Welcome to everyone in the room for joining us and those online, welcome too. I'm going to say just a few words before I hand over to Greg and to Michael, and then there'll be an opportunity to ask questions. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Douglas Flint, the Chairman of IP Group. I also want to extend a warm welcome to Michael Queen, who's sitting two to my left, who was appointed by the Chair as a Non-executive Director and Chair Designate of IP Group last month. Also with me, Greg Smith, who's the Chief Executive Officer, David Baynes on my right, the Chief Financial and Operating Officer, and all four of our other Non-executive Directors. I'll ask them to sort of raise their hands so you know who they are. Dr. Caroline Brown, there we go. Heejae Chae, Aedhmar Hynes, and Anita Kidgell. Then to keep us all in order, Angela Leach, the Company Secretary is here. She advises me that we have a quorum, and therefore we can start the meeting. As all of you will know, this is my last AGM, and I retire from the company at the conclusion of this AGM. Let me say what a privilege it has been. I'll say more on that later. We went through a very rigorous succession process, for which thank you to our Senior Independent Director and as I had already introduced him, but we're delighted that Michael Queen has been appointed Director, Chair Designate, and subject to being elected formally at this meeting, will succeed me as Chair at the conclusion of this meeting. As former Chief Executive of 3i, Michael has both deep knowledge of private markets, venture investment, as well as experience in the university sector, all of which will be invaluable to IP Group. In particular, he has a strong track record in scaling institutional capital platforms, which aligns very closely with the Group's strategy as we continue to grow funds under management and support the portfolio through the next phases of development. As we've previously stated, given a number of Directors are also approaching the nine-year maximum term, and we're dealing with this in a measured, staggered way, the Board's Nomination Committee is actively planning for succession alongside Michael. Succession to my role was the first step as we had previously announced. Going back to look at last year, 2025 was a year of disciplined execution in what were, as we can all recognize, very challenging markets. We had a number of notable highlights, which demonstrated the strength of the Group's model and the opportunity. If I take three, very notable was the acquisition of Metsera by Pfizer for gaining access to Metsera's weight loss drugs, and we have exposure to that through licensed intellectual property, which could in the future generate significant royalty streams. We saw the IPO of Hinge Health and from which we exited in full and aggregate realized GBP 46 million of cash proceeds, and if you go back to our early investment, that's a 53x return. We sold Monolith to NASDAQ- listed CoreWeave. As expected in a venture portfolio which balances high risk with high opportunity, some companies progress technically but face valuation or funding pressure, while others suffered setbacks. That highlights the inherent risk in breakthrough science. The balance of success and net setback is typical of the model and underpins the long-term nature of returns. In terms of financial performance, the group returned to profitability largely because of the Metsera valuation, delivering a GBP 66.9 million profit. Our NAV per share rose 13% to GBP 1.104, and we closed the year with more than GBP 200 million cash in the bank. The Board remains focused on considering actions within our control that could bring the share price into greater alignment with reported net asset value per share. Within this, consistency in our capital allocation framework, including share buybacks, together with maintaining financial resilience, have been critically important in that journey. Delivering return to shareholders, including focusing on narrowing the share price discount to NAV per share remains a key focus. Since 2021, I'd remind you the group has delivered more than GBP 150 million of cash returns that have benefited shareholders via both dividends and, more significantly, through share buyback, and that's resulted in retiring 9.4% of the share capital in 2024 and 17.17% to- date. During 2025, the group purchased 91.9 million shares for GBP 45.7 million. Over the next two years, as set out in the annual report, we're targeting significant cash realizations reflecting the maturity of the portfolio, and the group remains confident that there remains significant unrecognized value within the portfolio. In summary, I'm going to hand over to Greg in a minute. The group's well-positioned with experienced leadership, high quality portfolio. As I step down at the end of this meeting, I do so confident in the group's strategy and its future direction. The focus is clear to deliver long-term returns from exceptional science. Let me hand over now to Greg for his comments. Greg? Thank you, Douglas, and thanks to everyone in the room for coming. Thanks to everyone online for joining us. Always appreciate your time and focus to come to the IP Group AGM. Before I move on, I think it would be remiss of me not to formally thank Douglas on behalf of the whole Board, the whole team at IP Group, and on behalf of our shareholders for the very considerable contribution to the group that you've made over the last eight years. I would say your judgment, your counsel, your leadership of the Board have helped guide us through a period of quite significant change, while always maintaining a very clear focus on long-term value. You leave the group very well-positioned, but particularly with our sincere thanks and our deep appreciation. Hopefully, as you know, IP Group is the leading U.K. science and technology investor. We're the biggest investor in university spin-outs in the country. In our 25th year this year, we have now formed more than 600 companies, based largely around fundamental science. Our unique model, which combines these sort of deep partnerships that we have with universities and other research institutions, and access to long-term commercial and capital partners, positions us very well to support breakthrough science from inception right the way through to commercial success. As Douglas has alluded to, 2025 was a notable year for IP Group. Some of you will have dialed into the full year results, hopefully you will have remembered that the number one priority for the group this year was to return the business to NAV per share growth. I was very pleased to say that we did exactly that. The major contributors, Douglas has also previously mentioned, the Pfizer acquisition of Metsera, which held the license to the GLP-1 program and others that now forms the backbone of their anti-obesity program, was a major component. As Douglas said, another significant event was the Hinge Health IPO on NASDAQ. As you know from the annual report, we've now completely exited our position in that and made more than 50x our cash return. That's good. On the subject of cash realizations, we did well on that front. We delivered strong cash realizations, as Douglas said, that enabled us to retire about a 10th, about 10% of our shares in issue during the course of the year, while also being able to maintain a robust liquidity position. That followed a very strong year of realizations in 2024, that included our largest ever cash exit in the form of Featurespace to Visa. We delivered another GBP 68 million in 2025. As Douglas has alluded to, the Board has great confidence in our ability to deliver GBP 250 million of cash realizations over the period 2025-2027. We're not giving a formal update, a formal trading update at this meeting. We haven't put anything out by way of RNS, suffice to say, we are on track with our objectives for this year. On the subject of private capital and augmenting the group's capabilities and resources on the balance sheet, we now manage or advise about GBP 500 million worth of assets, approximately two-thirds of that is managed through our specialist EIS fund manager, Parkwalk. A few in the room, which is good to see. We are seeing increasing evidence of interest in adding to that. I was very pleased in our full year results to be able to talk about a new partnership with Aberdeen. We think that this is the first DC mandate that will be directly focused at scaling science and technology businesses in the U.K.. That's very good news and good to see some progress being made around the Mansion House Accord. I also said that we were confident of delivering further mandates during the year. Helpfully, within about a week of the full- year results announcement, we also announced a new fund with CEFC, which is effectively the green bank in Australia, focused on clean tech opportunities in Australia. We're making progress there, and that is part of our sort of broader ambition to be able to drive growth in those sorts of businesses and to be able to be on their capital journey with them during their full life cycle. Douglas mentioned this, the external funding environment has definitely remained competitive during 2025 and into 2026. There continues to be still a growing recognition of the importance of backing and investing in innovation. We continue to believe that the environment for what we do is improving, and that we can continue to be well-positioned in that endeavor. Quickly on the funding for the portfolio, you'll have seen hopefully in the annual report that about 80%, roughly, of our portfolio, by value, is funded into 2027 or beyond. We're definitely starting to see increased evidence of supportive funding rounds. You'll have seen in the press, possibly, that two quantum companies that we were the founder investors in, completed multi-hundred-million-pound funding rounds during the course of the last couple of weeks. That remains a very interesting area that is supportive of and driving this big transition towards AI. We remain well-positioned. We thank you for your shareholding, for your patience and for your support. I and the team and the new Board are very motivated to deliver NAV per share growth and hopefully that will be reflected in share price growth. Thank you all for attending and I'll hand on to Michael Queen. Thank you, Sir Douglas and Greg. Subject to your approval, I take the Chair with a great deal of enthusiasm and actually humility. I've been involved in the investment landscape for the last 40 years, and IP Group occupies a genuinely distinctive position, investing in the kind of early-stage science that's critical to this country's future. It turns it into companies that matter. That in itself is a mission worth serving. A fundamental measure of our success is shareholder value. I want to assure you, as our shareholders, that shareholder value is at the forefront of my mind in everything I will do for IP Group in the future. I very much look forward to working with Greg, David, and the rest of the team, as well as the Board. I think we've got some incredible relationships with our university partners, our portfolio companies, and hopefully, of course, our shareholders. I really look forward to meeting as many of you as I can in the future. Thank you. Michael, thanks very much. Before we move on to the formal part of the meeting and voting on the resolutions, I'd like to invite shareholders both in the room and online to ask any questions of the Directors that they may have on any matters relevant to the business of the meeting. If we've got any questions that have come in in advance, we'll take them, too. By dealing with the questions at the outset of the meeting, hopefully we can give sufficient time to deal with all the questions that you have. For those in the room, before asking a question, if you're able to give your name and state whether you're representing a shareholder, a proxy, or a corporate representative, if it's one of the latter, a proxy corporate representative, you can identify who you're representing. For those submitting questions online, if you could indicate the same, that would be helpful. Let me open the meeting to questions. If there are any questions, please now. We're using a roving mic. David is the roving mic. Julia. Julia. Yeah, man. Yeah. Morning, everyone. It's Julia Diez from Railpen. We represent about 18% of the share capital here. I've got two questions, so I'll take them one by one. The first one, we've talked a lot about buybacks over the past couple of years, and it's been encouraging to see the company attempt that. However, it hasn't really moved the dial in terms of the discount. At the same time, the company has not really made any new investments into innovation, which presumably is its core purpose. Could you talk us through what the long-term strategy for the company is here for shareholders that are long-term investors and interested in investing in U.K. innovation and not necessarily just interested in financial engineering? Okay. Let me deal with a little bit on the buyback, and then Greg will come back on how we're dealing with the portfolio. Of course, one doesn't know the counterfactual. We believe that the buyback program was important because it shared a portion of the proceeds that we had made with shareholders through buyback, and we have a number of shareholders for whom buyback is very important, and they stress that to us. We don't know the counterfactual, if we hadn't done share buybacks, whether the share price would have reacted differently. That's the first point. I think the main point, and it's something I feel very strongly about, is that we have made realizations and we share some of that benefit with no one on the Board, but we do share that with staff through carry. I think it's wrong to share the proceeds with staff in carry, which they have earned, without sharing some of it in some way with shareholders. That's philosophically part of it. I think shareholders deserve to see some of the cash that's realized from successful investment coming back. While the company's share price trades at the discount that it does, we clearly worked out mathematically, arithmetically, it makes a great deal more sense to shareholders to buy back shares than to pay dividend. That's why we did it. I think one of the other frustrations, which I know we've talked about, is that the number of funds in U.K. plc, as it were, directed at small-cap companies, of which we are a small-cap company, has got much, much less over the last couple of years, and indeed, institutions like your own have become increasingly important, and we welcome that in many ways because you are the traditional long-term investor, and some of the small-cap funds demonstrated that they weren't there for the long term because they couldn't attract flows because more money's going into the large-scalers. Whether buybacks have moved the dial, I think, yes, you can certainly say that the discount has only narrowed very marginally what it would have been if we'd not done buybacks. We don't know the counterfactual. We have continued to invest, and we have continued to put money into new ventures. Again, as we've said in the annual report and accounts, the priority in capital allocation is to support those investments that we feel most committed to because we think that's where the most value will derive for shareholders. At that point, giving plenty of time to think about it, Greg. Well, thank you. Maybe don't need too much time to think about it because capital allocation, specifically around this balance of returning capital to shareholders, doing so in an efficient way through buybacks, but importantly, investing in the business is one of the main priorities that we discuss as a board, month in, month out. I'm sure Michael will allude to similar discussions on this front. It's one of our main responsibilities as the board is to determine that capital allocation plan. Helpfully last year we added about GBP 0.04 per share, roughly, as a result of the buyback at a discount, which is helpful and I think reducing the denominator and effectively concentrating shareholders into a portfolio that we feel is undervalued by the market is a positive, sensible thing to do. Of course, on the flip side, if we continue to do that, we don't shrink our way to greatness. That isn't the ambition of the group. We, over the last at least three, four years, while the public markets haven't been so strong, have had to do a couple of things. Firstly, we have moved a lot of our early-stage sourcing deliberately into our specialist EIS fund manager, Parkwalk. There are various reasons for this, but I would say the level of investment into new opportunities very early on in the pre-seed and seed phase, has remained actually pretty consistent. If you look at the league tables, there'll be a Beauhurst report coming out. There's one every year. There'll be a Beauhurst report, and you can see that we continue to be the leading investor in new pipeline. As shareholders, the choice that we have made is to say we're going to do more of that early stuff there. The intention is that as our capital position improves, and hopefully as the share price improves, there is a ready pipeline of those opportunities slightly further along the risk journey, where we have the preemption rights and the relationships to be able to invest in those companies. Traditionally, we have invested somewhere between 5% and 20% of our investment in any given year from the balance sheet into new opportunities, and we are at the lower end of that at the moment. Part of that is because, obviously we're balancing the buybacks, and part of that is because, as Douglas said, we are trying to ensure that the maturing portfolio has the capital to be able to meet its milestones and get to exits. There's a lot of those, particularly in the biotech portfolio where we're allocating capital to get them to exit rather than starting new things. One of the objectives this year, I think it's in the remuneration report somewhere in the accounts, is for the team to add new opportunities on the balance sheet. We've got a sort of a target in Parkwalk, and we've got a target in the balance sheet because I do think that landscape is shifting. I do think that the fact that we've improved our NAV per share for the first time in a few years, I do think that the pipeline of exits that we're confident in is giving us the opportunity to shift a bit more towards originating or adding new things to the balance sheet. I think it's a great question. It's the question that we spend a lot of time on at the Board. I think we've got an appropriate balance. I view it as a shareholder that if we can retire some shares cheap and not constrain the business long term, then that's a good balance for all shareholders in the long term. I know there's a range of views among the shareholder base as to how we balance that, and I think that's very healthy and very natural, and the Board's job, of course, is to try and take into account all of our shareholders, and delivering value for them over the long term. Julia, you said you had a second question. I have a second question, yeah. Thank you. I wanted to get your thoughts on the third-largest asset in your portfolio, which is Istesso. The second-largest if you take out Oxford Nanopore. I noticed that the value actually went up at the full-year accounts. I wanted to get yours and the board's confidence level around the valuation of that asset. Also if you could please walk us through the milestones over the next 18 months that you see coming out from that. Oh, sorry. Oh yeah. Yeah. Good, you did have a microphone. All right. Thank you. David do you want to talk about valuation? Yeah, valuation. Happy to do that. Then Greg, you want to talk about milestones? Yep. Valuation. Can I also say that at the conclusion of this AGM, the Board meeting that's going to take place is going to get our annual presentation on Istesso. Yeah. The whole team's coming in, and it's going to be a very full presentation. Should be interesting. We take very interest in that asset, David? Yeah, no, sure. Thank you. Look, I do accept the valuation of Istesso has probably always been the most difficult asset we have to value. There's no doubt about it. Traditionally, before Metsera came along, Metsera license, of course, it was the only one that was really on a net present discounted value kind of calculation. The reason for that is it hasn't actually really had any third-party funding for quite a long time, for 2017. We can't really rely upon value of our last funding round. Therefore, we do have a simple metric that is looking at the size of potential market, total addressable market, looking at likely time we'll get to market, as you know, and then applying the probability of being successfully discounted back. In simple terms, it's just been announced actually. It's doing this extension study, isn't it? Phase II-B extension study. Effectively, the model has remained as it was before, and the assumption remains that the phase II-B will give us enough information for it to then be in a position where it may be licensable. The assumption model assumes that then at some point it will get a license. It applies a risk factor for that not being achieved. Then it applies probably a success of each of those trials then being successful. The current one, that's just based upon, you can look up the stats online, it's about a 63% chance, I think. It applies a 63% chance, and then it's a 65% chance, if you're interested, of the phase III trial being successful. It assumes that by 2031, you'll have approval and some sort of market launch. Looking at the market size, it assumes a peak sales of about $2 billion. We think it's probably not the whole market. We think it's about a GBP 60 billion market. We don't think we're being overly aggressive there. It makes an assumption that I probably won't say publicly about. There's an assumption about what the royalty will be because we're assuming we've licensed it. That royalty is certainly higher than royalties we've seen before because this has now been licensed at like at a regular phase II success through the beginning of phase III. Unlike [MEC-0], of course, which was just the original compounds being licensed out. Obviously that would be much lower rate, number but hopefully on a much bigger market. Then we discount the whole lot. Hopefully we happen to do that at 11.5%. That's where you come back. The reason why the value didn't change as much as reasonably it could have done after it missed the primary endpoint in that phase II trial is because actually the trial it was confusing to some extent because it actually had very good secondary endpoints. As you know, it had very good results on things like tissue and muscle repair. It only just actually, look at the dig into stats, missed the primary endpoint, Julia, on the anti-inflammatory side. That's why it made sense. It wasn't like the end of the drug. It's actually anything but the truth and we'll promise. We effectively reran the calculations, and really the big change was we added about three and a half years in. We delayed the project by about three and a half years. That's why the value came from about GBP 127 to about GBP 93, which we carry that now. The small change, by the way, it's just a statistical change on FX numbers used on the market size, which is why I think it went up by GBP 3 million this year. That was no change in our belief in its value. Certainly, we're not putting Istesso up at the moment. That's why we value it as we do. I think, I entirely accept it's the hardest one to really sort of detach from a point of view of the whole on the portfolio. I think if at some point it ever does a funding round, I think at that time we'll probably get a firm feel on it. We'll find out how accurate we are or we aren't. I think to be fair, all the assumptions we've made are reasonable. I'm completely comfortable with them. I'm happy to open them up to interrogation. We do. The actual model is tested by an external audit firm and then approved by our auditors. The audit partner is not sitting a million miles away from you. They do look at it very closely, and we do spend a lot of time in valuation. I genuinely feel very comfortable to be interrogated on it and talk about it, but I'm very happy open about what the variabilities are. That was pretty comprehensive to me. Greg? I was going to say, that was very comprehensive. I feel like I need to up my game on the patient numbers, et cetera for, that's very good, Dave. I would say we remain constructive and positive on Istesso, but we also remain clear-eyed as to where it is in its development. It's a company which, as Dave said, didn't meet its primary endpoint in the phase II-B that it did about 18 months ago or so. Now that that was announced, and we've reflected that in the valuation. The sort of underlying repair biology, though, including the sort of structural, mechanistic signals of having a repair to your tissues, continue to show consistency across all the trials that we've done. And it is a, well, as Douglas said, we're having an update from the company this afternoon, and it is, we think, a genuine first-in-class compound, potentially. It comes with all of the usual biotech caveats that it's potentially very interesting, but equally, it's got to go through this process. To sort of specifically answer your question, what matters now? Obviously, the next operational steps. Helpfully, in the last six weeks, we've had a couple of updates from the company directly that we've put out to the market. We wrapped up two of them into one short RNS Reach that we put out earlier this week. I promise it was just coincidental timing. I wasn't sort of telling the company we need an update before we happen to have our AGM. The two updates were, one, we did some additional preclinical work within the company to look at the quality of tissue and specifically muscle tissue in aged mice. The interesting fact about the aged mice trial was that it showed that the muscle tissue, both Type 1 and Type 2 tissue, improved in the group that took our compound, leramistat. Not only improved back to where it was, amazingly, it improved beyond the baseline of young mice, which is quite interesting if you are getting to be a more elderly mouse like me. That was very interesting. Those models are obviously a preclinical, but they translate quite well into human. What we are now doing, what the company's now doing, again, helpful timing, they announced the initiation of the phase II study. Given the company's both where we are and the novelty of the program and our cash resources, this is a targeted study, i.e., a relatively small study. It's being done in one geographic location around Newcastle. The lead PI is a complete world leader in the field. There was a comment from one of the clinicians in Istesso's release. They see this as incredibly exciting. What we're looking for in this relatively small targeted phase II is genuine, both mechanistic and tissue analysis evidence in patients who have rheumatoid arthritis that has caused sarcopenia, muscle loss and degradation, which is caused by things like RA, but also just natural aging of the body. If we can show what we saw in the phase I and the phase II-A and the phase II-B, then this will open up a whole range of options for the company. That trial, it hasn't been publicly announced when it will read out, but the dosing of the patients is roughly six months, so you can guess it's going to be in the second half of 2027 that we'll get a readout from that. There are some other things that they are doing in the company that could be some milestones along the way, but the main human study will read out in the second half next year. Then, of course, we'll have the usual commercial conversations. We remain constructive, confident, but definitely clear-eyed about where that company is in its development journey. The responsibility for the valuation rests with the Board. It's probably the most difficult asset. The number will be wrong. It could be too little, it could be too much, it could be absolutely right. Yeah. We get significant challenge from the Chair of our audit committee in terms of the information you need to make sure that the model is robust and the assumptions are reasonable. We get challenged from the auditors, including bringing their subject matter specialists to advise them when they look at the model, and we have within the board, someone who works in the life sciences pharma area, who asks more technical questions than the rest of us can manage. Within the investment team, we have subject matter experts who are very helpful in pointing us to where we should be thinking about where there is upside and downside. I'm very comfortable the process is right and it derives a number. That number is by definition a model number. It's not something you can point to and say, there's an external price evidenced in the market for that asset. We're very confident that the process we use to value it is appropriate and not aggressive. There's one in the front row, Dave. I don't think it's gone. Sorry. Thank you. Hello. Can you explain to me what's the business model of this business? Do you have any loans to pay off? I'll answer the loan bit. Okay. [audio distortion] Why don't you do the business model? Why don't you do the loans to pay off? That's very easy. We have a bit of debt. It's not an enormous amount, about GBP 120 million of debt we have. It repays in three tranches. There's GBP 40 million at the end of next year, so it's December 2027, then same amount in 2028, the same amount in 2029. That's the debt. We have plenty of cash. We're quite well cash positioned. I think when we last announced, we had about GBP 210 million cash. We're well-resourced, and we don't consider debt a problem to maintain. Greg. Very quickly, the business model is a specialist early-stage investor into predominantly science and technology companies. The business model comprises three main parts. There is an early-stage fund manager called Parkwalk. The gentleman sat to your right will very happily tell you about Parkwalk. He is one of our senior investment professionals in Parkwalk. That business partners with universities across the country and invests tax-advantaged EIS capital into early-stage spin-outs from universities. The bit that is most important to shareholders and is reflected most in the value is the second stage, which is the balance sheet. We have a permanent balance sheet, which has capital in it. The business model is really simple. We find opportunities at relatively low prices. We invest in them over the journey. We actively are involved in the development of those companies, helping them to develop their commercial plans, their intellectual property plans, their funding, their Boards, et cetera. The idea is that over time, we sell our equity in those companies at a lot more than the price at which we invested. Then there is a third bit to the business, which is where we are trying to grow, which is as these companies scale, they need more money than, well, than the U.K. can afford at the moment, but certainly than the group can afford. We manage some later-stage capital for some pension funds, so one in Australia and a U.K.-based one through Aberdeen. The idea of that is to be able to help those companies that we have brought through the pipeline to scale further, generating better returns, hopefully, for our EIS investors in Parkwalk, our balance sheet investors and shareholders, and hopefully for those pension funds. So the bit in the middle, you are exposed to direct equity returns in a brilliant portfolio of companies. The bits at the beginning and the end, as shareholders, you are exposed to fund management fees and some performance fees if we do a good job for our customers. Okay. What actually went wrong? What actually went wrong in this business which has affected the share price very much? These companies, do they pay you any royalties? Well, I suppose objectively, the thing that has probably contributed to the share price reducing, certainly the value of our assets reducing over the course of the last three or so years, until last year when we had positive NAV per share performance, has been the general environment for investing in and risk appetite into early-stage assets. We have one large and public position called Oxford Nanopore, which has contributed probably GBP 0.40 or so of the reduction in our NAV per share over that sort of elongated period. Generally, as Douglas mentioned, there have been fewer investors that have the long time horizon, like Railpen, for example, who are able to buy our shares. At the fundamental business level, there have been some companies that have gone very well. There have been others that we've had setbacks in, and that's been reflected in our NAV per share. Fortunately, or as a result of lots of hard work, that NAV per share turned back to accretion last year, we are targeted on doing the same this year. Hopefully, that means that that will be reflected in the share price going forward. On the royalties, our number one most valuable asset on the balance sheet at the moment is a right to royalties from some compounds that we licensed via a couple of companies to a big U.S. pharmaceutical company called Pfizer. They are developing those compounds as part of an anti-obesity and anti-diabetes program. If those products come to market, they're in phase III and phase II and others, then we will get a royalty stream on behalf of shareholders that we will benefit from. We fair value that at the moment. Dave gave a good description of how we fair value it, same principle as Istesso. Does that help? Yeah. Do we have a VCT status or anything? [Dave], The question was, do we have a VCT status or anything like that? That value is a little better to have. Correct. IP Group isn't structured as a VCT. Generally, for the tax-advantaged investment audience market, those people who would like to access this asset class definitely should speak to their financial advisor. Or if they're a sophisticated investor, they can speak direct to Parkwalk, and that product is similar to VCT. Similar to, yeah. If you don't get any income, you don't pay tax then. Correct. Shall I suggest I do some of the online questions? Yes. We've got quite a lot of people online. There's not too many. I'll go through them fairly quickly. First one's from John B, which I can probably do very quickly. What is the present discount? Well, the public NAV per share is GBP 1.10, and we're trading at about GBP 0.65 today, so I think I can make out about 41%. There is a discount. I should let that go, shouldn't I? I know. Thank you. Next one should probably go your direction, Greg. Interesting question. Some successful startups were founded by university dropouts. I understand IP Group is focusing on startups of academic background. Are we also trying to find such startups by university dropouts? It's actually a very good question. Interesting question. Mark in the audience? I might pass the mic to Mark. Mark runs our balance sheet team. The very quick answer while Mark's getting the microphone is that we source our potential investment opportunities from predominantly publicly funded research, mostly at universities. However, over the years, probably 10%ish of our sourcing has come from intellectual property and other technology that hasn't been developed in a university. It would fit in that category. Rather than me talk again, I'll just ask Mark to say a couple of words on the sourcing and give some examples of where we source alternatively from universities directly. Thanks, Greg. It's an interesting point, isn't it? It's not a qualifying criteria to be invested in IP Group that you have to have dropped out of university. I think the characteristic is one of sort of determination and singularity of vision, and that the people who drop out of university are the people who've got real belief in their proposition, and they're the people we look to back. In fact, one of our most successful founders ever, I hope he wouldn't mind me calling him a university dropout, but he was at Oxford University. We partnered with him when he was still at Oxford University, and he had such singular vision for his company that he stepped away from his course and went on to be CEO of that company, which is now Hinge Health and listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange very successfully. Look, I agree with the sort of sentiment behind the question, and that is something that we value in those people. Thank you. Sorry, Mark is our Managing Partner of our balance sheet portfolio for those online who won't be able to see it. I've only got a couple more. Good challenging question. What's the current strategy with regard to Oxford Nanopore? What kind of catalyst might you be looking for there? Yeah, Nanopore. The underlying prospects of the company, I think, have never been stronger. The fair value of the business, though, remains, we think, under where it could be, where it should be, arguably. The company continues to grow its revenues well ahead of its competition, doesn't necessarily have a premium value over its competition. In terms of the catalysts and the milestones and how we're thinking about the position of Oxford Nanopore in our portfolio, the company has just transitioned from a founder- CEO who we hired actually back in 2005 when we were the founder investor in the company, to a new CEO, Francis Van Parys, who's a very experienced life science tools CEO, most recently running a subsidiary of Danaher, which is a world-class life science tools business. His bit of the business had a billion-dollar P&L, he is just getting his arms around the business. At the London Calling, which is their annual customer conference, Francis made opening remarks and closing remarks, talking about how special the product suite is, how much opportunity there is, how he'd not seen a customer base like this that engaged so much with the technology and used it for myriad reasons. I thought the thing which stood out for me was the way in which he described the platform as being brilliant, he was going to keep all of that, he was going to dial up the reliability and repeatability of the platform because the customers for that business' technologies are now increasingly becoming other big life science tools and pharmaceutical companies. In that sort of regulated environment, that's where we think, and they think, there is significant value to be had for these differentiated products and services. The milestones will be the company's half-year results. I think they're early September. They might do a trading statement before that shows how well they're continuing to grow the business and if that's on track. They have said, and we believe them, that they will be EBITDA positive for full- year 2027, and cash flow positive for full- year 2028. I think probably one of the very big catalysts for the market, though, will be when Francis comes out and explains the strategy to address the market opportunity. They've previously mentioned GBP 13 billion to GBP 14 billion of what they call low-hanging fruit, where the products are very differentiated and Nanopore has a right to win. They currently do a few hundred million in sales, there's quite a way to go to hit that low-hanging fruit. I think it will be all eyes on what Francis says about the prospects and how they're going to address that market opportunity. In terms of its position in our portfolio, it's a public company, obviously it's possible for our shareholders to buy those shares. As I've said a number of times, over time, you should envisage that the group will exit its position in that company because predominantly we're trying to give shareholders access to private companies. However, we want to make sure that we do that in a way which is maximizing value for our shareholders, because we've been on a long journey, and you've been on a long journey with us, with that company. I think there will probably be some opportunities to do that as the company hits some of those milestones that we're talking about. Right. I think about two more. James Black got a question, actually, James, I think we've answered yours because it's all about Istesso. If you don't mind, we won't repeat that again. Was he asking about how you value it? Yeah, he was basically. A follow-up from Helen about just following up on Istesso for clarity. You're effectively forecasting same quantum, but you've pushed out the month by three and a half years. That's broadly right. Perhaps more succinctly put than I managed. Sorry, Andrew M., I don't know if you want to do this Greg or Mark. Can you give a brief update on Hysata progress? Shall I do that just? Yeah Quickly? Again, very helpfully, thank you, Paul and team. Hysata, for those who aren't aware, is our fourth or fifth biggest asset by value. This is a hydrogen electrolyzer business. It was a spin-out from a university in Australia called Wollongong. It definitely has the best offices of any of our portfolio companies on the beach. You can look on their website, and that is definitely a place to work. We have some quite good views here in King's Cross. Compared to the location of Hysata's, it definitely pales. The interesting thing about Hysata is that they have developed a fundamentally different electrolyzer technology, which addresses the main causes of inefficiency in converting effectively water into hydrogen and oxygen. It means that the technology goes from current best- in- class of 70%-75% efficient use of energy to about 95% efficient, and it does so in a way which is very scalable, cost competitive to manufacture, and therefore the big win is on the operating costs for people who want to use electrolyzer technology. The company had set up and launched its first pilot plant on that very nice site and got that up operating up and running. In the annual report, we also talked about a first pilot going out to a customer in the Middle East, ACWA Power, and they've been running that and seeing similar top-end performance in the field. The big news this week, last week, was that the company has also now signed its first binding order for a megawatt-scale plant that they will be looking to deploy before the end of this year, hopefully. That's a big commercial milestone. A huge opportunity to sell electrolysers. The hydrogen market definitely goes up and down in both sentiment, value of companies, et cetera. I think the underlying drivers of demand for producing hydrogen for various things, including industrial processes, we think remains very strong. I think that first order is a really big milestone for the company. If you're interested in it more, there's a short video on LinkedIn from their Head of Commercial, Daniel, which sort of explains they launched this first product or the news of this first order at a big hydrogen conference in Europe. There's quite a lot of good information out there if you're interested. That's progressing well, and the first binding commercial order is definitely a good milestone to have achieved. I would suggest that's probably all of them. Andrew came up with a follow-up question on that 1T. Actually, I think you answered that in your full answer. Okay. That's questions online. Anything else from the room? I see none. Okay. Thank you for the questions and for engagement. Let me now turn to the formal proceedings of the meeting. The notice of the meeting, together with the explanatory notes, was published to shareholders on the 13th of May. With your permission, I'll take the notice of the meeting as read, the requisite notice of meeting has been given. With that said, the voting today will be conducted by way of a poll. MUFG Corporate Markets are the company's registrar, and they have been appointed to act as scrutineers. A summary of each resolution will be shown on the screen behind me. Resolutions 1 to 12 and 15 will be proposed as ordinary resolutions, and resolutions 13, 14, 16 to 18 will be proposed as special resolutions. For shareholders who attend the AGM online, as advised in the notice of the AGM, you're not able to vote online, and you will, I hope, have submitted your votes by proxy. For those who are in attendance physically, if you have not already done so, and you need to do so, can you please complete the poll card that was given to you at registration? Tick the appropriate box next to the resolution as to how you wish to cast your vote. Once you've done that, please would you sign the poll card and hand the completed card to the registrars. Does the registrar want to identify himself? There he is at the back. Hand up. If you previously voted by proxy and don't wish to change your vote, you don't need to do a poll card, that's assuming you've got permission to do so, and should you require any further assistance, the registrars will be very pleased to assist. We'll keep the poll open for 10 to 15 minutes while you complete the poll cards. That concludes the formal business of the Annual Meeting. We'll announce the final results of the poll through the Regulatory Information Service and put the results on the company's website as soon as is practicable. At this stage, I'd just like to thank you all for your interest, for your attendance, and declare the meeting closed. I now formally step down as Chair. Again, thank you for your extraordinarily generous words. It's been a wonderful journey, a wonderful privilege. I shall remain a very interested and supportive shareholder from outside. I am absolutely thrilled that Michael is succeeding me as Chair of IP Group because he brings an extraordinary amount of experience and skill. You couldn't be in better hands. Thank you all very much for the meeting. Thank you. Douglas, while you close the meeting, I do want to add to Greg's comments on behalf of the Board. I really want to express He told me to do this Our deep gratitude for almost eight years service to IP Group. You've brought to this role a rare combination of financial rigor, governance experience, and a genuine intellectual curiosity about the science in which we invest. The company's meaningfully stronger as a result of it. Finally, we wish you every success in your new role of Prudential. I'll be sitting out there next year. Thank you.