Hello everyone, and welcome to Partners Group's H1 2026 business update and outlook call. I'm Dave, CEO of Partners Group, and today I'll be joined by Juri, President, and Roberto, our Head of Portfolio Solutions. Joris, our CFO, and Danica will also be available if needed for the Q&A. Despite a somewhat mixed environment for the industry in H1, we're proud to have delivered numbers that continue to demonstrate that we are a highly differentiated all-weather investment firm. We added a record of $16 billion of total new assets in H1, with solid demand across a variety of asset classes and offerings. The diversification of our platform benefits us in a market like this. The investment side was a bit slower in the period. We deployed $9 billion in H1. New investments are often demanding high valuations, particularly in private equity. We were unfortunately outbid in a number of opportunities this year, but found good relative value on the portfolio side, and we had a mix tilted towards more portfolio assets. Finally, we generated $9 billion of realizations. We locked in some solid outcomes for clients. We completed a number of exits at the end of last year, which meant that we didn't have as many new exits completed in H1, but we remain pleased with the exit pipeline for H2 and future periods. Next slide. In this update, we're going to cover a number of topics which we understand are of interest for investors, and some of these are business topics which are on plan, and others are challenges that we're currently working to address. Before we do that, I first wanted to set a context for those business updates, and that is that when we take a step back and look at the broad number of things that we're working on across the platform, we see over 80% of the business is in good shape across investments, across business initiatives. 20%, I would say, is in need of work. How does that compare to normal times? During benign markets, smooth sailing, I would always say it's 90/10. You would usually see 10% of programs or portfolios or initiatives that are needing extra attention. Anyone who's ever run a business, much less a portfolio of businesses, can tell you that that's normal. Today, in a more complex environment, it's 20%, and that's not unlike other complex environments that we have navigated in the past. Some of those areas in need of increased attention include certain portfolio companies with a particular reference to that 2021 time period, which we've talked about in the past. We need to stay close to these investments and focus on hands-on value creation, and Roberto will speak to that. We're not alone in having made investments during that time period, but we were somewhat alone in having managed more substantial private equity evergreens through that vintage. We have net outflows in some of those mature evergreens. We take this very seriously. We want to ensure that our clients get what they expect from our programs and investments, and we therefore are giving a lot of attention to that topic. The vast majority of business initiatives and investment programs across the platform continue to go very well. On slide four. Juri will provide AUM update, including our H1 fundraising and investment figures. This was a strong period for fundraising in particular. In the second part of the presentation, Roberto will provide a business update on some of these areas of focus on the client side and the investment side. Juri, over to you for the AUM update. Thank you, Dave. Of the $16 billion in H1 2026, we saw strong demand literally across all the offerings. If we look at here on the left side of the pie chart, bespoke solutions continued to be the largest contributor, about 52%. That constitutes of the evergreens and the mandates. We saw particular strong demand from institutional investors out of Asia, out of the Middle East. Staying with that pie chart here, regarding traditional funds, $7.5 billion here. If you put that into context, that was in the first half. That's roughly the same amount that we raised in the entire 2025 with traditional funds, and being 48% of the fundraised in the first half. Very strong first half in terms of traditional funds. The momentum was clearly fueled by some of our infrastructure offerings that had a final close towards the end of this first half, but also successful closing of our latest private equity secondary program. To provide some further historic context, next slide here. In H1 2026, we continued the record fundraising dynamics from 2025, raising more than in any other half year period, as shown in the bar chart here on the left. This strong fundraising was driven by 70% from our equity strategy, we're slice and dicing it here on the right by investment strategy. 70% of that coming from private equity infrastructure and real estate, raising over $10 billion. It's probably also fair to say, as you see at the upper right a bit, that we've been a bit in an infrastructure fundraising cycle here in the first half, which is about to be followed by a private equity cycle. It's not that we timed this exactly quarter by quarter, but just directionally, there is that effect that you see here. I'd likewise like to point out that also credit contributed a quarter of the fundraising, and our fifth asset class royalties raised about $1 billion in the first half, increasing those AUMs in the first half by over 50%. Very strong demand for royalties. Our fifth asset class, where by now we build a seven-year sort of strong track record and see strong client demand for that asset class. Overall, our fundraising continues to be strongly diversified with all asset classes and regions contributing meaningfully. With that, turning to our evergreen platform. Also here we continue to see meaningful flows with total demand of $4.2 billion in the first half. Again, putting that into some historic context, it's almost as much as the full year in 2023, as shown by the bar chart here. One of the key differences to be pointed out, shown by the shaded area here, is that 80% of inflows in the first half this year came from our broader evergreen platform. That represents around 30 diversified offerings with more recent fund launches. That's a diversified generation of funds, including the royalty evergreens, the next generation infrastructure, et cetera, that are seeing very strong traction. Turning to the right here, we've also seen an increase in redemptions with $3.8 billion in H1. These are highly concentrated with select mature evergreens, which have triggered or are expected to trigger redemption limits. We currently have over $1 billion of redemption requests in H2. That includes already the rolled over ones as well as some received ones for H2. Overall, while the three mature strategies saw elevated redemptions, we continue to see strong traction from our broader evergreen platform. Turning to the investment side. Here we saw very strong investment activity in 2025 with $27 billion last year. In the first half of 2026, investing $9 billion, I'd say we had a more cautious approach in an environment that had macroeconomic uncertainty, geopolitical topics, et cetera, especially on the direct side. Also some bid-ask situations here in the first half. Having said that, in volatile times like these, we've been able to capitalize by our portfolio assets, especially on private equity, but also infrastructure, secondary transactions. We saw good relative value and strong diversification for our clients. Last comment I'd like to make here on this slide is to the investment pipeline. It's a solid investment pipeline. I have seen a pickup from Q1 to Q2 in that investment pipeline, especially within our thematic focus areas. Attractive opportunities here, I'd expect to execute on the pipeline in the quarters to come. Moving on to realizations. The $9 billion in the first half, they were driven across direct as well as portfolio assets, sort of a 60/40 split here. As a reminder, as we had communicated on the last call, the H1 realizations, they had been impacted to some extent by significant exits in late 2025. We had some significant exits towards the December sort of timeframe that slipped into the 2025 already. Having said that, we have a strong direct equity exit pipeline that should be executed over the next three-year cycle. Those exits you don't exactly plan quarter by quarter, but there is a good midterm pipeline ahead. With that, let me dive into some examples on the next page. In H1, we've exited investments across infrastructure, private equity and real estate. On top of the page here regarding infrastructure, for example, we've realized atNorth. That's a Nordic data center that we have built pretty much from scratch to the leading largest pan-Nordic data center platform. Enterprise value around $4 billion. We monetized that at a 2.5x money multiple on behalf of our clients. Also very strong realizations for private equity, where we have continued to sell stakes at Vishal, one of India's largest value retailer for over 8x money multiple. Again, as a reminder, that was the largest IPO in India of the country, frankly speaking, ever, private equity backed. Landmark transaction, very good results for our clients at over 8x. Also Galderma from our private equity platform, a Swiss manufacturer of skincare and dermatology products at over 3.5x money multiple on behalf of our clients. On average, we achieved an uplift of over 10% at exit compared to where we held the assets on our books sort of six months earlier. I guess being testament for quality assets on our books and good realizations. With that, tying it all together in terms of AUM development, let's take a closer look at the AUM bridge. As you're aware, our guidance specifically covers fundraising and tail-downs. In H1, having raised the $16 billion, we had tail-downs amounting to $6.6 billion. We had provided you with guidance of $ 10 billion-$13 billion for the full year as the tail-down of certain older traditional funds shifted from 2025 to 2026 as communicated. Going forward, we expect a slight increase in the coming year. Moving to redemptions, they came in at $3.8 billion. Maybe looking at the split here by quarter, we had a $1.7 billion in Q1, $2.1 billion in Q2. Again, providing some level of guidance here, we expect Q2 to be the run rate for the next quarters, as Roberto will explain further. Other effects and FX amounted to -$4.6 billion. They include NAV developments. Foreign exchange effects had a negative impact, mainly due to the euro depreciating against the US dollar. As a reminder, 46% of our AUM is in euro-denominated programs and mandates. Overall, AUM growth in H1 was impacted by tail-downs, redemptions, and FX, but outweighed by strong client demand. With that, handing over to Roberto now. Thank you. Thank you, Juri. Let me start this business update by providing a transparent overview of the current state of our investment portfolio. Based on bottom-up analysis, asset by asset, we see that 85% of our platform is performing at or above plan. However, roughly 15% of our investments are below plan. Two-thirds of those assets are within our private equity portfolio. There's some investments we made between 2018 and 2022 before the interest rate hikes, which therefore faced valuation adjustments over the past years. It also includes a few other companies with idiosyncratic issues. The remaining 5% of assets below plan are investments within our real estate portfolio, such as office assets and infrastructure investments or credits that are on watch lists. These assets below plan are already reflected in the lower performance of some of our strategies over the past two years, as well as in our H1 performance. Our investment teams are working closely with these businesses to return to a higher growth path. In a low case, for example, if the environment becomes more volatile or challenging, we estimate that these investments could have an additional $ 2 billion-$4 billion impact on returns over the midterm. This sounds like a meaningful number, but when put into perspective with our net asset value of $124 billion, it represents roughly 2%-3% of the portfolio. At the same time, if we look at the 85% of the portfolio that is performing in line with our expectations, we see upside potential of $20 billion in the midterm. This is based on cautious assumptions across the portfolio, including exit and operational improvements, which we are actively working on. Let me dive a bit deeper into the dynamics of our private equity portfolio. When you look at the track record of our private equity direct funds, our first three vintages are top-quartile funds with net multiples above 2.2x. Our fourth vintage, however, has been investing between 2019 and 2022 and is facing headwinds of those vintages, reflecting their entry valuations and slow realizations. The performance of this fund four will be lower than previous vintages, but very importantly, in line with industry peers. How does this translate to our bespoke solutions? We have spoken in past calls about the impact of these challenging vintages on our evergreen portfolios, but I would like today to cover our mandates as well. When we manage a mandate for an institutional investor, we define the investment pace per year to ensure consistent deployment and vintage diversification. Evergreens are somewhat different because flow dynamics may increase the procyclicalities of deployment. Our mature private equity evergreens had significant inflows in 2020, 2021, and 2022, and therefore, we had to increase deployment. We put limitations on investor subscriptions at the time to protect existing investors and maintain vintage diversification. That mitigated, but obviously didn't make it completely go away. After 2022, distributions within the portfolios of those funds slowed down and redemptions increased, resulting in a 50% lower annual deployment for those mature PE evergreen funds in the vintages thereafter. Due to the significantly higher deployment during the cycle before, evergreen portfolios have a higher concentration to those vintages compared to mandates. Evergreens have 50%-60% exposure to these vintages, while private equity mandates are lower at roughly 40%. Our evergreen platform has a 50% higher exposure to the industry's vintages with headwinds compared to our mandates, but these vintages represent only 20%. The challenges we face in some of our mature evergreens are the result of industry-wide vintage headwinds and procyclical flow dynamics, but not a reflection of investment capacity. Moving over to evergreens and providing an update on looking at our more recent evergreen strategies, we got off to a strong start, building attractive track records across asset classes. Just picking up the topic from the previous slide, the top two performing new evergreen strategies actually happen to be private equity-focused evergreen funds. On the right, however, you see our infrastructure evergreens, for example, delivering an 18% annualized return since inception and ranking among the leading funds in its peer groups. These results continue to support strong client demand and reinforce our strategy of broadening the evergreen platform. Looking ahead, these strategies will continue to be an important driver of our growth. Evergreen funds represent 30% of our total AUM. Our mature funds, which are mostly private wealth-focused and make up $35 billion in assets under management, have seen elevated redemptions over the past quarters, and specifically an uptick in Q2 2026. While increased redemptions over the past 12- 18 months were due to investor rebalancing and competitive dynamics within the evergreen market, the real change from the first quarter to the second quarter of this year were the external effects. We faced industry concerns on software, private credit evergreen, liquidity limitations, negative media coverage, and high geopolitical volatility. The mix of these factors led to a sharp increase in redemptions from roughly 2% per quarter to over 5% for some of our mature private equity evergreen funds. We have therefore enacted and are likely to enact redemption limits on further vehicles across those three mature evergreen strategies. As we have publicly stated on multiple occasions, we believe this protects the interest of all investors and is the right approach from a portfolio and investment perspective. We have sufficient liquidity in those funds and will continue to invest for the ongoing investors, which represent the large majority of the investor base in those funds. We expect these redemption limitations to stay for a number of quarters. In the medium term, we estimate the potential outflows from these funds to be up to $ 10 billion- $ 20 billion negative scenario. This will, however, be compensated by growth from the broader evergreen platform. As a result, we expect a period of more moderate growth in the medium term before returning to our long-term growth rate in evergreen. With that, over to Dave. Thank you, Roberto. We expect the environment in 2026 to remain complex, but we believe that we have shown that we're well-positioned to differentiate ourselves and to navigate that complexity. In terms of 2026 guidance for new assets, we expect to be between $26 billion and $32 billion for the full year, reflecting continued strong fundraising momentum. Regarding tail-downs, we estimate $10 billion-$ 13 billion of tail-downs in 2026, driven by closed-end traditional funds. For redemptions, we anticipate that the current redemption dynamics will continue for a few periods, and this could potentially slow our net AUM growth by 1%-2% during the next 18 months. Next slide. Turning to our performance income outlook. From 2023 to 2025, we generated CHF 1.7 billion in performance fees. These were highly diversified across asset classes and strategies, and these fees represented 26% of our revenues over those periods. The majority came from private equity, we've seen an increasing contribution from our infrastructure business. Our mandates and traditional programs contributed roughly two-thirds, evergreens contributed 36%. Performance fees are driven primarily by two factors, exits from our portfolio and evergreens, where performance fees are linked to NAV. We continue to expect performance income for the full year to be around the lower end of the 25%-40% range for this year. We expect performance fees this year to be weighted towards H2. For H1, we expect performance income to likely be below 20%. Looking further ahead, we have a meaningful exit pipeline over the next three years, as such, we feel confident in our midterm guidance for performance income to continue to account for 25%-40% of our revenue. With that, I'd like to hand over to the operator to open the lines for Q&A. Thank you. To ask a question, you will need to press star one and one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw a question, please press star one and one again. If you wish to ask a question via the webcast, please type it into the box and click submit. Please stand by while we compile a Q&A roster. This will take a few moments. Now we're going to take our first question, it comes from the line of Nicholas Herman from Citi. Line is open, please ask a question. Yes. Good morning. Thanks. Sorry, excuse me. Good evening. Thanks for taking my questions. Just three from me, please. Firstly, on the inflows. You've just raised $8 billion per quarter in the first half. The run rate of evergreen and mandate inflows was weaker in the second quarter and appears to run rate at around $ 14 billion. Could you just talk about what has driven the slowdown in flows in mandates, specifically? How much traditional fundraising do you expect in the second half? That gives you, I guess, confidence, or more broadly, what gives you that confidence then that you can deliver the $ 26 billion plus guide for this year. The other one I had, please, was, you said in March that you were expected about over $ 2 billion of inflows from the new strategic joint ventures this year. Could you please give us an update on expectations for this year and how those strategic joint ventures have been progressing? Finally, I guess this year has reminded everyone of the volatility and reactivity of the wealth channel. I know wealth is only 20% of your AUM, but I guess, how have the events of this year made you consider the optimal mix of capital for private markets managers like Partners Group? Thank you. Thanks. Maybe I'll take topic number two, comment a little bit about topic number three. Roberto, I'll hand it over to you to take question one and to provide some more color as well. The strategic JVs continue to develop in a positive way. We raised about $1 billion last year and said earlier in the year that we thought that that could be $2 billion this year. We also communicated that there would be some areas of fundraising that could be impacted by the current redemption dynamics and lead to a little bit of a slowdown. We're developing well there. We're at about $ 800 million for those JVs in the first half of this year, and continue to see good momentum in a number of those. Some of them are developing a little bit slower than expected, some of them a little bit ahead of plan. I'm not sure if we'll get quite to the 100% growth rate in JV partnerships, but still a very positive development there. With regard to question number three on, yes, wealth is 20% of our assets under management. We've been, like we have for other segments, but particularly well known for being an innovator within that wealth segment, and we've always been a big proponent of diversification within distribution. We think like an institution as it relates to distribution. I think we think about our mandate clients and big institutional clients as being very, very strategic for the firm. We think about the wealth channel as being very important in a number of areas. We try and build a balanced set of products that cater to different needs. Sometimes the market is excited in one area or another. Sometimes institutional investors are chewing on large allocations, and it's kind of slower there, and sometimes the wealth market is rebalancing their portfolios and creates some redemption issue, and it creates a lot of noise. We're not a firm that kind of moves in and out of these categories based on that sentiment. We really believe in building long-term solutions for these channels over the long run. The development of our platform won't be a straight line. We know that. The development of the industry won't be a straight line, but we do believe that diversified distribution is an asset of the firm, and we anticipate continuing that. Roberto, do you want to comment on the flow dynamics Q1 versus Q2? Look, happy to. First of all, I would really base run rates of half year or full year type of fundraising. There's just too many things that are moving what happens in a specific three-month period. Think about some of our mandates start becoming fee-paying as we make investments. There's different drivers really that will drive what happens in any three-month period. If I look at your question around the full year guidance and the traditional fundraising contributing to it, we do have, on the evergreen side, a roughly similar run rate in the books for the second half, which correspondingly means you add this up to $ 10 billion-$ 16 billion for the second half, reconfirming our full year range of $ 26 billion-$ 32 billion. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to take our next question, the question comes line of Hubert Lam from Bank of America. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Hi. Good evening. Thanks for taking my questions. I've got three of them. Firstly, can you talk a bit about the redemption dynamics you've seen? Like, which region are you seeing the outflows from? Is it mainly Asia and Europe, or are you also seeing it in the U.S.? Also, are you also seeing redemptions coming from not only retail investors, but also institutional investors as well now? That's the first question. The second question is on fee margin and the impact of that. How should we think about recurring fee margin going forward, given that the outflows mainly come from the evergreen side, which is higher margin? As you mentioned, 25% of your fundraising has been in credit, which is lower fee margin. How should we think about that going forward? Lastly, how should we think about potential impact to dividend? If you look at consensus and forecasts, we possibly see a potential for this year's dividend. If you assume last year's dividend to be uncovered, would you think about rebasing your dividend, or will you do everything you can just to keep it? Thank you. Thanks. Roberto, why don't you take the first question on the dynamics? Joris, you take question number two on fee margin, then I'll cover the dividend. Happy to. On the redemption dynamics, I think there's a couple of things to say. First of all, this is largely limited to the three mature private equity-heavy strategies that we have been discussing and disclosing before. I think as far as it pertains to the regional split. We do not see any specific patterns. It's pretty much in line where the assets under management are for those three strategies. Lastly, when it's about client type, we clearly see this effect mainly playing out on the private wealth side of things, which is the driver of the large majority of those redemptions. Looking at your question about the recurring revenue margin. It is a result of several factors. As we repeat, it's our mix in asset classes and the products and the impacts from acquisition. Comparing it to what the impact is going to be if the mature evergreens see more redemptions, that will be a slightly negative impact. If we look at the overall management income margin, especially if we look at half year one, then we see also that there is another element, which is the one-timer fees, which includes late management fees, as an example from the closing of Infra Four, which have a positive element. Overall, I think if we look at half year one 2026, on the management income margin, we expect to be at similar levels than the full year 2025. That infrastructure fund is attractive margin business as well, where you saw meaningful assets coming in to replace some of those evergreen assets. As it relates to the dividend, look, the dividend is an important factor for us. We continue to target dividend stability and long-term growth, and our approach remains unchanged. Those of you that have followed us for some time know that. To the point that back in 2023, we took a look not only at that year, but also the cash generation from pending exits and our confidence in the positive developments of the platform to have a payout ratio that was even north of 100% in that case. This is indeed an area of focus for our leadership team, and we currently don't anticipate any change to our approach or delivery. One note is that I do expect a debate in our next board meeting around share buyback versus dividend. We do believe that this is an attractive level to buy. There's nothing to report on there. We continue to be within our base case expectation for performance fees generated this year, and no change to the expectation on dividend. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to take our next question, and it comes line of Sharath Kumar from Deutsche Bank. Your line is open, please ask your question. Thank you for taking my questions. I have two, please. First one is on performance fee. You mentioned $20 billion of planned exits for this year, and that ties up with the 25% guidance of performance fees that you expect to generate this year. How much of the 25% guidance of performance fees will be generated from these exits? In other words, can you provide a proportion of performance fees earned from evergreen funds? That is my first one. The second is, you spoke a bit in the call about the deployment and realization pipeline. For the $20 billion of planned exits, is it the base case or do you kind of want to see some more improvements? Wanted to understand the deployment and realization pipeline in a bit more detail. Thank you. Maybe I'll start with the second. With regards to realization pipeline, this has much more to do with timing than needing an improvement in the market environment or market context. We have quite a process that needs to be gone through in order to sell a private asset, and to realize the performance fees associated with it. It can oftentimes take months and months. With a very strong push towards the end of last year to generate the realizations that came in in 2025, it meant that we came into the first part of this year with a little bit of a lower pipeline of transactable assets. As we look at the full year, we do believe that we're on track to be within that 25%-40% range. Although we continue to believe that we'll probably be at the lower end of that range. With regards to performance fees, we showed in the presentation the historical mix of performance fees that have come from evergreen programs. We have indeed taken into account some slower developments within those programs, mature programs in particular, as it relates to our updated performance fee guidance. We're not providing guidance on exactly how much we're modeling out for H2 from evergreens versus other vehicles, but we have indeed taken into account the changed dynamic with regards to those mature evergreen funds in particular. Thank you. Now we are going to our next question. It comes line of Arnaud Giblat from BNP Paribas. Your line is open, please ask your question. Good evening. Firstly, thank you for the slide 14 with the sharing the difference in exposure to 2020, 2022 vintages for the evergreens versus mandates. My question is h ow much can we extrapolate from that data to try and guesstimate what the performance in mandates might be? I would be thinking still probably an annual return in the high single-digit area. Would that be fair? Secondly, my second question relates to that. I'm just wondering to what extent the mandate business is being submitted to competitive dynamics. I mean, the flows in this half were at a lower level. I'm just wondering, given that a number of your competitors have gone multi-asset and acquired secondary capabilities, to what extent are you seeing new entrants or new high levels of competition for mandates? My final question relates to slide 16. There we can see mature strategies declining all the way into 2033. Are you basically suggesting that, is that your base case that the redemptions continue until then and there's no turnaround, or is there a case where if performance improves, you could get an improvement sooner? Thank you. Roberto, let me toss it over to you for those topics. Maybe on the first one, on the mandates and the difference in exposure to 2022, it's extremely difficult to bring performance to a single number for the mandates because they vary in terms of scope. I think it's probably fair to say if you want to proxy or think about it, on the previous slide, we had a chart where we showed our private equity direct strategy and all the funds that were first quartile, but then the fund four, which is more in the middle of the pack. You probably can think of mandates rather as a mix of those than versus using the evergreens as a proxy. In terms of competitive dynamics, I'm not so sure whether the technology with the single line investments is being broadly adopted in the market. I think that requires quite some setting yourself up in terms of governance, in terms of operational platform to cater to basically split investments across a variety of mandate lines. I do think there's quite some barriers to entry that cannot be easily replicated from one quarter to the other. I would really challenge a bit the notion, though, that the mandate business has slowed down in the second quarter. Maybe, Joris, to get a bit deeper into how some of the mechanics work. Many of those mandates have fee bases that make AUM countable based on investments that we make as opposed to commitments. If we have a quarter where the investment volume is relatively low, it's quite natural that you would have a lower amount of so-called tail ups that might have influenced that specific three-month period. As Dave alluded to, and Juri in their respective parts, it's a conscious decision for us to invest cautiously in the environment we are in. Maybe last, on your observation on the evergreen, this is on purpose shown as a conservative case. I am absolutely with you. There are scenarios where we see a more positive dynamic in those funds as well. We use the slide to depict that even in a more challenging scenario, a lot of the growth actually in the future is going to be carried by a much broader evergreen platform with a variety of different funds, but also strategic partnerships, as opposed to just a few single funds driving the outcome there. Just on the mandate momentum within mandate, I do not know that there has ever been a period where we have had more active discussions across more geographies with clients as well. You really do see our mandate offering, which historically catered primarily to European clients, and some of their specific needs now broadening out to be a very global set of discussions with our institutional clients. I think, I would not read into any of the numbers a loss of momentum within mandates. I think that would be a misread of the dynamic. You see building momentum within the evergreen or within the mandate segment. Thank you. Now we are going to take our next question, it comes from Oliver Carruthers from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Hi there, Oliver Carruthers from Goldman Sachs. Thanks for the comments on the vintage pro-cyclicality, I guess, dynamic that you call out with evergreens. I have always thought of Partners Group as a firm that has kind of been very forward-focused on this, if I go back to 2020, 2021 and how you managed some of the demand there. I guess what we have seen with the mature programs highlights, I guess, the difficulties of managing, I guess, an uncertain flow and therefore uncertain deployment outlook. As you think about scaling up your new evergreen funds, in that slide 16 that you show, is there any philosophy or anything that you have changed in terms of how you manage this forward vintage pro-cyclicality point? That is the first question. My second question is on this slide 16, you show the sizes of mature evergreen funds falling every year on this $ 10 billion-$20 billion potential outflows over the medium term. My question here is really what's reasonable to assume for gross inflows here? Do they fall to zero? Or said another way, what's the rationale for an investor putting money into an evergreen vehicle where you expect the size of this vehicle to shrink every year out to 2033? Thank you. Roberto, do you want to tackle this? Maybe from a philosophical question, but really interesting question, Oliver. I think going forward, you're more likely to see more funds by Partners Group and a broader platform as opposed to a few bigger ones. You're right in pointing out that we do have mechanisms in place. We did have mechanisms in place to manage the growth. Effectively, we need to tighten those going forward, probably be more disciplined in capping funds at certain sizes. Those are certainly thoughts that we have as we evolve the evergreen platform of the future. I think as it comes to the mature evergreen funds and the falling every year, we did bring that chart as a scenario to show that the growth is really based on a lot of different cylinders as opposed to a few funds. I wouldn't be caught up too much by the moment for those specific evergreen funds. Yes, we had a number of years where the mature vintages had a tough time in terms of relative performance versus the newer investments. We have seen that in the past, 2009, 2010, 2011 as well, and then also changing. I wouldn't take too much here from the picture of the moment. We're working hard on those investments, and the performance of those funds, which might as well change that dynamic going forward. Perhaps to push you on that final point, I appreciate the past dependency and the scenario is uncertainty here. You're using the language right sizing these mature evergreen funds. As we go through this process of right sizing, do you expect incremental growth and inflows on a material way, or should we be thinking about that $ 10 billion-$ 20 billion number as a net number? Thank you. I think you should think about that number as a potential effect from those three strategies on a net basis. Very much, thanks. Thank you. Now we're going to take our next question. The question comes line of Nicolas Payen from Kepler Cheuvreux. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Yes, good afternoon, and thanks for taking my question. Just have two, please. First one will be on your evergreen platform. Maybe you can give us a sense of your distributor consideration, because recently we have seen a case market where a fund with roughly 60% assets came from one bank. We saw double-digit redemption in a single quarter when that distributor actually changed the AUM on the asset class. Maybe you could give us some sense of what is the AUM share in your evergreen vehicle that come from any single web distributor platform, and whether you have internal caps on this. The second question is really, sorry, a follow-up or clarification. Just wanted to understand what needs to happen in terms of evergreen's performance in H2 for you to be able to get the low end of the 25%-40% range for the performance fees. Thank you very much. Roberto, do you want to take one, and then Joris can take- Did not mute myself. I'll take the first one and then have Joris tackle the second one. Look, I don't think there is a formula. It has always been our philosophy, and we're also not going to comment on others. It has always been our philosophy to grow those evergreen funds rather carefully and over time. You wouldn't have seen a Partners Group evergreen fund building up a multi-billion exposure within a couple of years. We've always grown over time, and that then naturally also leads to a certain diversification of your client base in any given fund. That is something that we have been looking at, especially for the more mature evergreen funds, in order to diversify. There are also the potential of flows, whether it be on the inflow, on the outflow side. Now, if you look at the performance income for the second half of the year to really approach our guidance, I think it's driven by three elements, which is, of course, the exits, it's the high-water mark fees, and it's the investment income of our own balance sheet positions where we invest alongside our clients. Now, looking at the different scenarios, of course, that we modeled, I think one of them is clearly that we assume that the performance is going to be slightly positive also, which is impacting then, of course, the high-water mark fees and the investment income. Of course, on the exits, we've modeled some scenarios depending on the timing, whether they were going to be realized in 2026 or in 2027. That's why we said about the lower end of the range of the midterm guidance. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to take our next question, and it comes line of Michael Sanderson from Barclays. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Good evening. Thank you for the presentation and the color. Just a couple from me, please. First of all, just to understand, now that you have these prorating and gating in place, does this have any impact in your broader intermediary distributor relationships? Do people For the new products, are they requesting different detail as a result of the gating that's been so well-publicized? Could this have an impact on the development of these new products in future quarters in comparison to how you're thinking about the scenario at the moment? The second one is just a bit more technical, just understanding the U.S. and its fund. Where did it end up at the gating? Because I thought there was some technical angle about whether it was at 5% or whether it could go a bit higher. Has that been confirmed yet, or is that yet to be determined? Thank you. With regards to your first question and the gating and broader intermediaries, I guess it's important to understand that liquidity limitations are a feature of those programs and are being discussed and have been discussed with clients throughout the whole of the last decade and longer. That's not something that people just pick up now. It probably has been picked up a bit more actively in the press and the broader public. Interestingly, from the client side, it's very much understood that those gatings are an integral part of those offerings. It's actually a good thing to enact them, as opposed to some other approaches where you just pay as long as you can. Here we have a gating feature that essentially ensures that there is liquidity provided over longer time horizons as well, and that's very well understood by our clients. Insofar, we don't see a big surprise and a change. You can appreciate in a context where liquidity limitations have become quite common across several participants in the private evergreen markets, that hasn't been a specific cause of upheaval with clients. With regards to the second point, the reason why we formulated that as an expectation, and it is because it's technically not up to Partners Group, that has to do with the governments of the fund. We do expect that liquidity is being limited on that delivery offering as well in the next couple of weeks. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to take our last question on the phones, it comes to the line of Nicholas Herman from Citi. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Hi, guys. Just one last question from my side, please. My understanding is that for the BlackRock joint solution, commitments go into the DLLC. Do you have the ability and the capacity to allocate those commitments to the smaller scaling funds where performance is also better, or is that not possible? Thank you. We do have the capacity, both us and BlackRock, with a range of funds that are part of this offering, where we can make allocations as part of this joint project. They don't just have to go into the LLC, is the point. There is a broad set of, I believe, eight funds that are part of that offering. Okay, got it. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to hand back to the room. Please proceed, dear speakers. Okay. With that, we'd like to thank you for your interest and participation in the call and look forward to the next update. Thanks again. Bye. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now all disconnect. Have a nice day.