Through a press. I won't read the forward-looking statements, but I do state that they apply and reference them on page two of this presentation. With that said, once again, thank you for joining us. Remember, this is fairly informal, and we do encourage questions to help you better understand the business and its growth path. Now I'll turn the call over to Rob to start the presentation. Thanks, Glenn. Welcome everyone. I thought we'd start, I'll start with a quick introduction of myself. I'm the CFO. I've been with Blue Ant since the very beginning in 2011, helped get the company started. Prior to that, I was the CEO of Famous Players Theatres, which was part of Paramount, where we built the business from break even to CAD 60 million of EBITDA. Then I ran an auction with support from Viacom folks and got a very attractive return for our parent company in that process. Prior to that, I was with PepsiCo for 10 years in various senior executive roles in both Canada and the U.S. Now I'll turn it over to Mike. Great. Thanks, Rob. Good afternoon everybody. Thanks for joining us. Just a quick word about my background. Blue Ant is the second time that I've been in the media world. I'm a media entrepreneur. Many years ago, I started a company called Atlantis Films. We were a small film and TV producer. We started with CAD 300 startup capital initially. Over the years we grew Atlantis. It became Alliance Atlantis eventually. Over the years we took it public on TSX and grew it further. We were producing and distributing TV shows and also running broadcast channels. During the time of building Alliance Atlantis, we were navigating significant changes to the media world. This included the arrival of compact devices and DVDs and the dot-com boom and bust. A lot of change that we participated in. One of the higher profile, or probably the highest profile asset that we had was that we were the co-producers and co-owners worldwide of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, the full franchise. In 2007, I initiated an auction. I was the chair and the CEO. I initiated an auction to sell Alliance Atlantis. I thought the time was right, and we sold it for CAD 2.3 billion equity value, which was then turned on the CAD 700 million of shareholder equity that had been put into the company after going public. I only mention this because both Rob and I understand the importance of building a company, but also the importance of harvesting value for shareholders in due course. After selling Alliance Atlantis, a couple of years later, we started Blue Ant. Blue Ant is 15 years old. We started in 2011, but we're only nine months old as a public company. We went public on the TSX on a go public transaction August 1st last year. From 2016 until now, we hadn't raised any new equity. All of the growth of Blue Ant from 2016 onwards has been financed through internally generated cash from operations each year or the sale of the occasional asset. We're newly public, and since being public, in the first nine months, we've made two acquisitions so far. We acquired MagellanTV, an international streamer, and we also, in January of this year, acquired Thunderbird Entertainment, who are an international producer and distributor, primarily in the kids and the animation space. It's been an active first nine months as a public company. What does Blue Ant do? We're a producer, a distributor, and a streamer. When I say we're a producer, that means that we assemble all the creative elements for a TV show or a TV series, the ideas, the scripts, the talent and so on. We put together the financing pieces, and we physically shoot, edit, and assemble the finished program and then deliver it to whoever the advanced users have been, the people who have signed up ahead of time to use it. For the programs that we own, we're also therefore the ongoing distributor. We produced it, but then we're also licensing third-party broadcasters, streamers, and sub-distributors all around the world to make use of that program, that series on their platforms, wherever that they may be. Thirdly, we're a streamer, we own and we operate a number of pay TV and free streaming channels in Canada, in the U.S., and internationally. As part of that, we also operate an ad sales business, specifically focusing on selling advertising into the smart TV market. That's quickly what we do. Some key things to think about and when you think about Blue Ant, first of all, we have a really experienced management team. We've got 400 permanent full-time execs all around the world. Offices, we're based in Toronto, but offices also in L.A., New York, Washington, Vancouver, London, Singapore, Sydney, and that's a team with direct on-the-ground knowledge of the market around the world. We're a cash-generating business. As I mentioned, we funded our growth for the past nine years through just our annual cash generation. At the end of Q2, we had approximately CAD 50 million of cash on our balance sheet. By the way, we're going to be announcing our Q3 results in July, so in about a month from now. We've got currently de minimis corporate debt and significant untapped or unused corporate lines of credit. That's relevant because we see significant M&A opportunities in the media landscape, and that's the way we're going to invest and use part of those significant cash resources that we have. Moving on to the next slide, please. People are watching TV. Sometimes you hear people say, "TV's dead. No one's watching," which is not true. What has happened is the internet obviously has changed everything. Now, people are consuming TV via streaming and a lot less via rabbit ears or cable. If you look at how you consume TV, you probably realize, "Yeah, I do watch a lot of video, but I'm watching it on YouTube or on Netflix or whatever." Next slide, please. It's an industry in flux, as I said, the internet has changed pretty much everything, including in the media world. Specifically, the internet has allowed us to create so much more viewer choice in the TV world. It's also added much more choice for advertisers to get to the audiences that they want to reach. This has meant, however, that old supply lines have been disrupted within our industry, some players have kept up, but others haven't. Some players in our industry also have allowed their balance sheet to become stressed, partly through the 10 years of cheap interest rates that we experienced. In any event, the disruption that the internet has created for our industry reminds me an awful lot of the previous waves of disruption and change that I saw during the dot com era that I was referring to a few minutes ago. I think now, we think, Rob and I know, that it's a great time to be using M&A as one of our methods for growth, it's a great time in our industry to have the balance sheet that Blue Ant has. Next slide, please. Our basic business idea is that we create programming or we acquire programming, then we exploit it in various ways by renting it, by licensing it to users, by selling subscriptions on our channels, and by selling ads. On this slide, you can see lots of logos of companies and names that you're very familiar with. They're our customers. As a producer and distributor, we're creating programming and licensing them to some of the users on the right-hand part of this page. Recent productions that we've made recently include "Spidey and His Amazing Friends" for Disney+, "Lakefront Luxury" series for A&E, or "Highway Thru Hell" for Amazon Prime, for example. As subscriptions, our channels are delivered via intermediaries like Rogers Cable in Canada, Sky in the U.K., Foxtel in Australia, Millicom in Latin America, many other platforms around the world. Advertising is another source of revenue for us. We sell our own ads, but also some of the platforms that carry our channels, like Samsung TV Plus or Tubi, Vizio, Roku, they often will sell the ads and share that advertising revenue 50/50 with us. In the advertising category, as well as selling our own ads, Blue Ant also sells advertising on behalf of other owners. The most significant one is Paramount+ and Pluto, we are now their exclusive sales agent for ads in Canada. In any event, we're constantly developing and producing new shows, creating new ideas for new shows. We share the risk by pre-selling our projects, our programs to major customers, so we're not producing significant projects on spec. We're always looking to satisfy the market at the same time as looking to create the next hit show. Our main customers are in the U.S., Europe, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. In other words, all the major developed Western economies. Next slide, please. We've got three reporting segments, Rob will get into some of this in some more detail. The first is called Global Channels and Streaming. Those are our international channels. Some are pay-TV channels, like Love Nature and MagellanTV, and many are free streaming channels that carry ads, so-called FAST channels, free ad-supported streaming television channels. The other part of that segment is MediaPulse, which is the smart TV ad sales business. Excuse me. The second reporting segment is Production and Distribution, that is producing and distributing TV shows, mostly proprietary programs that we own, but also in some cases, service work. We're producing programs for other customers to own. We also distribute programs produced by third parties. These will be producers that don't have the same distribution capacity that we have. Our third reporting segment is Canadian Media. That consists of seven Canadian TV channels and 10 Canadian consumer shows. Those are our three reporting segments. Next slide, please. Just before I hand it over to Rob to talk more about the financials of the business, two examples of our Blue Ant business model at work, Love Nature and the Mike Holmes catalog. The first, Love Nature, is a channel, a branded library in effect, that we built from scratch. By comparison, the one I'm going to talk about after Love Nature is a library we didn't produce, but that we bought. Love Nature is now a channel that we operate in about 100 countries around the world. It's a pay TV channel in most of Europe. It's a free streaming channel with ads in the U.S., and in some countries, it's a branded block in the U.K. When you subscribe to Sky, you get Sky Sports, Sky this, Sky that, you also get Sky Nature. Sky Nature basically is Love Nature as a white label product in effect. We're able to distribute Love Nature in different ways in different territories, depending on the local economics and the local opportunity, because we own the content. 95% of the programming on Love Nature is programming that we own, thus we can shift and shape the distribution mechanism in each territory because of that ownership. Controlling content and owning content is absolutely key to how we grow value in the long term. Another example of our model at work is the Mike Holmes catalog. Mike Holmes is a Canadian and U.S. TV personality with a focus on the home repair category. We didn't produce these shows. We bought them. We acquired them from Mike Holmes a couple of years ago, 275 hours of owned content. Now because we own this library, we're able to use it in different ways in different territories. This is the programming that has significantly powered our Homeful FAST channel in Canada, the U.S., and internationally. It's also a library that we've been re-licensing to HGTV in the U.S. in the past year or so. Again, the reason we can create and extract value from this is because we control the content, and we can decide how it's used in each territory. Rob, over to you. Thanks, Mike. This chart shows the separate standalone financial history of both Blue Ant and the recently acquired Thunderbird business. It reflects strong performance over the past six-year period that included events like the pandemic and the writers' strike. Obviously, adding Thunderbird provides enhanced scale both operationally and financially. On the Blue Ant side of the Blue Ant chart, you can see the breakdown in revenue between the three reporting segments that Mike was talking about earlier. I also note that our return on capital employed for fiscal 2025 was 18%. It's a key metric, one we pay a lot of attention to, and it's part of our overall performance management and assessment of business unit performance. Finally, on Thunderbird, we've identified CAD 7 million of cost synergies with that business over a 12 months period, and that is all in overlapping shared services and duplicative public company costs. We've taken actions to realize the vast majority of those run rate savings already and have great visibility on the rest, so are quite confident of achieving that CAD 7 million synergy figure in the newly integrated business. Next slide. There's four areas of focus for organic growth in the company. The first is building other global brands with the attributes of Love Nature, so akin to what Mike was describing with the Love Nature business and how it's grown around the world. The second is growing our digital businesses outside North America and on new platforms. The third is integrating the recent acquisitions in production and scaling the production business for more owned and proprietary content. Finally, the last area is growing MediaPulse, our smart TV ad sales business. On the M&A front, Mike talked about how important this is as a strategic driver of our business and growth in the business. There's a strong pipeline of opportunities. We have an experienced leadership team that's able to find, vet, and execute the strategy and M&A transactions. Our areas of focus are in channels and streaming to build international streaming and channel brands. In the studios area, it's to focus more on catalogs and libraries, similar to the Mike Holmes example that you were just hearing about a second ago. It really accelerates our strategy. It's easy to integrate relative to bringing in another entirely new production business. We're looking for selective opportunities in the Canadian media side. Finally, in media adjacent sectors like our MediaPulse business, which is a marketplace for smart TV ad sales. This is our chart on our M&A characteristics and the criteria we think about. There's nothing particularly revolutionary about that. We are disciplined about following it and assessing opportunities against it. We are typically looking at the performance of a potential asset in our hands and how it performed. We do a discounted cash flow analysis and look for a 20% plus internal rate of return. The four areas are scale, we're growing, but we're still small. Synergies on both costs and revenue, strategic fit, so complementary to what we're already doing well. Finally, IP, opportunities that include content rights or a pathway to obtain more. Finally, and importantly, as Mike spoke about earlier, we have the financial capacity to pursue a significant amount of transactions. While we still believe, we do believe in modest leverage and a strong balance sheet, we will maintain that regardless. There's a significant amount of financial capacity for further M&A transactions. Back to you, Michael. I guess I'll start or I'll finish where I started. Emphasizing, we've got a management team with significant experience in the industry, and with deep knowledge of the current state of affairs of our media industry worldwide. We've got a very strong balance sheet, cash on hand, untapped lines of credit, well-positioned to take advantage of the M&A opportunities that we see in front of us. A management team that has a history of creating and harvesting value for shareholders. We thank you for being part of this presentation and look forward to having a chat and trying to answer your questions. Super. Thank you, Michael. Thanks, Rob. We'll start Q&A. Again, to our audience, please do use the Q&A feature within the portal. We've got a number of questions in the queue already. Some overlap, so you may hear your question asked in a different way, but we'll get started. First question, with many companies in the media space having struggled to perform, earn attractive returns in streaming, what do you attribute this to versus Blue Ant, and how is your model different from those companies as well as the larger peers? How do you see your business portfolio mix of streaming channels, owned IP content to create a more durable and profitable platform? Okay. Well, there's a lot of parts to that question. I guess one of the factors about our strategy is that we have a multi-tiered and multi-focused revenue stream. The vast majority of our customers are international. We're based in Canada, but our main customers are American, European, and other countries, as I mentioned before. Having a wide enough range of customers matters a lot. We're technology agnostic. We're happy to deliver via cable, but we're equally happy to be delivering via streaming. We're able to embrace new technological ways of delivering to viewers enthusiastically, and that matters. I think also that our focus on owning IP is the way that one can create value in the longer term. I guess I'd probably come back to where I started, our international focus, so that we're not just because we're based in Canada, we're not at all dependent on the Canadian market. Okay, super. Thank you. Next question. You've expanded your owned catalog over the last decade, with roughly half now owned. How are you thinking about the monetization curve and margin profile of owned content versus service production work in the near term and long term? There's two parts to that. What the nature of our library, how much do we produce and how much do we acquire from others, and then the topic of service work. In theory, we don't really care if we've produced something or somebody else has produced it. The question is, do we own it? The margins are the best on programs that we own, and therefore, when we license a show or sell the show, we get to keep all the revenue. The margins are less by definition in the case where we are just commissioned sales agent selling somebody else's program on their behalf and taking, say, a 30% distribution fee. Owning content, and then being the agent to distribute it has a better margin than if we're selling somebody else's programming, so we'd prefer to own it. However, it's a big world out there, and we want to have a diverse library. We want the best ideas from wherever we can get them, so we are more than happy to be distributing programming made by others. One of our strategies in the past couple of years has been to convert some of the libraries that we've been representing on a third-party sales basis and change the relationship away from being the commissioned agent to the new owner of the program and buying out the original producer. Another part of your question, I think, was comparing the economics of service production work to proprietary service work. Service production is where the production company manufactures a show on behalf of a customer, Disney, Fox, Paramount, whoever, and the producer makes the show and then delivers the finished program to the customer, and that customer, it's theirs to own and theirs to use. That kind of service work, and Thunderbird did a lot of that kind of work, it doesn't have the same profit margins as proprietary productions. On the other hand, service work doesn't use up much working capital, if any, because your customer is paying you cash in advance, you're not fronting it. Service work allows the producer to keep their connections to the talent creative community as well as the customer demand community. We're good with having a mixture of proprietary production and service work. In the long run, we will create greater value via our proprietary productions if we can own the IP, because when one gets a show that has real traction, becomes quite popular in the marketplace, that's how you can make real money. It's a mix. The margins are better on proprietary, even though the proprietary productions require the use of working capital usually as you go through the piece. Thank you, Michael. Do you break down your business unit segment by margin, revenue contribution, geographic contribution? If not, is there an area or geography in the platform you see exponentially growing in the near term? What are you most excited about in your platform? In part, maybe Rob might want to address part of that. Again, that was a multi-part question. I guess we're most excited about the international distribution and AVOD FAST and channel growth opportunities. By comparison, our Canadian media business, which is seven Canadian channels, is not a growth engine. It still generates cash and is strategic for us, but is not a place we're looking for forward growth. Far and away, the growth opportunity is international sales, and out of that, far and away, the growth opportunity is international sales for programming that we own outright or at least own as much as possible of the relevant show. Rob, did you want to add more context? Yeah, I guess I would just add in terms of how we report or what we break down, what we provide, as Mike spoke about the 3 types of revenue, of subscription, advertising, and we do provide the breakdown of that within the business segments. We do not report geographic breakdowns. In production, we report production services revenue and owned proprietary production and licensing revenue is included in that segment. Thank you. With your strong liquidity position and additional capital contribution received, how are you currently prioritizing capital allocation between M&A, deleveraging, organic growth and investments, and potential share repurchase over time? Sure. Rob, do you want to start with that? Yeah, we want to be opportunistic. There are a lot of methods. When I talked about the organic growth opportunities, there are significant investment opportunities in each of those four areas. The area we're probably looking at most is where we can grow the licensing, the distribution, and rights business. The investment there is in growing our catalog and working with production for more, for greater owned productions. In M&A, that is really, I guess, where the opportunity. It takes a counterparty to do a transaction, obviously. We're in a number of conversations on a variety of opportunities. We're thinking of managing to, and what we've spoken about, is a debt level that's probably no more than one times EBITDA combined with our available cash resources. That speaks to kind of a universe of M&A opportunity. As of today, we wouldn't use our stock for that purpose, given its kind of trading value. We still have a fair amount of capacity to pursue both organic and M&A opportunities. Thank you. Part of the other question was about share buybacks. We do have a modest share buyback program that was limited by the average trading volume when we put the program in place last December. It's there, it exists, but it's modest by rules of the TSX for the time being. Rob, did you want to add to that? Yeah. No, it's a function of sort of the six-month average trading volume, and that was modest when in the early days of our life as a public company, the vast majority of our shares were locked up. All the Blue Ant shareholders were locked up. All of the Boat Rocker shareholders, the insiders were locked up. As a result, we had a very modest float that drove low trading volumes. All of those lockups are now off. They were off effective May 1st. Our entire stock now represents a tradable flow. Great. Thank you. With respect to M&A, what specific characteristics are you most focused on when you're evaluating targets? I would say where there's content ownership available or a clear path to greater content ownership, that's probably the thing that drives our business model most and what we're looking for. In the short run, libraries and catalogs are probably at the very top of our list, and the reason for that is that we've still got a fair amount of integration work to be done in bringing Thunderbird and the Boat Rocker companies together with Blue Ant. The beauty of a catalog transaction or library is that you simply buy the content. There aren't people to integrate, there aren't systems to integrate. You ingest the content in your rights system, the salespeople go ahead and sell it. It's far simpler from an integration standpoint. That would probably be our focus and priority in the near term. Okay, super. I have another question on the topic. You've addressed the criteria part. Is there a multiple hurdle return that you look for when you consider M&A? Yeah. What I referred to was probably less multiples. For example, in the MagellanTV transaction, a lot of the value of that business was under our ownership. We could bring our distribution network to bear on it. We own 1,500 hours of content that was fully paid for, that could be used to schedule and populate the channels. As a result, we could significantly change the margin profile of the business and grow the top line while doing that. We modeled all of that and looked to generate a significant return. It was well over a 20% rate of return on a discounted cash flow basis. That's more how we tend to think about it than multiples of EBITDA. It's what it'll do going forward as opposed to what it's done historically. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. Are there meaningful under-monetized assets inside the Thunderbird library that Blue Ant can now amplify through its existing global distribution infrastructure? Sorry, are there meaningful what assets? Sorry, Glenn. Under-monetized assets inside Thunderbird library. There are some of the assets that we think are under-monetized are currently being distributed by third-party distributors, so it'll take some time for us to get our hands on them to take them back from those distributors. However, there are assets that are under-monetized in the sense that they've still got lots of value left in them, that Blue Ant, with our much more sophisticated or broader distribution system, we think can bring to market. One example of that is the TV series, "Kim's Convenience." It was a hit show in its time. It's still popular. It's probably the best example of underutilized, still valuable content in the Thunderbird library. Okay. Thank you. Given that AI is rapidly becoming an integral part of the media and entertainment landscape, how do you see this technology impacting Blue Ant from a content creation and production perspective rather than strictly through operational efficiencies? What opportunities and challenges do you anticipate AI presenting for the business over the next several years? AI, it's good to have this discussion because you can't have a discussion with anything without AI these days. AI in our world is probably going to be a very powerful tool that will somewhat enhance production, and it will likely be used by us and by others in various ways. I think that the biggest impact of AI in the TV landscape is that it will help create a huge additional supply of content of all sorts. That's going to mean, if you assume that a, tsunami might be too strong a word, but a significant extra increase in content in general, it means that in order to stand out, the content owners are going to want to have, and need to have even clearer branding, even better known IP, or even more distinct marketing to stand out amongst that increasing influx of general content. Examples of this is, I think it's going to mean that the value of already existing underlying IP, like an existing book or whatever, play, is going to become even more valuable when you turn it into a TV show. That an articulate, well-known original political commentator or essayist is going to have more valuable reach and range than a nobody who's nobody's ever heard of. That real live, actual rising sports personalities are going to be even more important. You assume that this excess tsunami of content means that additional necessity for high-level branding and high-level IP, and without that, it'll be harder to compete. That's, I think, probably one of the longer-term impacts. Another impact is going to be that we are working with our broadcaster and streamer customers to mutually understand which AI tools are useful and appropriate, and which are not. Of course, we want to augment and support human creativity and not replace it. Importantly, to the extent we're using certain AI tools, we want to make sure that, or anybody should want to make sure that what they're creating is still copyrightable. Because under copyright laws in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere, if a human didn't make it's not copyrightable. For us, having copyright protection for all that we do is super important. That's top of mind as well. Thank you. A financial question. I noticed in the financials that Blue Ant's EBITDA, excluding Thunderbird, is relatively flat over the past couple of years, while revenue has seen a nice increase. This would suggest that costs are increasing at a rate higher than revenue. Is this a continuing trend? If not, what will mitigate this issue? Robb, you want to take that? Yeah. We've had a ton of both one-time costs and a general level of cost increase related to being a public company. Some of that stuff we are looking at how to digest and get behind us, and also transaction restructuring costs, some of which is below the line, but some of which is part of business as usual. There have been a number of those types of influences in our cost structure. We're obviously looking for cost efficiencies. We've identified the synergies in both the Boat Rocker and Thunderbird companies that will assist with that, as well as to a lesser degree, Magellan. Our objective is to get our costs in line and keep them flat relative to the much greater size of the business with all of these companies integrated and going forward. Super. Thank you. I've got sort of some follow on AI questions. You may have addressed this, Michael, but I was reading some other questions while you have. If I repeat myself, my apologies. Have you gotten any interest in licensing your factual owned content for AI training deals? Is this something you're considering? Yes. We are. We're pursuing it. Yeah. Okay. What is Blue Ant's AI strategy? Have you invested any real CAD into this? Well, our strategy, apart from obviously using AI to improve the efficiency of all of our shared services, just like every other company probably in the world is doing. Putting that aside as kind of table stakes, we are working with some of our broadcaster and streamer partners to figure out which tools, like I was mentioning a minute ago, are most effective, which can supplement human creativity and which will ensure that the products we make are still copyrightable. Yep, we are. We're experimenting. We're doing so not by ourselves, with our broadcast or streamer partners. We're not expecting to be the cutting edge leaders in AI. There's a lot to learn. We're paying a lot of attention to it. We believe it can be a value creator for us. We're doing so cautiously because we are in the creative business, and we believe, and we will continue to believe, that human creativity will be at the center of what we do. We're not trying to overthrow what we're doing, but we are looking at ways to augment that human creativity. Thank you. What are the biggest integration risks with Thunderbird, especially around retaining creative talent, production relationships, and buyer relationships with streamers/broadcasters? Well, I guess bringing two large companies together or two sizable companies together, making sure that we don't bog ourselves down in competing systems, making sure that we talk to our customers in one coordinated way and we're not having parallel conversations are pretty important. Thunderbird and Blue Ant are a remarkably good fit. The customers that we had with Jam Filled, an animation company that we inherited from Boat Rocker last year, the customer profile was almost entirely different and separate from the customer profile of the mainstreamer customers for Thunderbird. We are lucky not to have very much overlap, actually, and so that made one of the obvious concerns much less. Since doing the Thunderbird deal, we have brought together the unscripted production business of Thunderbird, called Great Pacific, and an unscripted production company from Boat Rocker called Proper Television, and our original Blue Ant unscripted, we put those three together and made them one coherent and connected unscripted production unit, and that's been helpful. It's put together the creative ideas, tied it directly to our international distribution team so we can bring back market intel from our distribution team to that one now singular unscripted unit. That was the method we used to make sure that the integration on the unscripted side was as effective as we felt it could be. Glenn, I would just add that there's a lot of management continuity, particularly the key creative execs and the execs with the relationships with key customers. There is a tremendous amount of continuity. Jen McCarron has joined our team and leads the whole kids, young adult animation and family business. All the key Boat Rocker creative execs are with us. There's a lot of management continuity that I think mitigates some of the integration risks in that question. Thank you. I know you've touched on this, but maybe expand on it. What is Blue Ant's current approach to content acquisition? Are you prioritizing buying catalogs and companies outright, co-producing with independent teams, or licensing finished content? We're doing all of the above, we're opportunistic as we pursue each of those methods. To do only one wouldn't be enough, we're doing all of the above. As Rob mentioned a few minutes ago, acquiring catalogs and libraries, ideally in the genre categories that we specialize in or focus on, would be a big priority. It's faster and simpler, and it doesn't come with a lot of integration effort. We use all the techniques that that questioner mentioned, but a particular priority now is looking for catalogs and libraries to acquire. Okay, thank you. Can you give some color on, as one example, what you paid for Mike Holmes and the ways that gets monetized through various distribution opportunities? We haven't disclosed the amount we paid for the Mike Holmes catalog, but we can say that we're very pleased with the price we paid and with the value we've harvested from it. I guess the main ways we've received value is that we've used the Mike Holmes catalog on our Homeful FAST channel. Homeful is a FAST channel that runs on platforms in the U.S. mainly, but also Canada, Latin America, and Europe. Using the catalog on Homeful has been use number one. The second-largest specific use is licensing some of that programming to HGTV in the U.S., which we did last year. A third kind of value is that Mike has become a spokesperson, marketing on behalf of our Homeful channel. He's a well-known personality, and he's been helping us to market the Homeful channel in the U.S. and in Canada. Mike and his two children have made some new TV shows for us, sort of Holmes the Next Generation. Now we have the whole Holmes family marketing those new shows with a new spin on that. That's in addition to the library, but it's driven by the fact that we had the library deal. Also, we own consumer shows like the Cottage Life show and the Toronto National Home Show and so on, and Mike has attended those live events and helped to promote those events, but also Homeful to that audience. Those are three or four different ways that we've extracted value from Mike Holmes' catalog. Super. Thank you. There's a few questions on this, I'll sort of phrase one. Can you just sort of expand on the regulatory policies, both Canada, North America, Europe, that are present today, that you see down the road that will either help or hinder Blue Ant's growth? Well, they fall into two buckets. The first bucket is in Canada and a number of U.S. states, in most European Union nations and Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and so on. In most cases, there are tax credits made available to people who spend money creating TV shows there. It applies in many American states, it applies in Canada, the U.K., and so on. That tax credit regime in various countries has been a policy mechanism that's been around for the past couple of decades, and if anything, we see slightly increasing. New Jersey just increased theirs, I think, in the past year. British Columbia increased theirs. It seems like a fairly stable public policy mechanism and a very effective one. That's the first and most important thing. Another thing is happening, though, is that in most countries, local broadcasters or domestic broadcasters have obligations to spend money and support local production. There's similar rules in France, in the U.K., and Canada, and so on, obliging domestic participants to spend money on local production. We have that in Canada. There is also, in many countries, and this might be the point of their question, I'm not sure, a move to try to capture the international streamers, the Netflixes, the Paramount Pluses, the Amazon Primes, the Spotifys, and so on. They'll have all of them to ensure that they contribute to production in France, in Australia, in Canada, and so on. That's the second broad stream of public policy. It was in the news in Canada in the past couple of weeks, where the CRTC proposed some new rules about 3 weeks ago, and our federal government here in Canada overturned that CRTC proposal a few days ago. That CRTC proposal is very similar to recent legislation in France, the E.U., and Australia. How those international streamers are obliged or encouraged to participate is very much an open question, and one that the industry is totally unsure of. The part that looks quite secure, relatively, is the tax credit regime in many territories that I mentioned at the beginning of my answer to the question. Super. Thank you. I have a number of questions around guidance with different sort of projections given by different investors. I'll sort of parse this in a number of ways to try to address all of it. Number 1 is, does the company provide any form of guidance? No Okay. In the past, Thunderbird has given guidance. Would their guidance at this point in time still apply? We don't give guidance. Okay. I guess in general then, what do you think the public investors are missing since the stock has traded down since the announcement of the Thunderbird acquisition, and I guess, prior guidance given by Thunderbird? I'll invite Rob to speculate on that question, but answer might be It's hard for us to comment on the perspective or the analysis of any market participants. We can only say that Blue Ant is a new story as a public company. We're nine months old. We're making efforts, including via this webinar, we appreciate everybody's attendance to listen to our story. We're trying to get out and tell our story. We feel that we're a growth stock. We know we've got a strong balance sheet. From our point of view, the natural internal growth combined with the M&A opportunities make for a pretty compelling story. You would think that a CEO and a CFO would believe that and say that, but we do think that it's a growing industry. We know it's a growing industry, we see it filled with opportunity. I can only speculate that one of our issues is that as a new public company, our job is to get out there and tell our story. Rob might have a more useful response. No, I think that's about the right answer, Mike. Okay. Thank you. Can you talk about any impact that a potential recession may have on your business? Well, in general, recessions tend to hit the advertising market. They have in the past, and they probably will in the future. Advertising was one of our sources of revenue. In general, advertising is either the canary in the coal mine or is early to recovery. In general, we see the ad spend getting hit early in a recession and recovering quickly at the end of it. That's one thing. In the past, I'd say, in the production business of streamers or broadcasters buying more or buying less in recession, we've seen that to be, in general, in the past, relatively less affected. Because partly in recessions, and in serious recessions, including in the great recession of 2008, for example. Whenever there's a serious recession, watching TV or going to the movies is a pretty inexpensive luxury, or you might even say a necessity, and recessions generally have not caused a reduction in TV or film consumption. Okay. Thank you. Why do you think investor pessimism is unwarranted in the small cap media space? Why do we think there's quite a range of players in the small cap media space, I don't know if I could or should try to answer the question about all small cap media companies. I think that if it's a company that has an international focus and not a landlocked focus just in one territory or just in one small market, I think that's a factor. I think that if a significant part of a company's focus is intellectual property ownership, I think that's a very important differentiator as well, because it's difficult to create real wealth just supplying services to others. It's the international focus, and it's the IP ownership part of it. I think also, are the revenue streams sufficiently diversified that it can withstand some of the natural ups and downs of any industry. Robb might want to add to that, I'm not sure. I think that it is hard to comment on sort of what's happened in general. One of the things we hear in terms of concern is sort of with smaller cap companies is just the trading volume. If we invest in the company, is there a logical point in time where we can exit if we wish to? One of the answers to that is, if we grow the company, grow our market capitalization, pursue our strategy, which we think is the key to doing that, the liquidity will not be an obstacle. I think that's kind of one of the things we're focused on, is that point exactly. Super. We would like to think that within nine months of going public, of acquiring both Thunderbird and MagellanTV, not only are those fantastic opportunities, and we're fortunate to have those opportunities in front of us, but also we hope it sends a message to everybody that we are a company that intends to grow. Excellent. This is a good lead into the next question. With both of you having great experience in selling previous companies that you've worked for, how should shareholders expect an end goal for Blue Ant, I guess, to be, in terms of the size of the revenue of Blue Ant that you would have to grow it to before considering selling it, if that was an option? Well, which I don't know that there's a magic number of revenue or earnings or cash flow that would be the right size or right time to sell. I think that when I look at the reasons why we decided to sell Alliance Atlantis when we did, it was partly the timing in the market in the sense of where the TV and media industry was. It also reflected where the capital markets were. It also reflected my views on the general economy and geopolitics at the time. I don't know that there's a specific number. I would say also with Alliance Atlantis, our position always was that Alliance Atlantis was not for sale until it suddenly was. Thank you. One question here for Rob. There's been a lot of moving parts with acquisitions, including shares and cash, and cash to be received from prior deals. Can you help me understand what the current enterprise value is and what's the balance of the cash to be received from if there's any balance of cash to be received from prior deals? No, all the cash has now been received. All the various forms of the Fairfax support agreement through the going public transaction is now received. When we release our Q3, it'll be evident kind of what that's done to actually strengthen the balance sheet. Sorry, what was the first part of the question, Glenn? The enterprise value. The enterprise value. We have minimal debt, In fact, we have net cash. It's the net cash plus the market cap. One more question on production, and then I'll ask for some closing remarks. You're producing content for customers like Disney, Netflix, and others. How can and does your production offerings differentiate from competitors to grab share of wallet from international streamers? I guess that we're not really grabbing share of wallet from international streamers, in the sense that we're not, at Blue Ant, operating as a general interest department store kind of streamer. We have some niche streaming products of our own, like Love Nature or Magellan. Those are niche products by design, on purpose, that aren't trying to take market share from Netflix. We're trying to serve an audience that's focused, that's one thing. However, we do create programming for those broad streamer customers like Netflix or Disney+ or Paramount+. We also create programming for traditional users, cable TV channels, BBC, and so on around the world. The way that we attract customers, frankly, is probably like in most other businesses, by the quality and reputation of the last things that we made. We're known by the TV series that we produce, that we turn out. The quality of our work or any producer's work is quite readily available to be watched and commented on. It's an interesting industry. We all know exactly what everybody else is producing and the quality of it because we can all see each other's work. If you are producing top quality material, that's great. Everybody can see it. Super. Just doing a time check. We do have a few questions left in the queue, but I think we've addressed all of them, and again, to the audience, if you feel a question hasn't been addressed yet, just send me an email. I'll make sure we'll get it answered. Mike, I'll just ask you for some closing remarks, and we'll end the presentation. Great. Thank you, Glenn, and Robb and I are happy that all of you were able to participate in this conversation. As we've mentioned, we're only nine months public. We're eager to get out and tell our story. We're eager that people understand the deep industry knowledge and experience that our management team has, the strength of our balance sheet, and the terrific opportunity in our industry now to not only grow through internal growth, but also using M&A. We think that we're really well-positioned to harvest value from that. Thank you very much for participating. Perfect. Thank you. Thanks, Michael, thanks, Rob, thank you to our audience. This concludes this webinar.