we've made, and the legacy investments which were in the portfolio that we inherited from its Blue Sky days detracted around 2.2%. That's how we get to that 9.1%. Importantly, legacy assets have reduced in the portfolio, so we're now down to just over 10% in legacy assets, which is a great result. The total shareholder return, you can see there, the middle bar, 8.7% for the year. That's the share price performance plus dividends and franking, which was a strong result, especially against, you can see there, the blue bar, against what the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index did over the year of 5.7%. Importantly as well that this performance has been generated with significantly less risk or less volatility than [Australian] equity. The 9.1% that we've delivered on the underlying portfolio for WMA has been delivered with volatility of around 2.7% over the 12 months, and that compares to a volatility of over 10% on the equities on the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index. Being able to deliver such strong returns with effectively less volatility along the way, a smoother journey if you like, is what this portfolio is designed to do for investors. So we're really pleased with those results. As I said, sort of coming back out and maturing. Since inception, you can see there, since October 2020, when we took on this portfolio from Blue Sky, we've delivered 8.9%, which we're really pleased with. The sort of return target that we're looking to generate with this portfolio is around 10%, so we're getting back to that number. This slide here breaks down the performance in a little bit more detail. You can see here the year-by-year performance, and then each of those various colors on the bar chart are the various asset classes we invest in. You can see the 9.1% that we delivered for FY 2026. A bit over half of that has been generated through our private equity portfolio, which is maturing. It has taken some time, but it is now starting to really hit its stride, so we saw some really strong revaluations in private equity. Natural capital, so that is our water and agriculture investments, generated slightly positive returns. The outlook for water in particular is very positive over the next year, so we are quite bullish on that. Infrastructure was a great investment, tends to be very resilient, has strong inflation linkages, and so has done well through a heightened inflationary period. Real estate and private debt have contributed as well. That contribution level, with almost half of it coming from private equity, is not unexpected, given that we have circa 40% of our portfolio allocated to private equity. Jacob is going to talk you through that shortly in terms of how that is split and how we have been allocating over time. You can see here as well that line, that J-curve, and that really is that period of the portfolio maturing. The last three years, obviously, returns have been somewhat depressed as the portfolio has had to be invested and mature. These things take time. We obviously inherited this portfolio from Blue Sky back in 2020. You can see in 2021 and 2022, we had strong returns from some of the assets that were initially sold, and then the other assets that have taken longer from that legacy portfolio to realize. New cash has been invested, but importantly, we are coming back out of that J-curve now. Very exciting times ahead. Importantly, we have also had 24 exits, so underlying businesses that have been sold and realized since October 2020, and they have averaged out at a 28.3% premium to NTA. That is a really important proof point when it comes to these underlying assets. We often get the question from investors: Is the value that we are saying is in the NTA the actual value? That is the proof point, right? A 24 exits at an average of near 30% premium to where they have been held in the portfolio, if anything, shows the portfolio is relatively conservative valued over time. So we are really pleased with that performance, and importantly, the outlook for the next 12 months looks really solid as well. With that, I am going to hand over to Jake, who is going to talk you through dividends. Thanks, Nick. With that strong performance, the board was able to announce a final partially franked dividend of AUD 0.03 per share. That takes the full-year dividend to AUD 0.06 per share, partially franked at 60%. You can see on the screen, that is a div yield of about 6%, or grossed up 7.5%. The profit reserve is still relatively healthy. We have got over two years of dividend coverage, just under two years once this final dividend will be paid. Maybe just a note to pause on with the partially franked dividend, some of the reasoning behind that, the board were discussing in relation to this dividend. As Nick was taking us through that J-curve that we've seen, the portfolio where the private equity investments we've made have had to mature over time, it means that a lot of those 24 exits that we've had were in the first few years of the portfolio, and since most of the new investments that we've made haven't yet exited because they're not at that time in their time horizon. The franking account represents taxable income, which generally is realized gains or exits or distributions that we get back. The profit reserve is a symbol of realized gains and unrealized gains. That's why we've got a healthy profit reserve balance here, but the franking balance is a bit lower. We expect over time, as the portfolio matures and as some of these assets exit, they'll become closer to being similar numbers and then the franking balance will get higher. It is an objective of this company and of the board to pay fully franked dividends. We hope to get back there. The timeframe of that, whether it's six, 12, 18 months, depends on the exit environment, but that is an objective of the board. We might now move to the portfolio on the next slide. I'll take you through some of the key changes that you can see here on this pie chart. The biggest one that you'll probably see first is private equity in the dark orange on the top right, has increased significantly from 26% - 36%. A lot of that we have committed to two new funds during this financial year, and we've also done a handful of co-investments, but most of that movement is us actually deploying to the funds that we've already committed to as they've found deals and drawn capital from us. That 36% number is about right in terms of what we're thinking for the portfolio, between 35% and 40% long term. That part of the portfolio will be where you'll see most of the turnover in our portfolio. As assets mature, they're exited, we invest into new private equity funds, and there'll be a bit of recycling there. But that will stay in the kind of 30%-40% range long term. Next, you've got water. You can see water's dropped from about 15.5% - 12.5% over the year. Importantly, that's us taking money off the table and reinvesting it elsewhere. It's still within the range that we would like it to be, which is that 10%-15%, and we have quite a strong outlook for water going forward. We expect that as performance improves with water, that allocation will start to creep up again, and if it gets over kind of 15%, 16%, 17%, we'll again look to take money off the table. Infrastructure has remained relatively stable, still around that 15%. That's reflective of the nature of the returns that we get from infrastructure. There's yield that's accrued from these underlying assets that then is paid out to us semi-annually. The number of what the NAV represents in our portfolio should stay relatively stable because most of the return we are actually getting paid back. In terms of real estate, that has grown similar to private equity, where we have seen the growth funds that we are invested in call more capital from us as they have seen more deals. That 15% for both real estate and infrastructure is about right. 15%-20% is kind of the long-term target, and it will fluctuate within there. Agriculture, you can see, has come down slightly. There has been one or two minor assets that were sold during the year, and we still are holding onto one or two legacy assets there that are actively being exited. The last one I will touch on is private debt. That has moved from 4.3% - 8.4%, so it has increased. That is the commitment to Longreach's private credit fund that we made around June 2025, and then deployed throughout that financial year. It is still within our target of 10% or less in private debt, and it has been a really great source of income within the portfolio. I know private debt is all over the news at the moment, private credit and Bathla and everything that is going on. I thought I might pass to Nick here because he has been in the news a few times as well, chatting it through, and to give us a bit of an update on what is happening and how it is different from our portfolio. Thanks, Jake. You cannot escape the private credit news at the moment. I guess a few key things to start with. Firstly, we do not have any real estate debt exposure in our portfolio. We only have corporate debt exposure. As a result of that, we have no exposure to Bathla. I think that was a question that came through from one of our shareholders. We do not have any exposure to Bathla or to real estate debt. Stepping back, we like private credit, as an asset class, it does provide a diversified yield. It can be an interesting asset class, and asset managers have raised capital to fill the void of the banks as banks have stepped away from lending to certain segments of the market. The asset class will continue to exist long term. The challenges we are seeing now, some of them are structural challenges, they are not just cyclical issues. We are going to see some rationalization in the asset class. We are going to see some asset managers who have provided lending, that have not been as disciplined as others, fail, frankly. We probably need some of that because there are too many private credit managers in this country at the moment. There is over 300 different groups out there raising capital. We probably need 20 in this country. Looking at the Bathla example specifically, why did this sort of group get in trouble? I think it is important to have a look at this. Real estate developers have got a pretty tough job at the moment. We have got house prices going one way, and we have got construction costs going the other way. The difference between the two is the development margin, and it is shrinking, and in the case of Bathla, has gone negative. You add to that the context of these groups seeking debt from private credit players in the market and taking on too much leverage. You take that plus the housing crisis that we are currently in, and you have got a bit of a recipe for disaster, and that is what we have seen with Bathla and I suspect some other developers that are going to face some challenges soon as well. What has come to light here, we have got lots of lenders that have provided credit to this group. Some of them have taken active roles in taking over the various sites that they have got to ensure that these homes are completed, and they can try and get back the capital that they have lent and the interest it has earned. I suspect they are not all going to get that capital back. I know a lot of them have come out and promised that to investors. I am not sure that is going to be the case across the board. A couple of lenders have obviously provided some emergency funding to try and allow Bathla to keep operating under its building license and complete this work. One of the challenges is, if it does go into full administration insolvency, is their building license will likely be revoked, at which point you need to bring in new developers to complete the work. If I am a developer coming into a half-built project and there is already some complaints around the quality of the build, there is a price point, obviously, that I am going to come in and be charging for that. I guess, the people that will suffer the most from this are obviously the homeowners that put down deposits. Unfortunately, those individuals, those moms and dads, rank as unsecured creditors in this situation. They rank below a lot of these private credit groups. I suspect many of them will be sitting there with half-built homes for some time to come. There will be insurance claims and other things, and this is going to take some time to play out. But I suspect it is not going to be the only group. Probably a couple of other things are important to look at here on the private credit side, is some of these groups have had far too much exposure to one counterparty. All right. I think we've seen reports in the press of upwards of 20% of the loan books allocated to Bathla. We've talked about this before in these sort of webinars and at Meet the Manager sessions, that in private credit, it is all left tail risk. The best you can hope for is someone pays you back principal plus interest. It is important to ensure that you have a very diversified portfolio of loans, and that's diversification by counterparty, by geography, by asset type, by collateral, et cetera. Lending sort of 20% of your book to one party, is poor risk management, right? I think that's a really key one for us and something we look at with our private credit managers being ICG and Longreach to ensure they've got diversified credit portfolios. Also, transparency around valuations, where these loans are marked at. We've talked about this before. If you see a private credit loan book and everything's marked at par, that's usually a red flag. Not everything goes to plan, and we want to see managers take a proactive approach to taking marks and hits on some of those valuations where things perhaps don't go to plan. That's what we've seen with both of our managers that are in our portfolio here. They're a few things to look out for. It is topical. I suspect it will continue to feature in the press. It does create opportunities as well. Wentworth, as an example, one of our real estate partners, we've been talking to them around, is there an opportunity here? Do any of these providers of the debt on the other side look to exit their positions at maybe AUD 0.50, AUD 0.60 on the dollar? Could we come in and buy them? Right. Distressed real estate credit is an asset class. We can invest in it. We'll continue to look at that space and potentially allocate to it if it gets to a price point that we think is really attractive, where we can get some rebound when we end up getting some house price appreciation in a year or two. That does create opportunities as others exit the market and face their own challenges. We continue to be on the lookout for those investment opportunities. Yeah, great. No, that's super helpful. I think we're, as Nick said, we're very comfortable with our private debt position, and it's very different to what's going on— Yep. —go through it for the shareholders. One other thing to note on, sorry, on that previous slide before we move forward, is just the cash balance that you can see has come down considerably. You can also see that kind of pink slice at 2.9% that's been added to the cash balance. Now, that's the treasury tool that we implemented around September last year. It's a low-risk, downside preservation, fixed income strategy. It aims to give us a little bit over cash and just maximize the returns that we have when we're holding cash to satisfy these uncalled capital commitments. So you can think of that 2.9%, 2.7% together as what we use to service our capital commitments as they come due. But naturally, that will flex down as our private equity and our real estate flex up. As we get exits, again, that will flex out equally. If we move on to the next slide now. Won't spend too much time here. It's another breakdown of our portfolio and maybe an easier way to visualize the asset classes and the underlying managers that we partner with. You've got red and blue here as well to signify kind of what are the growth drivers in our portfolio and, for blue, what are the income drivers and the inflation linkage and the more defensive positions. The things that we're probably most excited about at the moment are the private equity part of the book that's maturing, and we'll touch on that a bit further in the next slide. But also we've got Wentworth here in real estate, in opportunistic real estate. They're essentially buying very high-quality real estate assets where someone's looking to sell for a reason other than the asset itself. It might be a fund manager who's getting to the end of their fund life. This is the last asset in the book. It hasn't kind of gone to plan. They're looking to just get rid of it at a cheap price. It might be a REIT that's listed and under pressure from its shareholders, and they're looking to get things done quickly and quietly. Wentworth have the expertise to come in and handle these assets that might have a bit of hair on them with zoning complexities or heritage or aspects like that. Now, a lot of the portfolio that they've acquired has been over the last two years of what we're invested in, which means most of it's held at cost or even below cost because they've had to pay for stamp duty and other upfront fees. We have quite a positive outlook on this part of the portfolio going forward, regardless of where rates go, because they have acquired it so cheaply. The other point to touch on is water in the Argyle Water Fund. We have talked a lot about this, in Livewire, in the news, and other things about our thesis for water. We are very positive on it. There has been a mix of a shrinking supply with the government buyback and also some dry conditions driving up spot prices. On top of that, agriculture and commodity prices are quite strong at the moment, soft commodities. There has been a lot of planting by farmers, and there will be a lot of water need going forward. Part of the portfolio that is one to keep an eye on. We are very excited about that going forward. Other two things to point out here are just maybe two of the legacy assets that we are still looking to exit. You have SAF AgriPartners in the agriculture side. That is mainly a citrus farm that we have out in Griffith that is currently actively being exited. Then also January Capital, the venture capital part of our portfolio that is legacy. Again, it will be coming back to us at some point soon. If we move on to the next slide, I just want to touch a bit more on private equity and what that portfolio really looks like. Our colleague, Jasper, who is also an analyst in the team, put out an article recently on why we think boring is beautiful. Love a bit of alliteration. There are two businesses here that we might highlight, and really the purpose of this is to show that the businesses that we are invested in through these private equity groups, they are not what you might think of venture capital or private equity with software or AI or things that are new products that have a lot of risk surrounding them and potentially some displacement risk. They are really, a lot of these businesses, the nuts and bolts of industries. A great example of that is Bremick Fasteners, who literally sell nuts and bolts and screws and fasteners. They are one of the world's largest suppliers. Crescent bought Bremick about four or five years ago. We have invested in Bremick through their fund. Bremick was already a very successful business owned by a family who wanted to take it to the next level, but needed the capital to do so, and also wanted to have a partner alongside them who could drive that strategy, and Crescent were the natural fit. Crescent have made some fairly simple changes. They have acquired different parts of Bremick's supply chain to make sure that they can improve margins, and also that they have secured capacity for future. That looks like buying a factory that they have in China. They have been looking at implementing a new factory into Vietnam as well, which they are about to complete the construction on, to diversify their supply chain. But also for any incoming buyers, where there is a bit of maybe U.S.-China tension, the China risk comes down because they have got a factory in Vietnam as well that they can pivot to if needed and can help increase their supply. And some other simple things. They sell out of their own brand, but they also sell white label products for other brands, and they have shifted more towards those own brand products from about 30% when Crescent took over to about 50% now to capture more of that margin upside. A result of this and what has happened for our portfolio is that Crescent have already returned almost all of our invested capital into this fund, but we still have a holding, and that holding is worth over two times what it was when we first invested. So it has been an incredible performing business. Revenue grew 30% last year. EBITDA continues to grow in an industry that is not growing that quickly, so they are taking market share from others. A newer example in our portfolio, but with a similar thesis, is FES Services Group. FES are a fire safety group, so from the simplest things of the guy that comes out and checks your smoke detectors in your strata complex, all the way to where they are working with complex businesses with flammable goods or heat-intensive processes, and they are designing and engineering very complex fire safety systems. Fortitude have acquired this business, and again, making some very simple changes here, where you have drivers in this business who are driving from one side of the city to the other, back and forth all day to go to their different appointments because they can pick their own routes. Fortitude can come in and simply optimize the schedule a little bit to make sure drivers in one area hit a whole bunch in a row, driver in other area hits a whole bunch in a row. Again, they cover more in one day, more revenue, more efficiency. Really simple things like that, and also implementing AI into their back office system, into their design programs, into their headcount as well. Both these businesses, I think one of the messages we want to get across is AI is helping to improve value within these businesses, but the core products that they sell are not at risk of being displaced by AI or a new large language model or whatever software comes out. Bremick has performed very, very well, and we have very high hopes for FES, that the outlook is very strong. Yeah, I think just— Yeah. —just to add to what Jake said, these are classic examples. We love these sort of businesses, right? Repeatable, recurring revenue, easy to understand, resilient through the cycle, not subject to a lot of technology risk, right? These are great businesses that perform well through multiple cycles. As Jake said, Bremick. Next time any of our shareholders, I know I love a little trip to Bunnings. Have a walk down the screws aisle in Bunnings. You will see Bremick-branded screws, fasteners, nuts and bolts there. The FES example that Jake just talked about around technicians and driving to different sites, this is not a small business. It is a business that employs, I think, 600+ people. Yeah. Some of these things are pretty quick fixes, right? You can generate quite a lot of additional value in these businesses early on. New management teams come in, and sometimes it is just a refresh, new management, additional growth capital, and pushing into new markets, and that is where you get the growth. We do love these businesses, the boring is beautiful. We think it is important as we are trying to build a private equity portfolio that is going to grow, but importantly is going to be resilient to the various changes that we are seeing playing out through markets as well. Amazing. We might move on to the next slide here. Nick, I will pass back to you again. Yeah, a couple of things. We have got the meet the managers coming up. The other thing I just wanted to highlight was WMA and the discount, and there are some questions which we will get to shortly. But it is trading at a pretty significant discount at the moment. I think share price before we walked in was AUD 0.97. AUD 0.97, yeah. AUD 0.97 and a half, so it's about an 18% discount to NTA. It is the widest discount of all of our LICs out of the WAM stable. Jake, you were buying some recently, so it is cheap. Good buying. It is good buying. It is at a big discount, and obviously a big focus of our time and the broader communications investor relations team and others is trying to narrow that discount, get us up trading closer to NTA, if not a premium, and ideally raise capital longer term and grow the company. That's sort of point one. Point two, meet the managers. We did these sessions last year ahead of the continuation vote. We're going to do them again this year, where we're going to dig into the WMA portfolio in a bit more detail. We'll be visiting Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney as well. Sydney will probably be November. We're just working on the dates at the moment. If you haven't already registered and you would like to come along, please do register for the events. They will be in person, where we can dig into the WMA portfolio in a bit more detail. We hope to see many of you there. With that, I will hand back to April, and we will go through Q&A. Thanks, Nick and Jake, and thank you everyone for submitting questions. I will start with Eric, who has asked: Why are advisors and brokers showing increasing interest in alternative assets? Yeah, sure. Maybe I will kick off. It is a good question. The primary reason for the interest is really around diversifying underlying client portfolios. This is an asset class. Alternatives has been a staple of institutional portfolios for a long period of time. You have got equities, bonds, and then you add alternatives, and you get a more diversified portfolio. There has not been many options for advisors and brokers traditionally. Obviously, WMA provides that opportunity, along with other products in the market, to diversify underlying client portfolios. Hopefully being able to achieve a similar return level, if not a bit higher, but with significantly less risk, so it is a more resilient portfolio. It is really primarily around diversification and different return sources other than just equities and bonds. Callum has asked: Given what we have seen in another LIC recently, how should shareholders think about dividend sustainability? What are the key factors that support dividend growth over time? Yeah, it's a good question. Happy to take that. Dividends for a listed investment company structure, the key measure of sustainability is the profit reserve, which we talked about before, which is your realized and your unrealized gains. The best way to think about a profit reserve is basically prior year profits that haven't yet been paid out in a dividend, so we can carry those forward and pay them in future periods. For any listed investment company, you'd hopefully want a profit reserve that's at least a year of coverage. Two years is probably better for sustainability. That's where WMA sits at the moment is two years of dividends. So we know that even if we don't earn another cent over the next two years, we could still pay out the same amount of dividends and then end up at a zero profit reserve. The other measure that's helpful and what drives that profit reserve is performance and the volatility of performance. Which importantly for WMA, we're paying out a yield of around 6% on the share price, or closer to low fives on the NTA, and we have performance this year of 9%. The volatility of that performance since inception, since October 2020, has been very low, around the high twos in terms of percentage compared to the equity markets at 13%, 14%. The stability of performance for WMA will definitely help with the consistency of being able to pay dividends into the future. But yeah, that profit reserve would be the one to keep an eye on whenever you're looking at listing investment companies. Yep. On that, Barnaby has asked: Do you publish performance regularly, and where can I find this? Yeah, we do. We've got monthly NTA announcements, that's net tangible assets, so the value of the portfolio that go out to the market. WMA goes out by the 14th of every month. Then you can also go on our website that has a bit of a bigger breakdown on performance over different periods and some of the key metrics from that report. Steven has asked: Persistent interest rates, a freeze on company exits, and rising bankruptcy levels among debt-heavy companies have sparked widespread public concerns regarding the structural health of the private equity sectors. ASIC has sounded some alarms over it. Private equity represents a significant allocation for WMA. Will this allocation change? Yeah, it's a good question. Look, I think the point around debt-heavy businesses, I think that's definitely a factor in the U.S. private equity market, less of an issue in the Australian private equity market. The level of debt that's used in private equity in Australia is probably half that of what you see in the U.S. in terms of when we fund these businesses. Most of our private equity partners that we use typically fund at least the acquisitions with all equity. They'll bring in some debt later on, but debt's usually 2x-4 x earnings versus the U.S., where you get 4x-7x, sometimes 8 x earnings debt levels. So it's a very different approach to using debt, in the U.S. private equity market versus the Australian private equity market. And importantly, it depends on the type of business that they're buying. We talked about some of the resilient back to basics, boring businesses that we own, where you've got strong, recurring, stable revenue to effectively be certain you can obviously pay down that debt over time. So we don't see any sort of pressures in our private equity portfolio from debt-heavy businesses. There might be in certain pockets of the market, but not in our private equity portfolio. I should say as well, all of our private equity portfolio, well, 96% of it is Australian-based. Okay, so we do not have any sort of U.S. private equity exposure. The only private equity exposure we have is some legacy venture capital exposure in Asia. So it is all Aussie-based private equity exposure. Some of the warnings we've heard from ASIC and others are more centered around private credit than less so on the private equity side. We've obviously talked about those issues, and what could happen from here there. The lack of exits is a good point. Completely agree. We have seen less exit activity. We have seen a bump up in transaction activity. Obviously, the IPO market isn't really there. But what we have seen is sort of the opposite, right? We continue to see lots of these take privates. If you're not investing into private equity, you're not seeing those opportunities. We've seen Cube, we've seen EQT, Perpetual, Ingenia got an offer the other day from Warburg Pincus, FleetPartners, and I mean, they're just some of the... Mm. Yeah, we've got one in our portfolio, Apiam Animal Health that Adamantem took private. There's been lots of these opportunities as you see some of these small cap, mid cap companies, that perhaps aren't hitting the stride where private equity's got dry powder coming in to take them private. Doesn't mean you miss out, if you're an equity investor, because if you also hold things like WMA and other alternative assets, you continue to hold them in those vehicles. That's a really important point to note. We won't be shifting the allocation. We like private equity. We think there's some really good opportunities, and there's other levers for liquidity with continuation vehicles and other things, and a deeper secondary market, which is developing in Australia as well, which is good. We continue to like private equity. It will always be a significant holding in this portfolio because we like the outlook and what it provides to our returns for this portfolio. In terms of the availability of debt financing for these companies, we were actually at one of the annual investor conferences for— Yesterday. —one of our private equity groups yesterday, and they were saying how the availability has increased, if anything. They use a mix of bank financing and also private credit. There is plenty of them out there ready to offer them reasonable leverage at pretty good terms. We are not seeing them back off in that area at all. If anything, it is probably just the real estate private credit that we are seeing that occur. Yeah. Most of these private equity groups that we are backing are well-funded on the equity side. That group yesterday, they raised AUD 1.3 billion for their eighth fund in a matter of three months, right? Three months, yeah. For some of these groups, it's not hard to raise capital, equity capital. Which gives them the flexibility to go invest in businesses going forward. Darius has asked a few really good questions: In FY 2026, more than half the portfolio's return came from private equity— Yep. —revaluations rather than cash received. Roughly how much of the return is unrealized revaluation versus cash income actually received, so distributions, interest, and rent? Yeah, it's a really good question. Of the 9.1% that we generated over the last 12 months, about 2.5% of that, slightly more than that, was generated through income received in the portfolio. The remaining was generated through revaluations, particularly on the private equity book, as you said. There's a couple of exits that we are expecting next calendar year on the private equity side of things, and then significantly more it ramps up into 2028, given where our portfolio is in the maturity of it. It is important that we obviously keep investing. We've talked about this before in private equity, the need to keep investing each year and committing new capital to ensure that we have a very linear deployment profile, and so we don't have lumpy years where we get lots of exits or no exits. We haven't had many exits the last couple of years, and that is a function of a lack of vintage diversification from Blue Sky days where no new investments were made between 2018 and 2020, which would be the businesses that are currently being sold in the market today. I guess that's a really important point as we build this portfolio out in a more institutional framework to ensure that we've got those exits in future years. Yeah. Anything to add? No. Other than that is what is then translating now into our franking account being a low balance. Yes. It is the high proportion of unrealized gains versus realized gains. But over time, that will naturally even out. Like Nick said, we will probably see in FY 2027 and more likely in FY 2028— Yeah. —a big inflow of exits that come through— Of exits, yeah. —that have been paused or at least just getting to maturity now. Yeah. Darius has a few more questions. Yep. Taking the regional airport as an example, does WMA receive ongoing cash distributions from the asset's operating earnings, or is it most of the return realized on exit? That one there, the infrastructure asset, that is Sunshine Coast Airport, Coffs Harbour Airport. Palisade, who own the asset, they will receive income from those assets. The income for an airport, typically three forms of income from an airport. You get it from air traffic, effectively, you get it from parking, and you get it from retail, so shops inside when we go to the airport and pay a fortune for a coffee. They are the three places the income comes from. The rent inside the airport. They receive that income, and that gets distributed back to us as investors. On one of the slides earlier that Jake talked to that had the red and the blue across the portfolio, the blue elements being the more defensive core parts of the portfolio, they are income-generating elements. That part of the portfolio generates that 2%-3% income yield that we like in the portfolio that helps supplement, obviously, our dividend each year. The last question from Darius is: When an asset is exited, can you walk through how those proceeds flow back to shareholders? Do realized profits typically sit in the profits reserve to fund ordinary dividends over time, or would a sizable exit be returned more directly through a special dividend or an on-market buyback? Yeah, it's a good question. Good question. One thing to clear up just at the front is profit reserve is an accounting term. It's not an actual account where cash sits waiting to be paid in a dividend. The cash that we receive from exits is recycled into new opportunities. In terms of the dividends of whether, if we had a big influx in the profit reserve, whether we'd leave it for later dividends or pay it in a special, that's obviously a board decision. But given the nature of this portfolio, we're looking to pay slowly growing sustainable dividends over time. If there were extremely lumpy exits where there was a big gain at the exit, the board would consider looking at a special dividend, but it'd be a case-by-case basis for each exit. Yeah, I think the key thing there on the special will be if we get that, as Jake sort of alluded to there, if we get a big bump relative to where we're holding it. Obviously, if we just see an exit that's been exit at where we're holding it, then obviously that's not going to be reflected. But if we do start to see some chunky exits where there's a significant bump in price to where we're currently holding it, then ideally we'd love to, subject to obviously the board's discussion and decision, pay special dividends linked to those underlying businesses, because we think that makes sense in this portfolio. Yep. Alan has asked about franking credits: How do we claim them, and what percentage are they? It's a good question. In terms of how you claim them, if you've got an accountant, definitely speak to them. But for myself, they come through in the ATO portal automatically, linked to your dividends. In terms of the percentage, our dividends are currently franked at 60%. For FY 2026, WMA was a base rate entity. So for all the accountants out there who know what that means, it means that they pay a 25% tax rate. So the franking credits that you'll get through will be based on a 25% tax rate, and they'll be franked at 60%. But yeah, they'll come through the ATO portal, but best to speak to your accountant or whoever deals with that stuff for you. Yep. We've got a few questions coming in from Toby. Firstly, what are the risks in this type of investment? Yeah, it is a good question. There is obviously across each of the asset classes, the risks are slightly different. I think there was a separate question around sort of interest rate rises and I guess, the exposure we have got to interest rates here. So we are exposed. So if we think about each of the individual asset classes and the impact of a potential rate rise, private equity is probably a slight negative. For private equity, you tend to see a more difficult exit environment as rates are rising, and an increase obviously in the cost of debt. As we said before, these are not heavily leveraged businesses, so it is not as big an issue as opposed to, say, the U.S. where you have got more debt driving the size of these businesses. So private equity, slight negative. Real estate, a slight negative. Although if it is inflation driven and you have got rents that are linked to inflation, they can largely offset each other, which is important, and we have seen that today. Most of our portfolio in the real estate side is inflation linked, especially in a post-COVID world. We have seen a lot of real estate groups push for inflation-linked leases, not fixed lease increases. Infrastructure tends to perform relatively well, actually tends to be pretty well-insulated. Once again, if it is inflation driven, it tends to perform the best out of any asset class in a high inflationary period. So it tends to be fairly resilient to rate increases if inflation driven. Water, virtually no impact on water and ag. And private credit on the floating rate side tends to be a positive. If you have got fixed rate debt, obviously it is a negative, but on the floating rate side tends to be a positive because you can charge a higher rate to the end borrowers. So a bit of a mixed bag across the portfolio. Obviously, the expectation is perhaps one more rate rise. Ideally, that happens sooner rather than later. Let us get on with it. And then, as we have said before, that the quicker they go up, hopefully the quicker they come down, and that would be a real positive across most of our portfolio. You've already covered off the interest rate question. Is there an intention to distribute dividends quarterly or monthly? Again, board decision, but based on the discussions we've had, no, semiannually I think is the way forward for this LIC. Two more questions from Toby. What is the average dividend over the years? It's a good question. The yield, it's been slowly growing since we took it over. So when we took on the portfolio from Blue Sky, profit reserve was basically nothing. I think it was AUD 0.01. So we've had to slowly build that up. It's probably averaged around 5%, maybe, but that's because we've grown from starting 3% or 4% up to 6%, 6.5% now. Great. What can affect the size of the dividend? Yeah, again, it would just be performance, profit reserve. In terms of the franking account, that would be exits, realized gains. If you see performance improve, that will help the board to increase the dividends. If obviously you've seen negative performance, that can impact dividends. But because we have this profit reserve structure, we can smooth them out a bit more. Rob has asked about the share price: What steps are being taken to grow the WMA share price? It seems that too much emphasis is put on paying large and growing dividend, so that there are minimal retained earnings to grow the company. Yeah, look, it is a big focus narrowing the discount to NTA. As I said before, it is the widest discount in the group. It's probably worth noting as well that the discount has not been wider than, I think, 19% since we took on the portfolio six years ago, and we're currently sitting at near 18% live. So it's about as wide as it's been. That's off the back of obviously fairly strong performance last year. An outlook importantly over the next year, couple of years, that looks really positive, right? Each of the asset classes we invest in look really, really attractive. Usually, we'd sit here when we're investing in five asset classes, there's probably something that perhaps doesn't look as attractive, but that's not the case at the moment. So we're really excited by this portfolio and the outlook. I think to be honest, the thing that's been holding it back has been performance has struggled prior to the last year. We did three years of 5%-6% performance, which means the NTA sort of gone sideways because we're effectively paying out that performance in dividends each year. Clearly now with performance increasing up above 9%, we are actively engaging, obviously with shareholders, but importantly brokers and advisors, to look at getting additional traction, and hopefully some buying support in WMA to narrow that discount. In our opinion, there's three key things here. It's performance, it's dividends, and it's communications, investor relations, marketing. The last of which is obviously our edge in the market, and that remains a big focus. Some of you will have been contacted by one of us in the team recently as we work through our call campaign on our results. That's an important element of it. We're obviously doing the meet the manager sessions that I talked about before, and Martyn and myself, Martyn from our distribution team, will be on the road talking to brokers while we're doing those events as well, getting more support from them. Then into next year, hopefully a broader call campaign through the business. It is a big focus, I can assure you. We all want the same thing, which is for WMA to trade up closer to NTA and ideally a premium so we can grow this company over time. You've largely covered it off, but Kimberly has asked about the discount. Yep. Maybe if you could summarize why is it taking so long to close it, and what are the expected catalysts to close this gap? Yeah. Do you want to touch on it? Yeah, for sure. The main point I think, the first few years of WMA, I think education was a really big piece. Letting investors know what is actually in the portfolio, how these assets behave, that it is lower volatility. It is not a portfolio that does 20% one year, and zero the next. It will be more stable. That has been the first few years, and I think we have worked through that. We saw a lot of shareholder turnover as that happened, as people sold out if it was not what they were expecting and came in because they knew what it was. Now we have got to the stage a few years later where, like Nick was saying, we have had a few years of 5%-6% performance, which is not what this portfolio is designed to do long term. It is just that we have gone through that J-curve of waiting for our new deployments to be made and waiting for those to mature. It has taken a long time, and I think it is a function of the time it has taken to actually reshape this portfolio. In terms of catalysts, if you look across the wider Wilson Asset Management group and even the Future Generation funds, what has closed discounts before has been strong performance, which has led to strong dividends, which is, we have engaged with shareholders on the back of both. The three of those things have pushed it up. Yep. We're seeing now we saw for FY 2026 stronger performance. Dividends will follow as performance continues to be strong, and we're engaging with shareholders to basically to explain: Look, we've been telling you for the last few years that these assets take time. Now we're actually seeing that happen. As we communicate that to shareholders, we believe that's going to be a big catalyst to— Yeah. —to helping close the discount. Absolutely. Nick, before you mentioned about advisors and the brokers, Trent has asked, several calls ago you spoke about the fact that advisors were not keen to invest due to the continuation vote. Yes. Now that that is behind us, has WMA seen some of those platforms or advisors come on board, and increase on the register? We have seen that. A number of them have just sort of dipped their toe in, and the next stage is obviously a bit more education and I think as we touched on, performance has been key, that proof in the pudding. I think people are sort of sitting there saying: Yep, that all looks good. Obviously we had the support through the vote, which was great. Gives certainty around the future of the company, but it is sort of like: Okay, we need to see some performance before we really start to back it. I think that is the key point for us. I think that the performance story is really important, but we have seen increasing uptake. Big focus is the brokers as well. There is probably less support for WMA versus a number— Yeah. —of the other WAM products, from the traditional stockbroking fraternity versus the advisors where we tend to have a bit more support. We are trying to focus on those groups where we have got obviously a strong relationship, have supported other WAM vehicles. These groups know and like discounts, right, and we can play on that, talk about performance and why this is additive to their portfolio. The continual education piece is important, as Jake said as well. We have seen groups come in, they have largely dipped their toe in and now it is that next stage of increasing those holdings over time. Separately, Trent has asked: Can you outline the plan for funding uncalled capital commitments to Fortlake and the expected timing? Yeah, sure. Maybe one thing to clear up and we were talking about this before, maybe it's a little bit unclear on our NTA report, but the uncalled capital commitments we have, they're to private equity strategies and also to Wentworth in the growth area. They're not to Fortlake. Fortlake is a fixed income treasury tool. It's daily liquid, so we basically put any excess cash we have into that strategy. As we need to fund capital commitments, we draw money back out of that and deploy it into the private equity funds. In terms of the timeline of how these funds deploy, if you look at the last six years that we've been managing it, most of these private equity funds, we commit AUD 10 million or AUD 15 million. They draw that from us over about four years. Four to five years is usually the timeframe. Some are quicker, some are more towards that five-year mark. Because they have quite attractive debt at the fund level based on our commitments to them, they like to call capital from us at the last possible moment. That helps to increase our shareholder returns. You will often see in the first year or two of us committing to a fund, very little gets called, even if they have bought an asset or two. After that second year mark, we will start to see AUD 1 million, AUD 2 million calls come in. So, eight, nine, 10 calls over the stage of three to four years that then have our commitment fully drawn. Again, every year we should get a consistent amount of capital calls coming out of that cash balance as we also see exits coming back that help to fund those. Yeah, those capital calls will take, as Jake said, a period of time. Like Allegro Fund V, we have just committed AUD 15 million to. They have still got a deal to do in Fund IV. They will then use some, as Jake said, some fund-level debt, which they call a subscription line, to fund the first few deals in Fund V. So that AUD 15 million that we have committed to them, we probably will not get called on any of that until probably this time next year. Yeah. Even early 2025. Yeah, even early the year after, and that will then be called over the next three years. It is quite a long process for that capital to go out. We do spend obviously a fair amount of time, Jake and Jasper in particular, and the team, on cash flow modeling and understanding when those calls are going to happen. And also when we are getting capital back on the exit time frames, just to make sure that we are managing our cash position. Importantly, that treasury tool, the Fortlake treasury tool, we put that in place in September last year, just to ensure that our cash was working as hard as possible. So it is a cash +3% strategy. That is investment-grade credit. It is not private credit. Just to be very clear, it is very, very, very low risk, and daily liquid, and importantly, has done exactly what we wanted it to and delivered sort of double what we would have got out of cash over that period of time, and has been daily liquid when we have needed to redeem capital to fund capital calls on private equity on the other side. Really happy with how that has panned out. Can you explain cash +3%, what that means? Yeah, sorry. Cash +3% is the return target for that Fortlake portfolio. Base cash rate, + 3% on top is the target rate of return for that portfolio. They've comfortably delivered that for the last 12 months. Great. Back to private credit. Greg has asked: Given the increased scrutiny of private credit markets both in the U.S. and Australia, will this have implications for alternative assets and their funding? If so, how will you maneuver around this obstacle? Yeah, it's a good question. There's definitely some risk around some broader contagion effect of people saying: Well, private credit's alternatives now, I'm not going to touch alternatives. I don't think that'll be the case. I think a lot of the market is a bit more sophisticated than that, understands that private credit is very different to private equity, to real estate, to infrastructure. I think the bigger issue is probably within private credit itself, it's got the tainted brush now and everyone sort of runs away, when in actual fact, if you're doing very low risk, corporate direct lending, targeting, say, cash + 4% type return, versus development lending on residential developments and land subdivisions with a promise of cash + 10% or cash + 12%. They are completely different strategies, right? With those very different risk and return profiles. Just lumping it under one asset class and saying: I am not going to do it, it is probably not the right approach. In fact, as people exit the market, that does create opportunities for lenders who do have capital. So there is obviously that risk. I think education is absolutely critical. We spend a lot of time on that here, digging into this into more detail. I met with a broker yesterday around coming in, talking to their office around private credit specifically, the things to look for, the different strategies, where they lie on the risk-return spectrum, and the things to look for when you are backing specialists in this space. So groups with strong workout experience to work out loans if they do not go to plan. Transparency around valuations and fees, how the treatment of origination fees and things like this work, and diversification within portfolios, and the types of things you need to look for. So I do think there is definitely a bit of a risk and perhaps we see that in the short term, but I do think alternatives as a whole continue to garner more and more interest from advisors and brokers, and investors more generally as they look to diversify their portfolios, and make them more resilient. Right? The macroeconomic environment is difficult. It is moving every day. So having a more resilient portfolio is important, and alternatives do help in making your portfolio more resilient. So I do not think alternatives is disappearing anytime soon. Mm. On that, David has asked: How do alternative assets do in a recession? Does alternative asset real estate behave differently to REITs, Real Estate Investment Trusts? Yeah, it is a really good question. So it just sort of depends on the sectors what has caused a recession. If you think about it, if you have a recession that is caused by a significant increase in unemployment, then office buildings, like the one we are sitting in, tend to perform poorly. But things like student housing, as an example, tend to perform very well because guess what? People lose their jobs, they then go back to university and study, they need a place to live. So you tend to see very different impacts in real estate. One of the reasons we invest in healthcare real estate is it is very recession-proof. Unfortunately, people will always get sick. There will always be a need for private hospitals, so you tend to find a lot less economic sensitivity with things like healthcare real estate, and that is why we really like healthcare real estate. Equally, things like life sciences that we have got quite a bit of exposure to through Wentworth, our investment partner that Jake talked about before tends to be less economically sensitive. So, it depends on the underlying sector and what has caused it. Your traditional sectors, office is really a play on employment, so that is key. Retail, so shopping centers, is a play on consumer spending. Industrial warehouses are a play on GDP and trade. You need to look through that lens of what has caused a recession? Where is it coming from? What is the best way out? To then work out which sectors you want to play in and which alternative sectors you want to have exposure to to ensure your portfolio is resilient. Just a few more private credit questions. Yes. Can you talk about what specific asset classes that private debt or credit is secured by? Yeah. So obviously, it depends on the strategy. The two main forms of private credit in this country tend to be corporate private credit, where you are lending to a corporate business. Typically, it is secured by the cash flows of the business and the assets of the business. If you are lending against a group like a Bremick that we talked about before on the private equity side, then it is going to be lent against the warehouse, the machinery, and the inventory. So that is that side of it. Then on the real estate debt side, which is the area that we do not have any exposure to, and there is obviously facing some issues at the moment with Bathla, and we somewhat expected these issues to come to fruition. That is secured by the underlying holdings. Now, the challenge in the real estate debt space is that a lot of this is residential development, where there is development that is ongoing or land subdivisions. Why is that important? It is important because there is absolutely no income to service the debt. That is very different to providing debt against the building we are sitting in, where WAM, as a tenant, pays our rent. You have got income coming in that can service the debt. Right? That is the fundamental issue that we have seen in this market, is people have piled into residential development lending, with this promise of high returns at low risk. But you have actually got no income to service the debt. What you need in that market is you need house prices to keep going up. Unfortunately, we have had the opposite, and that is why everyone is getting burnt. There needs to be real income to service the debt, not income that gets capitalized at the back end, because that comes with significant risk. The portfolio that we have in private credit, like Nick was saying, it is all lending to companies backed by their cash flows, backed also by their assets. There are covenants in place as well with these loans where earnings have to be a certain multiple of the interest cost, and different ratios to make sure that if earnings are ever starting to dip or starting to not be sufficient, the lenders have full control to come in and make changes. Yep. Matthew has asked: Can you clarify the difference between the private debt exposure and real estate exposure from a risk perspective? Yeah, it is a good question. If you think about real estate private debt, so the Bathla piece and that, the underlying risk there is real estate risk. I think that has been the challenge, that people have been promised debt risk, when in actual fact they are taking equity-like risk. Hence the promise of 10%-15%-type returns for lending. If you are getting promised that, it is effectively equity risk, right? Equities have given us 10% over the last 100 years. So if anyone is promising you north of 10%, there is risk attached to it, I can assure you of that. So you tend to be, the similar sorts of risk involved. The key thing then is how much equity sits above you, right? So if you think about a group like Wentworth, they are the equity, right? They are not providing debt in the strategy that we invest in. They are the equity piece. So there is upside to what they are doing. They will go and seek debt from primarily banks. But on occasion, if they need it, private credit, to go and buy these underlying assets, work the real estate hard, and then get an outcome on the other side. And on the private credit side, there's hopefully some equity above you, as is the case with a group like Bathla. They provide the equity. The challenge being that that equity sleeve in a lot of these developments is fairly small, right? And so if we have, as we've seen, house prices going south, you can sort of chew through that equity sleeve very quickly and find yourself in a position where the value of the underlying land or half-built home is actually less than the loan that's been provided, and that's when you're going to start to see losses. Got some dividend questions. Cognizant it is a board decision, but if you can add any color. Yes. Jim has asked: Do you think dividends should be brought in line with available franking credits? It's a good question. I think one of the purposes or one of the advantages of a listed investment company is the ability to pay fairly consistent dividends over time. Whereas in a portfolio like ours, the realizations will be less consistent. The way we've constructed the portfolio long term, we're hoping to make it as consistent as possible, with a few exits each year and a few deployments each year. But you're always going to have times where interest rates rise, or there's geopolitical uncertainty and exits slow down, and your realizations slow down. If you then linked dividends to franking credits and basically to realizations, you have quite a lumpy return stream, which is essentially what you get from a trust structure. Any realized income is paid back through the trust structure. I think if shareholders are after you get paid what is realized, then the trust structure is the right structure. If they're after more of a consistent and smooth dividend stream where franking might get dialed back if it needs to, but the aim is to pay fully franked wherever possible and to keep dividends consistent, then the listed investment company structure is more of an advantage for that. Obviously for WMA, the aim is that this fund provides you exposure to a diversified portfolio of alternative assets, but it also provides you with consistent, slowly growing, and fully franked wherever possible, dividend income. We've covered off this a little bit, but Philip has asked: Is it anticipated that WMA can continue to pay fully franked dividends? It's not franked, but we'll get into that. And then can shareholders expect dividends to remain stable or increase rather than decrease as per the WAM disaster? Yep. Yeah, it's a good question. I think WAM has been a great learning lesson for all of our LICs. It's something that the boards have been discussing, not just now, but years before, when we could see that profit reserves were getting low, and franking was getting low. In terms of the sustainability of dividends going forward, I can tell you that the board are very conscious of growing the dividends consistently and sustainably and not too aggressively. I think the yield that we're sitting at now, we're at 6% on share price, low fives on NTA, is probably on the lower end. It probably could sit a little bit higher. But if you look at a portfolio that's paying 10%, that's the goal of this portfolio, to be earning 10%. If you are paying a 6% or 7% dividend yield, then you still have a bit of room there for capital growth. Yep. In terms of the franking question, like we have talked about, it is based on realizations, what we can pay tax on to then pass those tax credits through to investors. The way that this portfolio has been maturing over time, and there has been that gap of investments not made in 2018, 2019, 2020 that we are not exiting now, that is why franking has dipped. But long term, we believe that the way this portfolio has been constructed, it should be able to pay fully franked dividends going forward. That is the aim of the company, providing there is enough franking credits and it is prudent to do so. Yeah, I would just add, as Jake sort of touched on, we are paying about that 6%, 6.2% on share price in terms of yield. We would ideally like to keep increasing that, but it has to be sustainable, right? To the point around WAM Capital and the experience we have had there. I think once we get to a point of maybe, hopefully over time, we perform well, the profit reserve is key. Jake talked about that. We have got 2.3 years of coverage on the dividend side, which is really important. That is a really key number to look at. That gives us comfort over where the current divvy is and our capacity to pay dividends in the future. I think as we get closer to that sort of 7% yield, do you sort of go: Okay, we will taper off, build up the profit reserve. Maybe you pay some special dividends over time as performance comes through, perhaps, rather than obviously letting that six run up to a 10 number, which makes it incredibly difficult to retain that sort of number over time. But as Jake said, we have absolutely learned our lesson and very conscious of where we sit today and where we might get to and ensuring it is stable over time. And probably something that's a bit different with this portfolio versus maybe some of the others, and because of the asset classes that we're investing in, is there is that lower volatility of performance. Yep. We've seen, as we've mentioned before, our portfolio performance volatility or standard deviation of about 2.7%. It's not moving much within a tight band. We haven't had a negative year for the six years that we've been investing. Yep, no negative years. Yep. The reliability of our performance based on those measures,— Yeah. —is probably more consistent, and that will help us have more consistent profit reserves,— Yeah, good point. —and more consistent dividends over time. Really good point. Yeah. On this topic, Rob has asked: To achieve growth in the share price, why are earnings not more regularly partially retained? He said his view is the dividend policy does not allow enough earnings to be retained. Yeah, sure. I think that's mainly, at the moment, a function of just those past few years where performance has been lower— Yeah. —than it should've been. Yeah. Obviously, if we're doing 6% and we're paying out 6%, like you said— NTA earnings. —there's no retained earnings. Yeah. Share price is flat, NTA is flat. That's where we've been. Dropping the dividend to suit that level of performance is, I don't think, the right move because performance long term should be more around the 9, 10 numbers. At that stage, a 6% dividend yield is sustainable and is also allowing for some capital growth— Yeah. —and some retained earnings. Ian has asked: Please comment on how often assets are valued as they're not listed, and also the valuations for the NTA process? Yeah, happy to speak to that. The valuations we go through are very rigorous. We're a listed investment company, so we're on ASX. We have to abide by listing rules. We have to have fully audited accounts, and a semi-annual reviewed account. In terms of what the process looks like, our NTA is struck monthly. Every month, we get updated unit prices on NAVs from our underlying managers, or a confirmation that there has been no material movement if some of them are priced quarterly, which you generally see in real estate and infrastructure and the like. Those NTAs that we get, we basically interrogate those against the portfolio performance and the updates from the managers that we've received, and make sure there's nothing out of sync there. We make sure that we adjust for any distributions or capital calls, the like. That goes into our monthly NTA. On a semi-annual basis, so for our December accounts and our June accounts, it's a much more rigorous process where we basically do a deep dive on not just every fund, but every single asset within every single fund. We look at how they're valued, whether there's external valuations or independent valuations, which for most assets there are. If there aren't independent valuations, we want to make sure that there's some kind of independent valuation committee within the fund manager that's valuing the assets. There's GS 007s, control reports. Some of this can get a bit jargony and complicated, but essentially, we want to make sure that the valuation risk at all of these managers is as low as it can be. Yeah. That they have strong controls in place. They're consistent. The exits that they've had over time have been in line with the valuations that they've had before the exit, so there's no kind of surprises at exit time. The groups we're with are very institutional and high quality. We're investing with them, super funds are investing with them, so their processes are very robust in that sense. The other thing we do is we go into every portfolio company and we look at, okay, this business, let's take Bremick for an example, it'll be valued on an EBITDA multiple approach. So it's earnings times a multiple that's a comparable multiple of businesses like it in the market. It might be 7 x, 8 x. We interrogate, are those earnings correct? Are they growing? Has there been any shocks? Are there any adjustments to the earnings? We also look at the multiple. Is that actually in line with market? How has the market moved since? Is it conservative based on others? Which we like to see. We do that level of deep dive on every single asset. Then our auditors review that, and our audit and risk committee review it as well, as part of approving the financial statements. It's a long process, but I think, hopefully what I'm getting across is that we have a lot of confidence in our NTA and in— Yeah. —the valuations. That's evidenced through the exits that we've had. Yeah. The 24 exits at a 28% premium to where we were holding at before exit. Yeah. I think if anything, we are conservative, and we take provisions where we need to. Yeah. We start from a position of low trust on the valuation. Yeah. We make sure that we have— It has got to be. —plenty of evidence to get there. Yeah. On the frequency piece, because it is important, this question does come up. Private equity, tend to see independent valuations at least annually. On the real estate infrastructure side, valuations quarterly, often independent semi-annually. Water, independently valued monthly. On the private and the agri side, at least annual independent vales on the land citrus asset. On the private debt piece, it is held at amortized cost through the P&L. So very stringent sort of valuation process. The other point being on the private equity side, which is the biggest chunk of our portfolio, is that our underlying managers are not They earn no performance fees on unrealized gains, to be clear. They are only paid a performance fee when they sell the underlying businesses. So there is absolutely no incentive for them to mark up these businesses to try and earn more fees, because what will happen is they only earn a performance fee when they exit them. Because these are closed-end funds where they are always raising new capital, if they mark something up and then they sell it for significantly less, I can guarantee you they will have a lot of trouble raising capital the next time around. So they tend to be fairly conservative in their own valuation approach to ensure that they are not inflating values before exit. Steve has asked: Of the investments you have liquidated, or exited, I assume, in the last 12 months, have these yielded a profit or loss, and of what level? Yeah, it is a good question. There has only been a handful that have exited, and I might say exited this year, because some of them have been legacy assets that have— Yeah. —been wound up at zero value. Yeah. The ones that have been wound up at zero value, I can think of two of them. They were both held at zero value for— Yeah. —at least a year before that happened. Yeah. Sometimes we actually wrote it down before the manager did because we said: Look, this isn't going anywhere. We need to just be conservative. The one that has exited that was positive was the rest of Birch & Waite— Yeah. —that we got back this year. Significant, yeah. Again, that was just at the valuation that we were holding it at, but that investment was about a 4.5x on initial cost. Great investment. It was, yeah, a great investment. But again, very close to the NTA that we were holding at beforehand. I think as we go forward, it will be rarer that we see big pops— Big differences— —at exit. —Or the other side, yeah. Yeah. We won't see big pops up or down. Yeah. It'll be that the asset gets progressively revalued throughout its life, and then it gets exited at close to— Yeah. —its NTA, if not a small premium sometimes where they get a great exit environment. Yeah. We saw that with Linen Services— Yeah. —which was sold by Adamantem a couple of years back. That was sold right at NTA, made just over 2 times money. Yeah. A good result. Yeah. Francis has asked: At what point in your investment timeline for each company do you take profit? Yeah, it is a good question. Yeah. In terms of where performance is realized, I would say if we look at the growth side of the portfolio private equity and real estate, opportunistic real estate, generally, years one and two are either flat or even slightly negative. Yeah. Generally, it is more negative with real estate because you have bigger stamp duty and initial costs— Costs up front, yeah. —that go up front. Years three and four, you'll see a bit of revaluation, and the revaluations kind of ramp up as the life of the asset continues. So year three, maybe it gets revalued up 10%, 15%. Year four,— Yeah. —it might be 50% because the earnings have actually grown so much during those first four years that that revaluation is necessary. In terms of the experience that WMA shareholders will get, it'll be a bit of a mix because at any one time we have a handful of assets that are one year old, a handful of assets that are two, three, four, five, et cetera. In terms of each actual asset, it would generally be around years three to 6ix that we'll progressively get revaluations and profits. Yeah. The other way to think about it, especially on the private equity side, is they are typically buying these businesses. Our private equity partners will buy these businesses through a tender process. They will then bring the business on board. They will often replace management to bring in more senior management, people that they know well in the market, bring in operating partners who have got specific expertise, and then start to do various things. There might be some work around costs in the business. Can we strip any costs out? Can we use AI to help on the efficiency side? Can we grow sales into new markets new product development, and can we undertake inorganic activity, so bolt-ons and M&A work to build up these businesses? That is all happening in those first few years, and then you get the results of all of that work— Yeah. —in year three, year four onwards, and that is when we start to earn those profits. On the theme of portfolio realizations, Leon has asked: Could you share your thoughts on portfolio realizations, particularly in relation to longer-held investment? As a long-term shareholder, I've appreciated the growth and the dividends over the years, but I would be grateful to hear your thoughts on the topic of realizing older holdings. It's a good question. Older holdings, I would put into two buckets. You've got the stuff that's still here from legacy, from Blue Sky days, which is mainly just the venture capital investment with January Capital, which is a commerce, it's a Southeast Asian e-commerce business. Mm-hmm. You've got Americon Citrus, which is a citrus farm out in Griffith, held by the Sapphire or Granite Investment Partners agriculture team. Both those assets are actively being exited. There's a bit of complexities with the citrus farm. It's not a great time to be exiting horticulture and citrus at the moment. There's still stuff going in cattle and macadamias and almonds and other areas of agriculture, but citrus is a bit harder. The farm itself as well is probably a few years away from being at its peak maturity and peak amount of yield, so isn't the best time. So they're looking at potentially extending, if they can, the farm, doing a bit of a recap, different avenues to get some money back to us, and potentially hold the asset for a little bit longer. On the venture capital side, they're actively trying to sell that. So that's the legacy. Again, whether that's six, 12, 18 months away is very dependent on how those managers go at selling the assets, but they're definitely in the middle of trying to sell them. On the new part of our portfolio and probably the older assets, the ones that are coming up for sale next year or FY 2028 are generally the ones that we've bought back in 2021, 2022. Yeah. Occasionally, you get an asset that's bought in, say, 2024 and sold in 2027 because it's just going way ahead of budget and it's a good time to sell. Yeah. But most of the time it's that five or six years. So there's a handful that we have that potentially could go in FY 2027, but the bulk are in FY 2028. There's quite a few of them where we think we'll see realizations. And it's probably important to highlight as well the legacy assets, I think when I joined in February last year, legacy assets were just on 20% of the portfolio. Yeah. We are down to 11.3% as it stands today. Yeah. Obviously, as Jake said, we are actively with the managers, working with them to hopefully get some exit proceeds back on both the venture capital piece and the agri piece to bring that below 10%, which is a really important milestone for the portfolio. Ian has asked: Where or what type of businesses have you invested in for the increase in private equity, and is any of this overseas? Yeah, good question. None of it is overseas. Nope. They are all Australian businesses. We have one business that is Australia and New Zealand, but mostly Australian businesses. The types of businesses, again, going back to that kind of boring is beautiful slide that we are talking about, they are generally those types of businesses. FES is a great example of one that was caught this year, the fire services business. Another is Richard Jay, a laundry services business. Yeah. Almost similar to Linen Services that has gone well for us in the past. Again, very kind of resilient, high cash flow, already earning a profit, strong EBITDA businesses with high barriers to entry, whether that be through a lot of CapEx for a business like Bremick that needs big factories and big production facilities or high barriers to entry because of regulatory requirements and licensing and different things like for FES. A couple of the others that come to mind, Wellbeing Solutions, which we own, through Crescent, which is a workplace rehabilitation provider in Australia, has done well. Healthcare Australia, which is HCA, the largest outsource provider of allied health and nurses in Australia, performing well as well, up at 1.5x. There are numerous other ones. APM Animal Health, that we mentioned before. Yeah. Adamantem took that private late last year, so that has been one that has been acquired this year. Yep. A vet business with locations all around Australia. Again, unfortunately, I have got a dog, he ate something he should not have eaten, and has to go to the vet. There will always be a need for those types of businesses. Yeah. Very low GDP or economy linkage in those businesses. We did get also a partial realization from Gull in New Zealand. Yeah, correct. Gull is an operator of service stations, petrol stations in New Zealand, just merged with a competitor. Gull controls South Island— Yep. —competitor controls North Island. They have now come together, merged to become a bigger business. It got through the New Zealand equivalent of our Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. We got some exit proceeds back from Allegro on that one. That has been a great result. We have got all of our capital back on that, and we are still heavily invested and earning money out of that. That is priced at well over 2 x. Those sorts of businesses obviously done well off the back of the fuel crisis that has been around post-war, but was delivering returns ahead of that as well. Capital gains tax has come up. Anthony has asked: Given the changes in CGT starting, are there any planned changes to the portfolio objectives to maximize the after-tax implications of the changes? Yeah, it is a good question. It does not impact us from an investing perspective as much. Most of the investing we do with these managers are through trust structures— Yeah. —which are being treated in the same way. We pay company tax at our level, which then passes to you as a shareholder in a fully franked dividend income rather than capital gains. Yeah, there is very limited change for us in terms of where we invest. From this perspective, yeah. Particularly since we invest in domestic opportunities. If you start to go global, there is different tax aspects that you have to keep an eye on. But for us, yeah, no changes based on the budget. Yep. Rob has asked about fees: What fees do we pay to WAM and investment managers? Yeah, good question. The fee to WAM is 1% management fee. There is no performance fee on the WMA vehicle. And the underlying fees obviously move around depending on where the portfolio is at. It is about 1.1% at the moment, so call it 2.1% all in. Yeah. David has asked about RAF, the Real Assets Fund that we have launched: What type of investor is the unlisted RAF fund targeted towards, and will this fund take away from potential investors from WMA? Yeah, it is a good question. We did launch the Real Assets Fund in May this year. That is not designed to take away investors from WMA. They are complementary vehicles. RAF, the Real Assets Fund, which is an evergreen fund, it is an unlisted trust structure. It is not a LIC. That has really been designed for financial advisors in the market who have a preference for accessing alternatives through a trust structure rather than a listed equity vehicle like the LIC. That is off the back of feedback we have had from many advisors when we have sat down with them and run through the WMA portfolio and they look at the portfolio and go: That is really interesting, but we do not like LICs for whatever reason. We do not have a client base that really needs the franked income, and we prefer to access alts through an evergreen trust. That is really the reason for launching that vehicle to go after that market. It is available to wholesale investors or retail advised investors. We do have a number of our larger shareholders who have helped seed that vehicle. It is performing well. In terms of the overlap with WMA from an investment perspective, it is important to highlight that. Take a step back. WMA, as we showed before, invests in private equity, real estate, infrastructure, natural capital, so water and ag, and private debt. The Real Asset Fund just does real estate, infrastructure, and natural capital. The Real Asset Fund will invest 50% in Australia and 50% offshore. Whereas WMA is primarily an Australian-focused vehicle from an investment perspective. In terms of the allocations to individual strategies, we have a very detailed deal allocation policy. The access that we have got in the market for opportunities, we can quite comfortably consider in both WMA and RAF, and they will just participate on a pro rata basis to opportunities. There is no shortage of opportunities. Ideally, we would have more capital in both vehicles. We could invest more. It is not an issue about scaling back opportunities. That would only be an issue if both vehicles were at sort of AUD 10 billion +, then we would run into perhaps an issue, but there is no issue there. There might be some minor overlap with the Australian real assets piece, but slightly different sort of target returns as well, for RAF. Aidan has asked about private credit: What range of premiums are added to basic interest rates for private credit? Yeah, it's a really good question. It ranges considerably. At the low end, you're probably looking at 3%-4% over cash at the low end for traditional, fairly low, what I would consider relatively low risk corporate private debt, and perhaps some securitized lending as well. All the way up to, I've seen things come across our desks with people promising 15%-20% returns, so call it— Yeah. —cash + 10%-12%. That is a very different risk profile. Very punchy. There's typically no income to service the debt. That's what we were saying before. It is a really broad, diverse asset class in terms of the returns you can access, and those returns are directly linked to the risk you take. Yuslid has asked: What are the investment opportunities to increase exposure to renewable energy, solar, wind, and batteries, and rare earth processing? Yeah, good question. We do have a chunk of exposure through Palisade, through our infrastructure book. We have an exposure to Palisade's Diversified Infrastructure Fund, which has a holding in the Intera Renewables platform, which has performed exceptionally well, which includes both Aussie renewables and some U.S. renewables as well, commercial industrial solar, and some battery storage. We also have exposure to Palisade's Renewable Energy Fund, which is primarily focused on all of those things in your question. They've performed well. Battery storage is going to be key, so the storage to support, obviously, the electricity generated from both wind and solar, and those assets have performed really well. They're yielding. We've seen some big platforms come to market at a premium, and so Palisade's continuing to build up their platform and capability in that space. But it has performed well, and obviously a strong thematic that we're following there. There's a few private equity exposures we have as well— Yeah, good point actually. Yep. —that are kind of secondary linked. Yes. Probably the closest example would be Microgrid— Microgrid. Yep. —Power that is owned by Adamantem in their Environmental Opportunities Fund. That business essentially provides solar to big buildings that have multiple tenants, i.e., a shopping center or something like that. Yes. They lease out the ceiling, put solar panels, put battery generation on there, and then they are able to get better energy pricing for the tenants and get a bit of an arbitrage there. Yeah. There is also a business, The Energy Network, that is owned by Fortitude. That business is primarily helping provide the tooling, the equipment, to build out the energy grid. As more solar and renewable energy is used, there is more need for The Energy Network's services and The Energy Network's equipment, and they have been performing incredibly well over the last few years. There was also the battery, I was just thinking the battery storage one that Adamantem bought as well. Yeah, Solar Battery Group. Yeah. Solar Battery Group, which is a really interesting one, where they effectively retrofit batteries to residential homes who have put solar in. Interesting stat on that almost 30% of freestanding homes in Australia have solar, which is really quite high. I did not think it would be that high. I remember talking the economics through with the team. But only 5% of that 30%, so a fraction of it, actually have batteries. This group is purpose designed and built to effectively refit in batteries into homes that have put solar on their roof but do not yet have a battery. Yeah, definitely. Trevor has asked: When will WMA provide tax info to the ATO for myTax pre-fill? I have an answer I can help you with. Jake is an accountant, so he can probably answer that. [inaudible] I'll help you out. The dividend and franking credit information is provided by our share registry, Boardroom, to the ATO for myTax pre-fill. The FY 2025 final dividend and FY 2026 interim dividend that were paid during the year should have already been submitted by Boardroom and available for the 2026 financial year tax return already. You can reach out to Boardroom to check if it's not coming up for you. Yeah. The last question from Robert: I've held WMA for about two and a half years, and I struggle to understand why the market doesn't see the benefits of the investment portfolio and reward the share price. Any input on the price to NTA ratio? We completely agree, Robert. I would say, look, I'd say to be fair to some shareholders out there, the last few years has been lower performance than— Yeah —this portfolio should do. I think a lot of them have seen the benefits of alternative assets. They understand all the education that we've been trying to get across, where it fits in a portfolio. But they've gone: Look, if you're giving me 6%, then I've got other opportunities. But now the portfolio is performing better, it's at 9%, it's tracking upwards. Our outlook this year is very favorable. I think that's a good catalyst for us to go and touch base with those shareholders again and hopefully close that discount. Yeah, and I think as well, we were reflecting on this the other day, just about messaging around WMA. It is a diversified alternatives portfolio, so you can go down the path of talking about diversification benefits against equities. We can go down the path of talking about the strong absolute returns that we've done relative to equities, the lower volatility, the access to assets that are typically difficult to access. These are all true. I think for us, just being a bit more focused in terms of that messaging and leading with one or two of those key messages with the investor base more broadly and with the broker advisor market, I think will be important so that they can start to see that come through. As we've said, the performance piece is we think the most important one. That's the proof in the pudding. I think a lot of people have been watching it, maybe they've dipped a toe in. We can now push that given the strong performance we've had, and importantly, the outlook for performance over the next 12 months. Great. Thanks, Nick and Jake, for your insights, and thanks everyone for asking questions. A recording of the call will be available on our website shortly. As always, please do get in touch if you have any questions. You can call the number on our website or email our info@wilsonassetmanagement.com.au inbox. I'll pass back to Nick for closing remarks. Thanks, April, and look, just thank you everyone for dialing in. Some wonderful questions there during the Q&A, which was great, so thank you for sending those through. Just a reminder again, we have those Meet the Manager events coming up in the major capital cities, so please do jump on and register. We would love to see many of you there, and also at our regional shareholder presentations. So thank you again.