Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the Sofina half-year results investor call. You have all received the half-year report and the press release and investor presentation yesterday after closing. Today's idea is that we ask our CEO, Harold Boël, to take you through that presentation that we posted online shortly, briefly, I should say. Afterwards we will open up for Q&A if there are any analyst questions. If you do have a question on the webcast, you should raise your hand and then we can see and unmute you. For the people in the room, obviously, I can just ask you too, if you have a question. With that, let me hand over to Harold to say a few words about the results and go through the investor presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Dirk, and welcome everybody, and happy to have you again on one of our conf calls. I wanted to walk you through the investor presentation we had prepared and have some time for Q&A. Our mission has not changed. It is the one we shared with you last year when we did the capital raise. If I look with the benefit of hindsight one year down the line, I think many of the things that we had foreseen in the capital raise have come to pass. We are, generally speaking, in line where we wanted to be, though indeed, we are only six months into the year. As you all know, investor time is a long time. If we look at the highlights of the first half year, variations on the theme. We are still looking at five sectors. Our NAV has progressed and has grown. We will go into the details of where that comes from with both our investment styles covering the three most important economic regions of the world, which is the U.S. and North America, Europe, and Asia. Our sustainability commitments stay as strong as ever. Our wide panel of relationships, and we will get into those details as well, is on the same footing with 90 portfolio companies, 90 general partners with whom we entertain long-term relationships. I will skip over the history. We had last year the time to go into it and to explain how our history defined who we were. One year down the line, all these elements stay true and stay at the heart of who we are and therefore what we do. If I look at specifically the first half of the year, what we had seen happening in the second half of 2025, with a momentum in the market. When I mean momentum, I mean transaction intensity continues to grow. The lessons of 2021, 2022 have not been lost onto the market. The attractiveness of long-term permanent capital is there and is strong and allows us to gain access to competitive situation and sometimes even to create a transaction. One of the things about Sofina's long-term investment thesis is a belief that innovation is a factor of value creation in the economic growth. I think with everything happening in the digital and the technological world, this is as true as ever, and we are capitalizing on that. For us, we have had an active deal flow, both on the investment and the divestment side. You can see a large number of transactions. These are, for the most part, with the exception of Cerealis, what we call the Sofina Growth investment, which means smaller tickets into fast-growing companies with a more, I would say, with a sharper risk-reward profile, higher expectations of IRRs and multiples, but also higher risks. To dive right into it, there is the emergence of a common theme in our digital transformation sector is cybersecurity. Cybersecurity attacks are on the rise, and AI is a strong enabler of these. We all see it in our own organization, the extent to which we expose and subject to these attacks. Therefore, there is the need for being just as innovative on the defense side. The investment we had done a year and a half to two years ago in Cyera is in that length. The investment we did in XBOW and in Eye Security are starting to cover the value chain. What we do when we approach a sector is to look at the whole value chain of a given sector or given thematic in this case, and to identify the places where we think the risk rewards are the most interesting. This is ongoing work, and we are happy with our exposure to this growing theme. At the other end of the spectrum, I would call our investment in Cerealis, which is an investment with a Portuguese family that owns one of the leading Iberian producers of pasta based on a thesis of best in class manufacturing in their segment, and therefore a possibility to gain market share through market consolidation in the Iberian Peninsula. Based on the proprietary relationship that we have developed for actually more than 10 years. This doesn't mean that our teams have not been active on the exit side. The exit environment is more difficult. Because of rising interest rates or interest rates having risen since the low points of the beginning of the decennia, there is less liquidity in the system, and therefore capital circulation is somewhat more challenging. That being said, we still exited the remaining position we had in Honasa Consumer. This was an investment we had done in 2020 for a company that got IPO'd a year and a half ago, and we sold our remaining stake this spring. SES, that was a historical position, and that was really a very, very small tail end. Salto Systems, where we announced the recomposition of the shareholding. Again, an investment from vintage 2020. Very successful and we are happy that new shareholders are coming on board to continue that story. That transaction is not yet closed, so we are pending regulatory approvals. We expect it will close in the second half of this year. We have also seen some activity within the private equity portfolio, and that has led us to the decision of sharing with you the see-through composition of that portfolio. In the same way we do the top 10 direct investment, we do the top 10 indirect holdings, and we will zoom on that. As I said, increased momentum, we see it in the growth in VC space with increased deployments and increased commitments. Funds are being deployed faster, therefore GPs are coming faster to market. All this lands at a portfolio of EUR 11.5 billion. This is after payment of a dividend, so a payout of, I think, EUR 130 million that happened in May, and a NAV per share that rises to EUR 326. If you double-click on that, you will have seen that value creation is mostly on the fund side. Also helped by a reversal of the Forex headwinds that we had last year. Remember, very, very strong Forex headwind with a rapidly declining dollar. Some of that has been clawed back, and that has an influence on the private funds business. They have done a good job, that piece of the portfolio has done a good job on value creation itself. A little more muted on the direct investment side, as I commented in the press release. What we also see is that when you are not in tech, and we have a diversified portfolio, so we are not only in technology and digital. Affordability issues in developing economies, we see it as consumer demand, but we also see it in the healthcare sector where pricing pressure and reimbursement pressure is getting stronger. All mean that the portfolio and the perspective of maybe a rekindling of inflation following the war in the Gulf is putting some downward pressures on the multiple side. The underlying growth of the portfolio continues, but we see that the macroeconomic conditions are, I would not say they are difficult, but they are not as easy as they have been in the past. With that, we can then look at what it means in terms of numbers. I talked about the EUR 11.5 billion. You see that the distribution is somewhat more skewed towards the private funds. We were roughly a 55/45 balance, now it is more like a 50/50. The dollar plays a role. Roughly speaking, the two main legs of our strategy have equal weight. This is the way it has been a little more one side or the other for the past years, but this is coherent with previous experience. A rise of NAV per share. A widening of the discount if you take the share price at the end of June, so we try to compare the date of the NAV with the date of the share price. In the meantime, the share price has risen, and I think it now stands at 348 the last time I looked. So that discount has narrowed somewhat, but we are still in the 20s, versus, as you know, historical average, which is between 15% and 20%. I am stating facts, not making comments here. Our net cash position has moved to a net debt position with a loan to value of 1.9%. Remember, when we did the capital raise and the bond issue last year, we said the purpose was to deploy those monies. We said it should take three years, but with all precautions in that it is saying it could be faster, it could be slower, but with a view of having net leverage on the balance sheet to the tune of between 5% and 10%. That was coherent with the strong rating of A- that we had received from Standard & Poor's. At 1.9%, we are on the way there. I am making no comment on the way it is going to happen, because when you are at these measuring moments, it really, really depends on a transaction has been signed and has not closed yet. You do not have the cash, you still have the asset. Or vice versa when you are investing. When you take these pictures at specific moments at quarters, you can have some volatility there. I would say our capital deployment, moving towards this level of LTV, in other words, accessing those investment opportunities, all this is going roughly according to what we had in mind when we did the capital raise last year. If I move on, we have a split between geographies and sectors. I will spare you going into those details. Please feel free to ask questions, that information is for you to give you an idea of what is inside the portfolio, give you a shape of what the forest looks like. Key financial indicators, the essential ones are the NAV, the NAV per share. We have the detailed numbers. You, of course, have the detailed numbers in our financial half-year report, and our Head of Finance, Clément, is on the call, and if there is a specific question, he would be happy to take it. Likewise, for these numbers. If I look then at the value creation in the portfolio, we see that the value creation stands at 8% with a tailwind of the currency, and a reasonably strong market impact. If we double-click to see where that comes from, we see it comes essentially from the funds business, because the direct business, for the reasons that I have explained, is flat for all practical purposes with a very small currency impact. These are mostly the dollar. The euro is probably the predominant currency in our direct investments. We see, and that is I think it is more of a qualitative indicator because these numbers from a permanently moving portfolio are hard to pinpoint with accounting accuracy. What we see is that the performance impact, i.e., growth of worth of sales, growth of EBITDA, growth of cash flows, and so on and so forth, this one remains positive. We have seen on the side of peers and multiple some compression there, some market impact that has put some pressure on that. The top 10 investments, not many changes. Maybe Cognita moving a rung or two. Cognita, with activities in the Middle East, and with pressure on affordability in developing countries in Europe, but also in Asia, has had a tougher time to grow. The company is doing well, but the growth is not as high as it was, and when we do the valuation, that has an immediate impact. Other companies are doing quite well, and in the top 10, there are no particular flash or worry points. Top 10 of our GPs. That list has not changed much. I think Lightspeed might have moved up versus HongShan, the former Sequoia China, but the differences are small. This list reads also as the people who have time and time again identified the winners, identified what Sequoia likes to call the legendary companies, the epoch-defining companies. It has happened in this technology cycle as it has happened in the past. I joined Sofina's board more than 20 years ago, and on my first audit committee, we spoke about the distribution that we were getting from the IPO of Google back in 2004. This has been really a constant in our portfolio and one of the pillars of our strategy. To an extent such that we decided, given the importance that it had and given our everyday improving ability to handle large amounts of unstructured data, we have data coming from a huge variety of sources, but we are able now to handle it in a way that we can share this with you. This is on a look-through basis, the top 10 in the portfolio, with plenty of disclaimers and small characters. That is the limits of the exercise. The difficulty is that this is based on GP reports. We want to, of course, base it on very strong data. The GP reports do not all arrive on time for closing of the books. That is something that has been shared with you as well. When, for a given GP, we do not have the latest reports, we have to use the one before. The consolidation to get the look-through basis is also based on the detailed information of the GPs, and that is something that comes in a second order. We have the total value of our position, and we use that to close the accounts, but to have to see how this breaks down into the different constituent companies. In other words, there are different reporting dates, and if everything was pulled equal, the order in there might be different. The total P/NAV would not change. That one is strong, but the relative order is there. The point of this is to show and to identify also the companies through which we invested, and to give you a qualitative more than quantitative feel of the relative sizes, one versus the other. A fair amount of caveats, and I take the opportunity to give them aloud. We still think it is a useful indication. If I move forward, the detailed investments I think I have talked about, so you can see good coverage of the different regions and increased deal flow coming from Asia. Asia had had a more difficult time in the years 2024 and beginning 2025. Now deal flow is picking up again, and we are happy to have invested in some new exciting companies there. Also a balance between new investments and follow-on. We believe, of course, when the company is doing well and when the original thesis is being validated, that putting more money to work in good conditions in existing companies is something where theoretically the risk-return should be better than a new investment because we know the sector, we know the company, we know the people, and so we can move with a higher degree of trust. It is something we have done, and a fair amount of the investments done in the first half of the year are coming from follow-on investments. Divestments, fewer, with a very significant one in Salto, but that one is pending closing. Some distributions from Lenskart, that has been IPO'd last year, and Mamaearth and SES I talked about. Then the post-closing events was Salto's sale. That was closed in July. An add-on investment in Scalable, where we invested in last year, was a sort of consolidation of the cap table, and a small cap table raise where we took part. In Twin, also one of our digital health companies. A new investment in Exein, which is our first investment in Italy, if I am not mistaken. It is a company specializing in digital security on the transistor itself, on the chip itself, so etched in. It is a company based in Italy and in Rome, which is not the first thing you think about when you think about tech companies, but it is an Italian founding team, a very competitive deal, and our European long-term supportive shareholder profile enabled us to be in the lead of that transaction together with a fund that we knew. We will see in the coming years if this is a successful investment, but it was certainly a competitive one, and that we are happy to have signed. As I said, Salto is pending closing. Regulatory conditions apply, but I do not see any issue. I think it is going through the motion. It should close in the second half of the year. With that, the usual disclaimers, and I will be happy to take questions. Thank you very much, Harold. For the people on the call, if you would like to ask a question, it is best to raise your hand, and then we will see that, and we will unmute your line, and then you can ask your question. I think Michiel Declercq at KBC has already done that because he is in my speaker queue. We also have people in the room here. Give me a sign if you want to ask a question. Maybe I will first go to Michiel Declercq. We will unmute you, and then you can go ahead and ask a question. Yes. Hi, Michiel Declercq from KBC Securities. Thank you for the presentation, Harold. I had two questions. You mentioned during the call that the exit environment is becoming a bit more difficult due to the rising interest rates. I was wondering, is this impacting your capital allocation policy? Are you being a bit more cautious now, or do you see valuation walls going down? How are opportunities going? A bit around that, please. Secondly, on the bridge, we saw some good underlying performance of the direct stakes in terms of operational performance. A bit of multiple pressure. You mentioned there the war that is going on, of course, but can you be a bit more specific in which sectors you saw most of the multiple compression, given that in general, markets recovered already by the end of June? That would be interesting. Maybe a final one. I highly appreciate the increased color on the indirect exposure of your funds. In the footnotes, I also read that it is a bit of an aggregate, and I was just wondering, I assume that maybe several funds use different valuations for several stakes. Can you be a bit more specific if there is a big difference here that you are seeing? Or let us say for Anthropic, for example, is the breakdown that you give a bit of a lagging indicator? That would be a bit my question, how big these valuation differences are in the funds? Thank you. Yep. Thank you, Michiel. Excellent questions. Yes, it is a trend we see generally, that because of rising interest rates, there is less liquidity in the system so that the number of, or the volume, I would say, of buyers for assets coming out is smaller. That being said, and I think Salto is a good example, if you have a good asset, you find a good home for it. It is not an issue in that sense. But what we do see is that, and not only us, but other operators, being much more mindful of presenting assets at the right moment in the asset's development, where the growth potential and the growth drivers are clear and established, when the company is on a very sound strategic step and so on and so forth. Whereas in previous years, there was such a huge demand for finding a home for that liquidity, that basically at any given moment in time, funds were happy to flip assets over. Nowadays, one has to be very mindful and very deliberate in when you do that. For people like us, it is really not an issue because we have permanent capital, and if we feel that actually, it has happened that we have a rendezvous clause in one of our portfolio companies that we say that everybody looks around and says, "We have the intention of bringing the asset to market, but there is this and that. This project is not finished yet. That new product or that new service will have a very good year last year, which really proves the thesis. You know what? Let us wait a year." We are very comfortable doing that. That is what I mean. In terms of multiples going down, it is really very, very dependent from sector to sector. We not only use multiples. Quoted equivalent multiples is one of the indicators that we use. For cash generative companies, I really like these calculations to be grounded in a DCF, because for all the difficulties and the sensitivities of a DCF to assumptions, you can really break down all the constituents of value creation. But what we do see, and if you ask me, where did we see that multiple compression coming from? I think from some specific cases where with challenges very specific to that company, and I have Cognita in mind here, but also in our software companies where the multiples had recovered from the depth of the SaaSpocalypse, you remember that was what people said in Q1, but still are not there where they were last year. I think the market is a little bit wait and see. We have strong conviction that well-managed and well-positioned vertical software companies have a role to play. The terminal value five years down the line is, well, if they are good today, they could be good tomorrow, but the world in that sector is somewhat more uncertain, and there is just in operators' mind, a higher discount factor, and that weighs on the multiples of the companies. But the companies themselves are growing. To give you a little bit color on two of these aspects. On the top 10, yes, it is an aggregate, and it is an aggregate of different methodologies because every fund has its own methodology, and therefore every fund arrives with a different valuation. There can be a band. It depends from asset to asset, and the top 10, I do not have the detail on the width of that band, but there is certainly one. You will have different values for different stakes. I would say in the top 10, but in general, as a rule. You asked a question about Anthropic. As we all know, there was a big fundraise in Q2 for Anthropic. The extent to which the impact of this fundraise in NAV is for all the funds that have used that as a valuation basis. It is in there for all the funds that have reported, but to see the impact on the top 10, it depends then on the funds sending the detailed information, and we have, at the moment where we publish the books, far fewer of those. By the end of September, usually we should be at more than 95%, but we have to report right now. That could mean that if we were to do the picture again on the basis of all the information, the position of Anthropic could change because the value at which the capital raise took place was at around EUR 900 billion, coming from, I think, EUR 200-ish billion of the latest fundraise. You have 4x on something which, because the numbers are just so huge, is an important position. I hope that answers your question. It definitely does. Thank you, Harold. You are welcome, Michiel. I see Filippe Goossens at Degroof Petercam. We will unmute you, and please go ahead, Filippe. Hello, gentlemen. Thank you very much for hosting the call and giving me the opportunity to perhaps ask three questions. Harold, the first one is on ByteDance. You have exposure, as you mentioned, both through the private equity funds and your direct investments. Is it fair to assume that this could now be your largest single exposure? At what point in time is one name too much exposure for you? The second question is, given the delays in exits, have you any funds in your portfolios that have reached end of life? In other words, the 10-year period has passed and there is still residual money left that the general partner is not able to monetize. Then the third question, more of a breakdown in terms of your private equity funds exposure. Can you share with us a little bit in terms of what percent of the portfolio is venture capital versus growth? Thank you so much. Okay. ByteDance, I think we disclosed that it is our largest exposure in the portfolio. We have spoken about it before. A very successful, very strong company, very strong management, and keeps on their growth path. Committing to AI and their model is one of the most relevant models in China. To what extent is too much of a good thing? I think we disclosed that it is higher than 5%, but it does mean not higher than 10%. We would disclose it if that were the case, so that gives you an order of magnitude. That is still single-digit percentage of the portfolio. From a concentration point of view, in general, as I said before, we start to get itchy fingers in high teens sort of numbers, because then you really still have real NAV needle movers, and you have to look at the embedded risk. The answer is no. It is not uncomfortable. It is something we keep a close eye on. As you know, the greatest uncertainty around ByteDance is the moment of a liquidity event. In all likelihood, given the size of the company, that would be a listing. I think there is a saying in Dutch about trying to look through coffee. It is difficult and we do not have a view on that. Just reminding that ByteDance is a bit of an atypical investment. It is a direct investment, but it is through an SPV with a single asset inside, and the single asset is that position in ByteDance. As an SPV, where we are in fact LPs of, we have no say and no view into the liquidity generation. Not the situation you would think is so great to have your single largest asset in, but I would call that a very high-quality problem, because the reason why it is such a big position in the portfolio is that it has been one of our most successful investment ever. The second one, delays in exit. I am going to answer yes. There are funds that have reached the end of life, and then they go through LPA, through the LP Advisory Council to see if they can get a one-year extension, then a two-year extension, then they find solutions. But that happens, I would say, on a regular basis. But when it happens, it is usually on a residual asset which is representing single-digit percentages of the total fund. A fund typically depends. A venture would have more lines. It can be companies in liquidation, for instance, where those processes take a very long time. Not such a successful investment. But that has been discounted and worked through the NAV. The idea of having a fund where you would have, at the 10-year mark, I do not know, still 50% of the invested capital not having been returned, that would be very rare. If that were to happen, I can tell you one thing, that GP is not raising another fund. They tend to find solutions. Yes, it can happen, but it is usually for non-significant amounts. The second one is the VC versus growth exposure. Wonder if this is something that we disclose. Yes, we disclose it here. You have the Sofina Private Funds strategy split on page seven of the presentation, Filippe, I think. Yeah. Okay. That should answer your question. Great. Really appreciate that very much, Harold. Just maybe a small add-on to your answer on the usual portfolios or the residual values in certain portfolios. Yeah. Have you at all taken advantage, where need be, of these consolidator funds? In other words, funds that buy up these kind of residual stakes in funds, or that has really not been an opportunity that you had to look at? We used to have these secondaries funds. We were investors with Lexington, for instance, and Ardian has always had also a very good secondary practice. The truth is, across time, we have consolidated our relationships on the venture and growth sides, because those are the ones that generate the synergistic effects with our direct investment portfolio. The answer is, it has happened in the past, and these were good investments in general, but no longer because of strategic alignment within the portfolio. Great. Thank you so much again, Harold. Thank you very much. You are welcome. Thank you, Filippe. I see Jon Pérez raised his hand, so Jon, we will unmute you, and you can go ahead and ask your question. Kepler Cheuvreux. Not hearing anything. Hi, Harold. Can you hear me? Yep. Yeah, great. Thank you. Yes. Jon here from Kepler Cheuvreux. Just a quick one for me, and first, congratulations on the results. Just a question. If we look at the performance by professor, the Sofina Direct portfolio was broadly flat excluding effects. I was wondering if you could share a bit of color on the main moving parts behind that flat trend. Was it, for example, that most of the portfolio companies were up, but a few of them were down? Was it something more even? If you could share some color on that. Thank you. Yeah. With a portfolio of 90 companies, it's difficult to get a really scientific answer across. I would say it was broad, with some strong contributors and some strong detractors, all proportions guarded here. The detractors, I think I spoke about. Cognita would've been one and our software businesses in terms of multiple compressions. The contributors, broadly speaking, companies here and there showing better cash flow, better EBITDA, stronger growth, which allow, when you do the calculation, to have a higher fair market value on that, but no significant trend. If I were to say something, I'd say the contributor basis would be broader based than the detractors where that was a little more concentrated. Clear. Thank you. Thank you, Jon. I see Joran van Aken. Please go ahead, Joran. Can you guys hear me? Yep, we can hear you. Hi, Joran. Hi. I've got two related questions, basically. In the report, you highlight that Sofina Growth basically focuses on Europe and Asia, and it does not mention the U.S. The first question would be, why don't you consider co-investments in the U.S.? Then linked to that, my second question is, basically, we've seen guys like Thrive and Khosla raising SPVs to invest directly into OpenAI. Menlo has an SPV in Anthropic. You are invested in Thrive and Khosla, which is great, but I guess you're not invested in those SPVs specifically. My question is basically, by excluding the U.S. co-investments, aren't you missing out on these attractive deals or co-investments? Thank you. Well, we will have to have a beer one day down the line to see if these are attractive deals. Jury is still out. An investor's job is only done when he sells. You remember that. Your question is a very good one. It is one we ask ourselves often. First, a little bit of nuance. There are some cases where we do invest in U.S.-based sort of opportunities. For instance, a company like XBOW has offices, or at least workers, across the whole world. It is based in Seattle, and it is run by a Dutch guy. These digital companies, they are real nomads. If they happen to be based in the U.S., we will not look through that, and we will do it. That is one sort of exception. The second sort of exception is in very specific sectors, and I am thinking in particular about healthcare. If you look at the way healthcare happens, Twin nowadays is a U.S. operating company, but it was an investment we sourced in India. Because the U.S. market is so deep and so I would say simple, quote-unquote, of access in the sense that you have a single set of payers that open you the door for the whole country. Whereas in Europe, you have one authority on the safety side of whatever it is you are doing, but the reimbursements have to be negotiated country by country. Which means that when somebody comes up with a good idea, wherever they are in the world, be it Europe, be it Asia, the U.S. is the port of call. These can be companies who could be established in the U.S. for that reason, but whose roots are very much European or Asian. Twin Health being one of the examples. Whenever we have access to those companies, we will gladly support them and invest. To go to the next step and to be systematically investor in the U.S. on the Sofina Growth side, Joran, there is a case because it is a place of deep innovation, where there is lots of entrepreneurs, and some very attractive transactions. But it is also an incredibly competitive space. The reason why we, and we see it from all the funds we invested with, the reason why we invested with them, and we see it on a day-to-day basis, is that these guys are probably among the better investors on the planet. Investment is competitive whichever way you look at it. To develop a practice where we are going to say, we are going to be directly investors in the U.S. competing against the Thrive, the Lightspeed, the Sequoias of this world, means you need to have for yourself a notion, we have a right to win to do that. I have a high regard for Sofina, I have a high regard for the team, and our ability to bring differentiated value to the market. But to an extent, to go head-to-head against all these guys, I think there are places where right to win speaks louder and is stronger. That is the answer. Furthermore, from a risk management perspective, as we explained last year, we like to keep our investment pace balanced between the three regions. In other words, if Sofina was touched by the grace of God and became the best investor on the planet, it would still mean that in order to keep that balance of investment pace between the three regions, for every direct I did more, I would have to do some indirect less in terms of commitment. Again, I do not see myself committing to having a smaller commitment to Sequoia or to Lightspeed or Andreessen in order for us to be competing with them. That is the reason why we do not do that. I hope this answers your question. Yeah, that is fair. I will not be fair because I want to squeeze in another question. In the post-closing, you mentioned that you have done an exit from Salto. Yeah. I am just wondering, is the NAV at the 30th of June already reflecting the updated valuation of the exit? I think the answer is yes, and I am handing over to Clément for confirmation. Because it is a post-closing event. Clément, can you confirm? Please unmute. Clément, if you could raise your hand, we will unmute you. Okay, we will get back to you. Clément, are you there? We will get back to you, Joran, on that one. He is there, so go ahead, Clément. We will unmute you now. Can you hear me now? Yes. Sorry for the technical issues. Yes, it is valued as this in the June figures. Thank you. I do not see more hands raised on the webcast. I see maybe here in the room, Geoffrey or Edward, do you have questions for Harold? Yeah. [Jacquet] from [inaudible]. I think Filippe asked already a good question. No, I do not think so. That is okay. No? Okay. Great. I think that is all we have time for. I see one, two more requests. [Robrecht Ops], go ahead. Can you hear me? Hello? Hello? Yes. Yes, can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Yeah. Okay, perfect. Yeah, hello. I'm [Robrecht]. I'm a Private Investor, already now for I think one year and a half in Sofina. I was wondering, I saw since you now have published the top 10 companies that are your indirect investments. I know that SpaceX was, I think, the first company, and I was wondering, were you able to leverage or get some value from the IPO that has taken place in June, or is that something that hasn't occurred yet, or that will come in the future, that you will take advantage of the [inaudible]? Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. The IPO having taken place before the close of the period, the valuation of it, SpaceX, and the funds through which they are, because we don't hold SpaceX directly, is based on the fact of SpaceX being a publicly quoted company. Okay. Thank you. I see another question from Joran. Great. Two more then. In the top 10, I did see that Cambridge Associates basically went up from number six to number two, so just wondering if there was anything special I couldn't really find around or something. Secondly, also a cheeky question, it's on the HSG Alliance D investment, the mysterious HongShan co-investment. Imagine, hypothetically speaking, if the underlying company would be a listed company in Hong Kong, wouldn't you be allowed to tell us which company it would be, or could it still be under NDA even if it's public? The first question is not cheeky at all. I think improved performance, and probably a combination of performance and multiples. But indeed, there was no rounds at Cambridge. It's just the company's performing well, as it has since we've invested. Nothing special to report there. On HSG Alliance D, to answer your question, it's a hypothetical case, so I don't like to speculate, point one. Point two, I don't have the LPA under my eyes and I can't answer. But usually— Fair enough. —on these confidentiality agreements, there is always the carve-out that if regulatory reasons you have to disclose information about the asset, then it is allowed. Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Harold, and thank you everybody for joining this webcast. As I said, you find all the information and all the reports that we went through on our website. With that, we will end the webcast here. Thank you for joining, and we will see you again in six months with the full-year results. Thank you, Harold. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Dirk. Thank you, everyone. Good day.