Good afternoon. Welcome to MHA's Investor Webinar. Today, we're joined by Rakesh Shaunak, Chief Executive Officer, and Steven Moore, who's his CFO. Questions are encouraged throughout this webinar and can be submitted via the Q&A box situated in the panel on the right-hand side of your screen. I'd now like to hand over to Rakesh to begin this presentation. Rakesh, over to yourself. Thank you, Scott. Good afternoon, everybody. Very pleased to be here with you today, on a day in which we're celebrating a good end to our first year as a listed entity. Our plan is to give you an overview of the business. Reminder for some, and I suspect a finding out exercise for others. We'll go into the finances, give you a brief strategic update, and then give you an insight as to what we're thinking about going forwards and looking ahead. As Scott said, there is an opportunity for questions at the end, but the invitation was there for you to ask throughout. Moving on to the next slide. We've had the introductions, and I've shared the agenda with you. Moving on to the next slide, which is the overview. This sets out, on one page, essentially what MHA is and what we do, and the key features. We are a leading and international mid-market professional services group, have a partner-led ethos, a sector specialist model. We go to market on the base of sectors, and with a very high recurring income stream with strong cash generation. Steve will go through all those in a moment. We capture our income under four service lines. Assurance, which is the largest part of our business, 50% of our business. Advisory, which is 28%, and is quite a diverse bucket, as it were, from corporate finance restructuring recovery to outsourcing, i.e., anything where there's an advisory element. Tax, which is 18% and growing. Again, Steve will touch on those points later. Wealth, which is a particular target area for us. Although it's 4% of our business, we capture that separately for reasons of growth and strategy. The next pictorial on the right-hand side is our revenue record, which shows a really good trend. From 2020 to 2026, we grew from GBP 72 million to GBP 251 million, 14% CAGR over 10 years. The revenue per partner, which is one of our key metrics, went up by 2.5x, so really significant. We monitor that, and that's quite a key metric for us. A large element of our revenue is recurring, so very sticky revenue stream. Visibility of earnings, 87%. Moving down the slide, as it were, we're the U.K. arm of Baker Tilly, which is the eighth largest network firm in the world. That gives us global reach and access to global markets and the ability not just to tap those markets, but also to be able to service our clients in those 147 countries that Baker Tilly exists in. A proven M&A platform. At the pre-IPO, we set out very clearly our strategy for growth, which was both organic and inorganic growth. We have a proven platform. We've made seven acquisitions in the last three years, all very well integrated. Obviously the two most recent ones, largely integrated, but following the same formula. We have the same method and the same team doing that. Really all that to help us achieve our medium-term ambition of GBP 500 million. The why, if you like. Why all this? Is that GBP 500 million revenue target that we set, and a top 10 U.K. position. We believe that GBP 500 million will not just get us there, but keep us there for the foreseeable future. We see a clear way to do that. Just very quickly, the facts and figures at the bottom there. Established in 1869, so one of the founding firms of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Been going a long while. Have 32 offices, some U.K., others overseas now. 157 partners, 2,300 staff, and based in the U.K., the Republic of Ireland, Southeast Europe, five countries in Southeast Europe, the UAE, and Cayman. Moving on to the next slide. Key messages from the first full year as a listed company. Strong financial progress, and Steve will bring that to life in a moment. A broader, more international platform. This time last year, those names you see at the bottom, the locations would've been different. That's quite deliberate. New markets, reducing our reliance on a single market and the U.K. Really well-positioned, both in terms of the growth platform and also organic growth to continue our growth story and help us achieve our overall aim. I shall hand over to Steve now for the financial overview. You go on mute, Rakesh. Are you coming through my speaker? My speaker. Okay. Yeah. Can you hear me okay, Scott? Coming through loud and clear, Steven. Thank you. Lovely. Can we have the next slide, please, Scott? Financial review. The next one. I should've started by saying good afternoon, everybody. I'm delighted to be here. This is our first year as a PLC on the market. I must say, we're delighted with the results that we've produced for that year. It's been a busy year for us. There was a big reorganization to get us into the right place to be able to IPO the business, so quite a bit of disruption. We're pleased with these numbers. Revenue, you'll see 12% increase in revenue up to GBP 250 million. If I just reference to a bit of the market, the Big Four, EY, their revenue's reduced by 1%. The best of the rest was at 2% growth. Grant Thornton grew by 4%. Our 12% growth is good in this market. Adjusted EBITDA, GBP 46.5 million. That was a couple of million GBP beat against market expectations, and up 13% on our prior year. I'm particularly pleased about that because we've absorbed the costs of becoming a PLC. It's not cheap to run a PLC. The costs are about GBP 1.4 million a year. We've also this year had the increase in national insurance, obviously being a people business. That put an extra GBP 2.2 million onto our salaries bill. Absorbed all those and managed to increase the EBITDA, and pleased that the margins moved up, 0.1% up to 18.5%. EPS of GBP 0.111 per share. The cash conversion number, 115%. I think, going forward, you should think of us as converting about 90%, and it'll fall back in line, I think, next year as a few funnies because we've had to move to kind of PLC structure and how it interacts with the partnership. Previous year was 89%. That's kind of more in line where we're going to be moving forward. Our net cash position, GBP 25.4 million, that's up GBP 7.7 million on the prior year. The recurring revenue, 87% as it was in the previous year. This business has very sticky clients. It has very high recurring revenue. The final box, the dividend per share. First full year dividend will be GBP 0.052 per share. The boxes at the bottom just show you you had double-digit growth with some margin expansion and high recurring revenue and a strong cash position. Next slide, please, Scott. This slide just shows the trading performance. The FY 2025 column, we were a partnership in that year. If I just pick up the numbers at the bottom, profit after tax, GBP 83 million. Obviously, this year we are a PLC, GBP 28.1 million. When you're a partnership, the GBP 83 million, there's no real tax in the partnership. The tax falls onto the partners, and the GBP 83 million gets distributed to the partners. We had 100% partner distribution model. I wouldn't want people to think our profits have collapsed. It's just they're not on a like-to-like basis. The numbers above have been adjusted EBITDA has a comparable, we call it partner salary cost going through and same on the margin line. I've talked about those on the previous slide. Perhaps we could go to the next slide, please, Scott. This slide is our revenue bridge. It shows how we've moved from GBP 224 million up to GBP 250 million. The second block that you see, -GBP 14.8 million, that is completed projects and lost clients. That is about 6.5% of the total, and it's higher than in previous years. The reason for that is we're looking at jobs that are low recovery jobs and clients where we can't achieve the margin that we want. We're actually exiting those clients from the business. That number normally runs at about 3%-4%, but it's higher this year at 6.5%. That's affecting our organic growth for this year. I'll talk a bit more about it when I come onto a later slide. There's growth from our existing client base. That's around 6%. Further growth from new client wins. Again, that's around 7%. Overall, our organic growth comes out this year at 6.4%. Last year we achieved organic growth of 18%, and it was an exceptional year. Sometimes the maths work against you because we're moving from obviously a much higher base in the opening position. 6.4%, when I talked about Grant Thornton earlier at 4%, we're doing better than a lot of our peers. If we add in the inorganic growth, we achieve 12.4%, sorry, 12.2% overall for the year. The next slide, please, Scott. This slide shows our service lines. As Rakesh pointed out earlier, we have four service lines. We're growing across all our service lines and particularly in Advisory and in Tax where double-digit growth. In Wealth, we're up 20%, but it's from a lower base. Audit & Assurance, 50% of our business. Over the last few years, the trend is that's declining slightly. If I go back four years, about 54%. It declines by about 1% per year. Still growing. It's just that we're growing faster in other service lines. The change from last year was Audit & Assurance was down 1%, whereas Advisory is up 1%. It went from 27%-28%. I think the message is, we're growing in all our service lines. Could I have the next slide, Scott, please? This slide shows our revenue by sector. We go to market by sectors. All our partners are aligned to a particular sector or a particular industry. It's the industry that they're passionate about, that they're experts in. You see the second column of figures, it just shows that we're really diversified. Financial services is at 14%, real estate and construction at 12%, but we're not reliant on any one sector. The third column shows the growth, and we've had strong growth in financial services, in professional services in particular, both in the 20s. The final column shows organic growth, and you'll notice there they're all positive apart from not-for-profit. When I talked about earlier about lower margin, not-for-profit, sort of charity clients, the margin is lower. We look at those margins. We have a process called the three Rs. The three Rs is rescope the job, requote the job, and then if we can't get the price that we want, we'll ultimately resign off of that work. We'll move the resource somewhere else where we're getting better margin. That's what we've been doing through FY 2026, and that's how we get the margin improvement. As I said, there's a bit more to do through FY 2027. Could I have the next slide, Scott, please? This slide just shows our cash flow and our cash conversions. As I said on the opening slide, it's coming out 115% this year. You should think about it going forward as more around 90%, more in line with FY 2025. On the right-hand side at the bottom are our lockup numbers. All our partners are monitored. This is one of our key KPIs, and we monitor each partner and produce their lockup numbers every month, and we produce it in a table. You can be red, amber, or green, so you don't want to be in the red. The lockup for the year at 76, that's better than our KPI target. Work in progress, 16 days. Debt a day is 60 to give a lockup 76. If you compare us to our peers, those are good numbers. It's not as good as we were at the end of FY 2025, we had exceptionally low work in progress numbers that year. Seven days is exceptional. 16 is more in line, or 20 would be more in line. Just in terms of the numbers on the left, I think the only probably number I'll talk about, the payments to members. In FY 2026, we paid out GBP 66 million, GBP 67 million to the partners. That's basically paying out the profits that they were owed up to March 31stprior to IPO in the business. When we get to FY 2027, there won't be anything on that line. The partner salaries go through the P&L like the normal expenses. We finished the year, as I've said earlier, at GBP 25.4 million. Could I have the next slide, Scott, please? This is our balance sheet. It's a strong balance sheet. We end the year with equity and reserves of GBP 54.8 million. Cash of GBP 25.4 million. We've got strong working capital controls in this business. Relatively low CapEx in this business. We only spend some money on capital if we refurbish an office or if we spend some money on M&A. A good war chest there with the cash that we hold. The other point on our balance sheet is that we have very low borrowings. We have GBP 3 million worth of borrowings, something we acquired when we acquired our business in Southeast Europe. They have a loan. Only GBP 3 million worth of borrowing, which gives us plenty of scope if we wanted to have an acquisition fund of once, 1.5x EBITDA, we could gear the business up with some significant sums. We're in a strong place, and I think that is probably my last slide. Next slide, please, Scott. I'll hand back to Rakesh. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Moving on to the next slide. Just to give you an overview of strategy, we set out a very clear strategy at IPO, and we've delivered against those objectives. One year on, we've executed two mergers, which again, are strategic and really potentially giving us really strong platforms in very important markets. A disciplined M&A and integration strategy. We have a good formula for that, a good team. We've built national and international scale, and continue to do that, not through our own expansion, but the Baker Tilly brand as well, the global brand. We've invested significantly in technology and AI, and we set that at the very outset. I'll drill down into these a bit more as we go through. Our aim overall to build on the theme Steve was espousing earlier is to move upmarket and broaden the client base through the industries and the sectors. Move upmarket means dispense with the low-performing clients and work with clients where we can get a good return on our investment. What we do is underpinned by a distinctive model. Just like to emphasize that we are different, and our brand and the unique position of our brand. We have a total alignment through being a partnership culture and ethos with the discipline, profile, and acquisition currency of a public company, which will enable us to grow inorganically as well, but maintain the same values, the same focus, and the same strong service delivery that has brought us this position. A full service that none of our peers in the market can offer at any level. Really good partner retention rates. I mentioned alignment. They're very aligned, and partner retention rates are always a good indicator of that. Moving on to the next slide, just giving you a bit more color on the acquisitions. We've made two acquisitions since IPO. The Baker Tilly firm in Southeast Europe, which is now our Southeast Europe region. The firms we acquire become a region. We have a number of regions in the U.K., and the other jurisdictions become a region as well. That was a EUR 19.4 million revenue firm. We paid GBP 20 million for that, and a multiple of 5.5 on EBITDA. A very reasonable and value-accreted acquisition there. That was completed in August 2025. The second one, more recent, completed April this year, was a Moore Stephens firm, Moore Global firm in the UAE. Very strategic. What I mean by that is that we went there for two reasons. The main reason being to service our clients. Our clients were looking for local solutions. A number of our clients, for tax reasons, had moved to the UAE, we followed our clients. Also to have a base for further expansion in due course. Clearly, lots of things happening in that jurisdiction at the moment or in that area. We're conscious of that, and we will continue to watch and wait for the right opportunity. We are quality lead. We are not a consolidator. I'd like to emphasize that point. It's not just about completing mergers and acquisitions for the sake of them. Do they fit in strategically? Are the people right? Is the culture right? Our approach to aligning the expectations is to make the transactions more equity, in terms of value, more equity-based than cash. We are flexible. Clearly, one solution or one cap doesn't fit all. We remain very aware of that. The pipeline remains really strong, both in the U.K. and overseas. We're really pleased at the traction that's been built up, and the traction of our currency. Moving on to the next slide. Just talking a bit about AI and our approach to AI. It's been very deliberate. We started the technology journey three years ago, initially with repetitive processes and automation of those, the onboarding, and some of you may have heard that last time if you were on one of these webinars during the roadshow. That's gone really well. We've embedded AI, used to be called bots, now agents, into our tax offering and our audit offering, and really embedding by the day really, we've rolled out technology and tools to most of our team. We've done it on a systematic basis, which is the next point that we want to control what we do rather than rely on or run the risk of AI being used sort of wantonly and without the checks and balances. We have a good governance process around the use of AI. We have a system of reviews, at least two reviews of any work that we do. Sometimes even three and four, very well controlled, which enables us to do work more quickly, and look more deeply at what we do, and be more efficient. The proof of that's been coming through. Building scale has created an advantage. We are the eighth-largest firm network in the world, we pool our resources, and all the developments are done on a collective global basis, really, rather than spending a few hundred thousand GBP or even GBP 1 million sort of locally. We benefit from a much bigger investment pool. I think, again, we're really well placed as far as our peers are concerned. Against our peers, rather. Moving on to the next slide to give you some examples. We have two on here, and I'll sort of bring to life a third one. One area that I wanted to just give you an insight into, which gives you the kind of approach we have. Audit is largely about sort of testing, and then providing an opinion at the end of the day. In order to do that, the traditional approach has been sample testing. For that, you need a lot of resource, and largely union resource at that level. Well, that is largely being done by AI now, whereby we now conduct 100% testing of things. Population testing rather than sample testing, which means that the teams can rely on the judgmental elements, which the machine can't do, and we don't want to rely on the machine doing that. That's one obvious manifestation of AI, and how we're using that. The second example I have on here is the review of the financial statements, that could be anything. It could be a report. The example we have here is financial statements, which again is quite a laborious process because there are a number of moving parts in any set of financial statements. If one number changes, you have to trace it through to the notes and the cash flow statement and what have you. Our AI tool enables us to automate that, which means that we no longer have to worry about notes disagreeing with the balance sheet or the income and expenditure account, leaves our specialists to investigate any flags that are thrown out and to actually interpret the results and reach conclusions, to have sensible conversations with our clients. The third example I wanted to proffer, which is not on here, is wealth management. Our wealth management revenue's grown by 20%, and in part that is the result of automation. We merged two businesses. One was a legacy business that we had and an acquired business. We merged the back offices. We now have the tax system producing flags for the wealth management system. Our journey on that one is to have the two systems talking to each other automatically. The tax system throws up an anomaly. For example, the yield on a client's portfolio is 4%. The industry norm is 10%. You take your pension money and you take such choice. Let me just use those examples. Mr. Wealth Manager, could you go and have a conversation with a client? This client doesn't have a pension. They're paying more tax than they should. There's a pension conversation required. Again, that is something we're working on and that will prove very fruitful from a revenue, and communication viewpoint. We're partway through the rolling out of the ERP system, Workday it's called. We've gone beyond the discovery stage. We're currently at the build stage, and then we'll be getting into the testing stage. That again, will produce more data and give us more data on the number of services we sell our clients, where we are aware, but that'll be more forensic. Our focus for FY 2027 is continue to build on what we have. We started off with a very basic deployment of technology, became deployment of AI. Rather than let's wait and see approach, is it Copilot, is it ChatGPT? Is it Claude? We've decided to back a particular one, which happens to be Copilot. Our entire focus is in getting the best out of Copilot. We have clear KPIs and benchmarks and the ambition to deploy AI as much as we can. We start off with what can it do rather than let's just chuck AI at it and then try and work out what we do with it. Moving on to the next slide then. Looking ahead, because I know you are interested in not just the historical data, but kind of how it looks going forward. We've had a positive start. We're four months into our year, March year end. Four months into it. The year started off well. On the inorganic growth front, we have a broader platform, which means that we're able to grow within the new locations as well, and create opportunities there. A resilient client demand as well on the organic front. Steve went through the numbers earlier, so nothing further to be said on there. The structural growth drivers are still there. Increasing regulatory complexity, growing demand for our services. There's more complexity in tax, for example, with the new government, I'm sure there'll be even more opportunities. Corporate finance. Our corporate finance team had a really good year. Again, their pipeline remains very strong. Our restructuring recovery team, looking at the flip side, they obviously have the benefit of having that service available. We have a healthy, as I was saying earlier, healthy acquisition pipeline, both in the U.K. and overseas. The final slide then is about our compelling sort of value proposition, the investment case for MHA, why we believe we give you a very compelling proposition. Favorable market drivers. The total market in our space is GBP 8.8 billion. We represent GBP 250 million of that. There's huge opportunity there. There is no case of the market being a constraint. It's about winning market share. Our regulators and regulation in general, and clients actually, clients determine demand, don't they? Are looking for firms like ours, to provide a real alternative. We see that continuing. Strong recurring financials. Steve gone through those in a fair bit of detail, I won't go through that. A really good backdrop. Steve was saying no borrowing, we have a good framework for acquisitions. Diversified services and clients. We're not dependent on any particular industry or sector, or any particular client. Our largest client represents 1% of our revenue, so very diversified. We have a very diversified range of services as well. A one-stop shop, if you would. We're a global network, part of a global network together with the Big Four and the others. We're the eighth largest in that incarnation. We have our own MHA-owned entities in a number of jurisdictions which are listed out there, and I won't go through them. A proven M&A platform. Worked really well. We spend a lot of time on the people DD, on the culture DD. That de-risks it for us because the financial DD and everything is a given. We put a lot of time on the people side of things, and that's stood us in good stead. Ultimately, being a people's business and with external shareholders, a really aligned group of people. We've just come away from a meeting with one of our major shareholders. Again, it emphasized to me how aligned we are in terms of expectations. The partners sort of totally align, totally bought into the total reward model, really motivated by the upside of MHA as a business. We look forward to having more and more people such as you on board. I hope we've given you a good insight into our results and kind of our thinking about the future as well. I think we'll stop at this point and hand over to you for questions. Hand over to you, Scott, for questions. Wonderful. Thank you very much for the presentation. That was great. We've had a number of questions that have been pre-submitted and also submitted live. Just as a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please do so by typing into the Q&A box, which is situated on the right-hand side of your screen. Now we'll get straight into some of the questions that have been asked. The first one is, would it be fair to say that the first year being listed is complete, there's a great platform for increased growth to follow, regardless of what happens to the economy? I think if I was to stick with a one-word answer, it would be yes. Without question. Our growth is predicated on two things, organic and inorganic. There's no denying the fact that the market is hardening and therefore clients look at that. We haven't felt the pressure, any downward pressure on fees, but one has to be realistic. The inorganic side of things will create more opportunities for us. If I was to give a one-word answer, it wouldn't be no or depends. I think it would be yes, without any question. Thank you for that. Next question is, why do clients choose MHA instead of one of the Big Four? Yeah. We go to market through our sector specialisms. We become trusted advisors to our clients and I think if you compare us to the Big Four, they're in a different market to us. The size of clients that we're acting for, I think if they were with the Big Four, they wouldn't get the partner, or should I say the partner time that our clients get. Large clients for us, it's not just one partner. There'd be a relationship partner, there'd be an audit partner, there'd be a tax partner. Those people are sector specialisms, have industry knowledge. They speak the client's language and we're just a right fit for them. Yeah. Sorry, Steve, if I could just add a couple of things. I think there are some clients, sort of just building on what Steve said. Some clients, just expressing what Steve said a slightly different way, who are more suited to us because they identify with a business of our size rather than a large, huge business where they would just be a number. To us, every client is really important, and I think the sector knowledge combined with the whole MO, our model of operating, is such that more and more clients recognize that and come to us rather than the Big Four because they don't need the Big Four label. Somebody said in an earlier meeting, "Never a good time for hiring a Big Four firm." Well, in our space, the recognition is, well, we don't need a Big Four firm because the MHA brand is as strong as you can get, and it meets our requirements really. Thank you for that. Turning on to AI, obviously a number of references to AI within the presentation. The first part of the question is how much difference is AI making? Is it saving you money yet, or is it still early days? Another point that was made is technology/AI taking out lower-to-middle people in the company? If yes, how are you filling the higher skilled jobs if they're not coming through the company? Yes. If I could take the margin question. What we're finding with AI is that all the repetitive processes are now done by AI. What's happening in the business is the mix of staff is kind of changing. At a basic level, we have chargeable people, we have non-chargeable people. What's happening is that the percentage of non-chargeable to chargeable is kind of moving, and certainly the case in our U.K. business. In terms of our margin, AI allows us to do more with the same number of people. It makes us more efficient. It allows people to do work quicker, more efficiently. Obviously, we have checks and balances in place over that. The other point when it comes to margin, though, is that AI isn't free. AI at the moment is cheap, and the developers, the software companies are almost throwing AI at you. It's not plug-and-play. You basically develop your agents, you embed them in your processes. What's going to happen in the future is that they'll move from a subscription to a tokenized basis of payment, the cost of AI will increase. Basically, in terms of margin, the mix will change. The technology costs will increase, the personnel cost will reduce. AI is making us more efficient, allowing us to do more with the people that we've got. In terms of the impact on our recruitment and getting the work done. We have very deliberately changed the requirements that we have. We had 227,000 applications for 170 roles. Certainly the employer brand is very strong. The type of individual we're taking on now is, some of you may recognize this, is the traditional route was you came in as an ACA trainee, ICAEW trainee. You went through the mill, you did your routine work, you progressed and so on. Well, given what Steve was saying earlier, that junior work isn't required as much. In the example I gave you about the population testing. We're taking on a different type of individual, somebody who can articulate their message. When we run our assessment centers, so we use technology AI to bring the 27,000 applications down to 1,000, we run assessment centers. The purpose of the assessment centers is to assess whether the individuals are articulate and whether they're able to apply what they're seeing in front of them, they're analytical. Our criteria have changed and in terms of how we then train them and develop them. We rather than have a training pathway and the technological development being done separately. We don't write code. We're not a software business. We don't do that. We rely on our vendors and suppliers. In audit, for example, we have a global methodology built on a Caseware platform. We rely on CaseWare to put forward tools. We then develop them and tweak them for our own purposes. We've merged in the audit technology team with the training team, which means that it's become a very holistic thing. Rather than technology happening there being implemented and introduced to the audit team, they're being trained on that. I think part of the question was about where do you get the work done? We do it in-house. Fundamentally, in developing the thing and having our team involved in the thoughts and the ideas, which again, their role isn't to develop, their role is to identify the opportunities. Because the key with AI is what are you trying to do? Not let's just use it and see what comes out. We believe that we've created the right pathway and the right environment for that. Again, we've taken on 170 people this year. It may be more next year because part of the thinking behind the number of recruits is not just to do the work, but to provide the partners and leaders of tomorrow. We have a really strong development plan and people's plan and a succession plan. Next year our needs may be 250, it may be 100. We're very flexible and our needs dictate how many people we take on. There's no doubt that we'll continue to take people on. The type of individual or the requirement will be different, we'll continue to recruit people. Thank you. Next question on the AI element is can management provide measurable evidence of AI-related benefits? For example, hours saved, improved recovery rates, higher capacity, or lower cost per engagement? Yeah, absolutely. Hours saved is one of the KPIs we use because, back to my point about tell us what you want to do with the AI. I can get X part of the work done through the use of technology, AI, an agent can do part of that. The number of hours saved will be Y. We have those statistics and that's obviously I can't reel them off as we sit here, but that's embedded into what we do. That's the justification for AI. A measure of impact on profitability is we track something called the average rate recovered. If you're employing people at a senior level, and that means a blended rate in simple terms because we have input at various levels, everybody charges their time and then you get a blended rate. The thing we monitor is average rate recovered and our average rate recovered is improving. It's not that simple. It's not binary. The ARR could be improving through selling more Advisory services. Certainly AI and the use of AI and more senior people getting involved, and it does have an impact. Steve, have you got any further thoughts on that? And, we're monitoring recoveries by job, so we monitor profitability by job so we can see the hours that goes into jobs. We prepare budgets for each job. We can compare that to the actuals and we have the use of AI on these jobs as well. We can see the savings. Thank you for that. Now on to acquisitions. Obviously, they're clearly part of the growth strategy. Are you seeing plenty of opportunities or has competition for good firms pushed valuations higher? Really, competition for acquisitions, is PE becoming more aggressive? We're seeing lots of opportunities. At the moment we're pursuing five, six, seven really good opportunities. We kiss a lot of frogs, I always say. We walk away from a lot of deals if the culture isn't right, if there isn't strong leadership in the business. Yeah, there's plenty of opportunities out there for us, and that's both within the U.K. and overseas, within the Baker Tilly network and outside of the Baker Tilly network. Firms that some businesses that fit our current service lines, some businesses that would introduce potentially different service lines or increase our Advisory offering. In terms of PE is very active in the market. Our sense though is that the multiples being paid by PE are coming off somewhat. We could compete with PE if there was a particular target that we really felt we have to buy this business. We could compete with PE if we needed to. I mentioned earlier, there's no gearing on our balance sheet. We can issue equity. We can compete if we need to. PE, I know of a deal kind of recently where a GBP 20 million revenue business went for 10x EBITDA. We felt it was toppy. We don't want to overpay for any businesses. The two acquisitions that we have done, that Rakesh talked about earlier, the multiple was 5.5x and 7x EBITDA. We think those are sensible, but as I said, we're happy to compete with PE if we need to. Yeah, just anecdotally, if I may. Steve and I wondered on one or two occasions where PEs paid shed loads of money, not necessarily for an accounts business, for a loss-making business. You think to yourself, "Well, that doesn't make sense." Well, actually it doesn't make sense because part of the PE story is about building scale, isn't it? You build the revenue, and the business is loss-making, so you project it 10 years forward and then discount it back in hope, because a 10-year projection is We're not in that business. We're just not. We stick to the fundamentals, and nothing else to add to that. I just remembered the number of chats Steve and I have had, and you look at it and think, "Well, really we wouldn't pay anything for this." PE's paying shed loads for it, really. I think private credit has dried up, that is a factor in why PE's cooled. In the model I've just outlined, and greater minds than mine, I'm sure, sit behind my box here. In the PE model, it's predicated on you borrow, you're not using your own money. I'm paraphrasing. I'm sorry, PE colleagues out there. You borrow and you flip at a high value, and you just build scale. We're a much more systematic, strategic-orientated business. Thank you. Next question is there enough cash coming into the business to fund acquisitions without taking on lots of debts? Do you plan to raise any equity to fund the M&A? As I said, it would depend on the deal, and it would depend on the size of the deal, obviously. We've got cash in the business, GBP 25 million of cash in the business today. It would depend on the deal. As to the equity cash split, again, that also depends on the deal, and how we think about deals is if you think about, let's say a traditional accountancy business, audit, accountancy tax, et cetera, then we want to secure the partners of that business. We want those partners to have an equity stake in the business. We want their interest to be aligned with our own and our investors. That sounds to me like if they're young partners, we should be issuing equity to those partners. If they're older partners who are about to retire, there's succession in the business, that can be cash out for those. It could be different if there was, let me talk about an Advisory business that was tech-based, i.e. where it's not people dependent. In that type of business, we'd probably look at more a cash-based deal than an entirely equity-based deal, or the percentage of equity could just go to the leadership, but it would probably be below 50%, let me put it that way. I think as to whether we borrow or whether we do it with our own cash, we are generating cash. This is a strong cash-generating business. It just purely comes down to the structure of that deal. Can we structure it that some of the cash is deferred? How big is it on day one? I kind of think about it in terms of if the right deal came along, let's say it was purely cash deal, for instance. We don't want to gear this business up like PE gears businesses up 3x, 4x, 5x EBITDA, we're comfortable at 1x, 1.5x EBITDA, that would give us quite a lot of firepower when you consider we're aiming for GBP 50 million EBITDA this year. Thank you for that. Next question, what impact has the war in the Middle East had on your UAE operation? Should I take that one, Steve? Yeah. I think basically, if we look at the rationale for us being in the Middle East, the rationale was to follow our clients and our clients' needs. It wasn't with a view to using that as a base for growth. That was part of the thinking and rationale, but that was very much, "And." The original criterion hasn't changed. Although again, people, you pays your money, you takes your choice, you read the papers and draw conclusions from that. What we're hearing on the ground in our regular interaction with our partners, and one of them is in London at the moment, is that really the business isn't impacted because our business was reliant on servicing the needs of our clients. Yes, any plans we had for acquisition and growth is on hold because in the current environment, we're not convinced that we want to embark on that. At the end of the day, again, just to put it into perspective, our UAE business is less than 2% of our overall revenue. Very important part of our business, but really in terms of materiality and numbers, it's not material at all, really. Things are continuing pretty much as we expected them to in terms of servicing our needs, not material. Right decision, which we stand by, and good platform should we, when, and I don't think it's if, when things come back to normal, a good platform because after the bombs comes the rebuilding, and the economy starts sort of picking up again, really. I think that's our position on the UAE. Thanks for that. Average headcount increased from 1,818 to 2,323, around 28%, whilst revenues rose by 12%. How much of this reflects acquisition timing, and what happened to revenues and profit per employee on a like for like basis? Okay. I think if I could start, and then I'm sure Steve will correct me or come in. There is an element of 400. We've got 400 people come in from the South-East Europe merger, 400 +. The UAE merger acquisition was we used the M word, not the A word. The UAE acquisition was post this year end, that stays out of it. 400 + people, which is virtually every single individual that the difference between the 1,800 and the 2,250. In terms of the impact, don't forget, revenue generated per individual, the rate recovered per individual does vary by geography, and the metrics vary by geography as well. Because the cost of employing an individual is a local thing. If you apply that yardstick, the margin, revenue per individual is not the indicator, it's the margin generated by the individual because in that local market, there are different rates and therefore different revenue. They've held up. There is no diminution. If you apply simple arithmetic, 2,250 people divided by that, you get a different answer. If you drill it down and look at the local impact, then the numbers hold up quite well. I don't know, Steve, if you've got any. I don't have those metrics. The only thing I can add, I think, is that obviously the Baker Tilly South-East Europe deal came in during the year, but the total people, when we say we've got 2,300 people, that's the number of people we have today. Sorry, I don't have those kind of metrics. I do have the partner revenue metric, our revenue per partner, which is one of the metrics we do monitor. That's GBP 1.7 million per partner, and going forward, we expect that revenue to kind of increase. That's a really good point, Steve, about that point in time. Just to emphasize the point Steve's just made, the 400 is total headcount. It's not full-time equivalent. Given that it came in partway through the year, if you then rationalize that, the average headcount, sorry, not the average headcount, the absolute headcount isn't 400. It's actually much less than that. Thank you for that. Next question is, how much of the 6.4% organic growth came from fees increases, greater volumes, cross-selling and improved utilization? Sure. I can give you the split between volume and price. The price element is 3%, the volume element was 3.4%. I don't have the stat for how much of that volume was from cross-sell. If I go back to my, I'm just remembering the revenue bridge, then about 6.5% was from the existing client base. That's going to be the mixture of volume and price in that piece, and then there's another volume piece. I think I've just lost my battery. Yeah. New clients, yes. Yeah, sorry. There's another. Sorry. That's it. Laptop's gone black. Hopefully you can still hear me. Yeah, the other side. Thank you. Yeah, we can hear you loud and clear, Steve. Just trying to get the laptop powered up. Sorry, I've lost my place. New client wins was about another 7%. I don't have the analysis to what the cross-sell was, but it would be in that kind of the 6% that we've generated from the existing client base. If I would just add to what Steve said, this is the whole drift of this conversation. One of the main reasons for introducing the new ERP system is to get more data out of the system. We've looked at our client base or a client in a very sort of holistic fashion and said, "This is a client. This is the fee we generate from that client." What our new ERP system is enabling us to do, and I gave you the wealth management example earlier, is enabling us to drill down and look at what the cross-selling is, what that generates, and so on, really. Watch this space on that front. Great. Thank you. Next question is, fees from listed clients grew organically by 15%. How much came from new audit appointments versus additional services to existing clients? It would be a combination of both. Probably 30% increase to existing clients and 70% new clients. The existing clients would be driven by the additional work we're having to do in signing off those audits. Our listed client base is largely Audit & Assurance focused, and with all the uncertainties, it's things such as going concern, impairments of assets and future funding and so on. It's 30%, 70%. 30% in broad terms, 30% is existing fee increases, existing clients, and 70% is an increase from sort of new clients. Wonderful. Thank you. Nice to see you back, Steven, on there. How much of the company is owned by employees and the management board? I'll take this one. Our partners own 55% of the business. In terms of employees, I don't have the figure, but a number of our employees joined the retail offer. The other point I should mention is our EBT. Our EBT owns about 12% of the equity. We use the EBT for progression in the business, promotions to partners, and we still have a partnership in our structure. We still have what we call the point system for sharing profits, so partners understand how they can obtain a bigger, if you like, profit share from the business by getting more points. If you move up the point scale, you get an award from our EBT. The value that sits in that EBT today is the shares are worth GBP 45 million-GBP 50 million. We're probably going to issue awards out of there in respect of last year's performance, about a couple of GBP million, in terms of options that will be issued to employees. That just means that the value that's in that EBT will last us for a very long time. But we're predominantly partners are the biggest group of shareholders. Thank you for that, Steven. We've got time for three more questions. First question, which is related to that and is how do you manage returns to partners versus shareholders when they're billing significantly more? Well, we have a total reward model for our partners. Our partners get a salary. Our partners can get a bonus. Our partners get dividends because we made every partner an equity holder in the business before we IPO'd the business. Also they get share price appreciation. Our partners are paid market rate salaries, and our partners understand. We have a balanced scorecard for partners, which sets out the key objectives they need to achieve. People who achieve those objectives can get a bigger. They can move them up the point scale, which would give them bigger profit share. Thank you for that. Moving on to the next question. This may be a statement, but I do not completely understand the lockup days and how this KPI works for partners. Does it affect their remuneration? Well, it can do. First of all, the lockup days is how long it takes a piece of work to get completed. If you think about it in terms of day one, we might put some time onto that client. How many days does it stay there in work in progress until it's billed? Our number at year end was if we put a piece of work, time onto the clock today, 16 days later, we'd be sending a bill to our client. And how long does it take our client to pay? That's another 60 days. Our total lockup from doing a piece of work to getting paid is 76 days. Now, can it affect partner remuneration? Yes, it can because we have strict KPIs around lockup. You need to have a lockup target below 85 days. That's our total lockup target. If a partner was consistently outside of that then there'd be a conversation around performance. Yeah, it can affect kind of profit share and bonus. Thank you. Moving on to our final question. Do you think the IPO of the business was the correct decision with hindsight? As you mentioned, it's not cheap to do so. Yes. My favorite question, my favorite answer really, again, a very short one. Absolutely. It was absolutely the right decision. It's given the business a new identity, a new purpose, a new currency to execute our strategy, both in terms of our client value proposition and our employee value proposition. In terms of our attraction to not just talent from outside, but retention of talent and the appeal to firms we're targeting or businesses we're targeting to come in and be acquired by us, really. Yeah, absolutely the right decision. We haven't regretted it for a moment and with a group of very supportive partners and investors, we hope that that will continue long into the future. Thank you, Rakesh. We've got no further questions at the present time. We've come to the end of our questions, shall I say. Rakesh, maybe I could ask you for any sort of closing remarks. Thank you, Scott. Thank you everybody for joining us today. We hope our story resonated with you. We are reliant on supports, the new shareholders coming in and kind of refreshing the register. Delighted to have you join us today, and hopefully we'll be seeing some of you very soon. Thank you very much. I'd like to thank both Rakesh and Steven for their presentation today. That concludes the MHA investor presentation. Please take a moment to complete the short survey following this event and this recording of the presentation will be made on Engage Investor. I hope you enjoyed today's webinar. Thank you very much. Thank you, Scott. Thank you.