Hello, everyone, and welcome to the NBPE Investor Update call. This is Peter von Lehe, and I'm joined by my partner, Paul Daggett. As always, the presentation we'll be using today can be found on our website, www.nbprivateequitypartners.com. We'll be showing the relevant slides on the screen as we go through the presentation. The data that we'll be using is generally through the thirtieth of November, and most private valuations are as of the thirtieth of September. At the end of the presentation, there will be a Q&A session, and you can enter your questions at any time using the Zoom chat function. NBPE has shown very strong performance in 2021. We're pleased to be able to provide you with this update and give you insights regarding the opportunities we see for NBPE going forward. NBPE's mission is investing in private companies to generate long-term growth. We accomplish this through the strength of Neuberger Berman's $80 billion private equity platform. Our platform allows us to cast a wide net to source opportunities and then be highly selective in the investments that we make. This has allowed us to generate strong returns for our investors as we have experienced both this year and over time. NBPE has had an extraordinary year so far in 2021. Our NAV total return has been 43.3%, and NAV has increased to $1.47 billion. Our share price total return has been 57%. We've had $399 million of realizations announced and/or closed from 14 investments. These realizations were at an 84% uplift to the December 2020 carrying value and a 3.4x multiple of cost. We signed up $183 million of new investments in 10 companies, focusing on businesses which we expect to benefit from long-term secular growth and/or low cyclicality. We've continued our long-standing dividend policy of paying out at least 3% of NAV per annum. Overall, a very strong year. I'd now like to hand it over to Paul to go through the portfolio in a bit more detail. Paul. Thank you. As Peter says, I'm now gonna cover performance that we've recently seen in NBPE as well as the portfolio in more detail. Starting on slide 5, again, as Peter highlighted, we have had an excellent year in 2021, and in the top left of the page, you can see why that is. The direct equity investments have a one-year gross IRR of 61%. Really what I want to start to do is to explain why we've had a good year, and I think there's several reasons. First of all, of course, the private equity market, as well as public equity markets, have been very strong so far this year. Our portfolio has performed well across direct equity as well as the income investments over the one-year period. I think to go further than that, our performance has been particularly strong for three reasons. First of all, the asset class focus. If you look at the box in gold, that shows you the returns of our direct equity investments over time. The bar chart at the bottom of the page shows the asset class mix over the last 10 years. 10 years ago, the portfolio was 18% direct equity. Today, it's 91%. The fact that direct equity has performed so well in the short, medium, and long term has become more and more important to the overall portfolio over time. Secondly, you can see in the box in the bottom right of the page, the average holding period of the equity investments in the portfolio is now 3.5 years. At the beginning of the year, it was three years. Again, the private equity value cycle typically takes somewhere between 2.5 to 3.5 or four years, as private equity firms add value and ultimately look to sell their investments. The average holding period of our companies being 3.5 years means that in general, they may well be positioned for exits. This is a similar point that we made at the end of last year. Finally, the portfolio positioning and the quality of the companies in the portfolio is something I'll try to illustrate later. Once again, I think that is a factor in the performance that you've seen in our portfolio over the last year. On the next slide six, just to look at the key performance drivers in a bit more detail. First of all, the bar on the right, the dark blue, you can see that we've had $516 million of gross appreciation in the investments in the portfolio over the last 11 months. The top 10 account for $371 million of that, and there's only $28 million of negative valuation adjustments over the year. A very small number of companies that have had negative valuation impact. Now, within that top 10, the $371 million, there are two notable outperformers, AutoStore and Constellation, two companies we've talked about a number of times this year. I think very importantly to note that through 11 months, and before incorporating obviously our Q4 marks at the end of the year, we are already having a better year than we had in 2020 in terms of value appreciation. 2020 was a very good year for us, where we had a 21.4% NAV return. Through the first 11 months, excluding AutoStore and Constellation, the portfolio is still up $212 million at the end of November versus $262 million. Sorry, the other way around. $212 million for last year. $262 million, excluding AutoStore and Constellation in the year to date. I think very importantly, we're having a very good year without AutoStore and Constellation, and with them, we've obviously been having a particularly strong performance here. Looking at where that performance comes from on slide 7. Again, I think importantly, the slide on the left looks at where the valuation changes came from in 2020. 70% of the valuation increases came from portfolio performance as well as valuation increases that led to private valuation adjustments being 70% of the portfolio. If you look to the right, in 2021 year to date, almost half of the portfolio increases have come from either transaction pricing, by which we mean a third-party investor coming in to price a new round of funding in a company or from realizations or IPOs. 48% relative to the prior year, where it was only 13%. Again, I think the common question we get is around valuations and where our increases come from. This really illustrates that a large amount of the increase so far this year has come from transaction pricing and realizations. The announced transactions, we've again talked about and updated investors as we've gone through the year. At this point, though, we've had 15 exits or IPOs in the portfolio, 11 of which we've talked about in prior presentations. The bottom four highlighted in gray are all recently announced exits or partial exits. That is Renaissance, which is an education software platform, which recently had a minority growth investment from another private equity fund, leading to a partial realization of that investment. On the far right, another partial investment which is yet to be disclosed, but is a recapitalization that's ongoing in another portfolio company. In the middle, two full exits. CSS, which was acquired by a strategic, and this is a lower mid-market company that makes governance risk and compliance software. Finalsite, which was sold to another private equity fund that makes communication engagement and learning management software, was just recently sold and announced. Those four transactions add to the overall numbers that we've showed you so far this year, bringing us to $399 million of announced realizations in 2021. That is a 3.4x multiple of invested capital based on either those full exits or the mark at IPO or the partial exit. That's GBP 212 million of estimated NAV gains versus where we held those companies at the beginning of this year. As Peter mentioned, an 84% uplift from the valuation at the beginning of the year. Realizations have been a very important part of the story for us so far in 2021. Those realizations on slide 9, we broke down into three different types, partial sales, full sales, and IPOs or a merger in one case with a SPAC. You can see at the bottom of the page, all three have produced significant value and significant uplifts. I think also if we cut this data different ways, then you'll see the benefits of diversification and the co-investment model that we have. Just to look at those 15 investments, five were sold to strategics, nine were sold to private equity, and three were IPOs or sale in one case to a SPAC. There's 12 different general partners that we invested alongside in these 15 investments. In terms of the holding period, most of these investments were 2017, 2018 or 2019 vintage investments. The average holding period was 3.3 years. That ties back to the importance of holding period and our average age in the portfolio. A case study on AutoStore. AutoStore is a company that we've actually highlighted really since we made this investment in July of 2019. We highlighted at our capital markets day that year. It's been, you know, really a story that we've wanted to tell because it really does fit our portfolio positioning. What it is a software and robotics company that provides automation technology to warehouse and distribution facilities around the world. You can see that the investment thesis was based on secular growth driven by megatrends, a large addressable market, and, of course, fits with our themes around technology and e-commerce. The company sold a minority stake to SoftBank in April of this year and then completed its IPO in October at NOK 31 per share. You see here it says, "Currently trading 34% above the IPO price." That is actually as of yesterday. It has traded down today. It's today at NOK 36, so still above the IPO price by about 16%. But very importantly, you know, although this is a public stock and may move up or down, we have already received $90 million of cash realizations for this company. To note that at the beginning of the year, the entire position was held at $34 million. It's already been an extremely successful investment for NBPE, and depending on where the shares ultimately trade and where those sales occur, obviously we would expect a significant incremental value to come back to us over time. Moving on to diversification, and I think this is one of the key benefits of our co-investment model. We have 94 companies in the portfolio, but importantly, 77% of those are $10 million or above. When we make a new investment, it's typically in the 1%-3% of the portfolio range in terms of its sizing. Again, to look at the cases of AutoStore or Constellation, these were companies that were held at $34 million and $23 million at the beginning of the year, yet have been able to drive value based on that sizing. Again, it illustrates to us that if a company does particularly outperform, it can still have a meaningful impact on the overall portfolio. Of course, if a company doesn't do as well, sized at 1%-3% of the portfolio, it doesn't have a large negative impact. Again, we think it's very important to maintain this type of diversification, and we think it's a real advantage to our strategy. Where the portfolio is positioned really has been maintained for quite a while now. We talked to investors in 2016, 2017, and 2018 about where we were positioning the portfolio because it felt like we were moving towards the end of a cycle, obviously not expecting the last two years to occur as they have. It has served us well, and we do maintain this focus now, which, as you can see, the two themes are businesses with low expected cyclicality or are driven by long-term secular growth trends. The key sectors that has led us to focus on are technology, industrial technology, consumer and e-commerce, and healthcare-related investments. As you can see, the top 20 investments, a very large number of them fit into those four particular sectors, but all of them fit into these overall themes. New investments have continued that focus. So far this year, we've completed $183 million of investments to 10 companies, seven of which have closed, three we expect to close either later this month or in January 2022. If you look at the top seven, which are those that have closed, the five on the left-hand side of the page are all in the software or IT services or fintech space. They obviously fit in that overall theme. Also, very importantly, alongside extremely high-quality private equity funds, in our opinion, in Thoma Bravo, Veritas, and one undisclosed manager for that fintech investment. The two investments on the right are in the industrials and consumer space. Once again, very high-quality sponsors that at this point are undisclosed, because the transactions themselves are not disclosed by those sponsors. Once again, we do think they fit within our themes. For example, the industrials company is a business which is a supplier to both industrials and consumer markets. We think it has a relatively low level of cyclicality in those end markets and a number of ways that it can grow over time, both organically and through M&A. We're overall still continuing with these themes, investing in a cautious way. Once again, we do think we are seeing very interesting deal flow on the platform as a whole. You know, we are selecting carefully investments that we think are both high quality, but also fit these overall themes. Importantly, of course, the realization level has been significantly higher than the investment pace, which again, is being carefully managed. Finally, just to move back to the point that I've made a couple of times, which is the weighted average holding period of the direct private equity investments in the portfolio. Both of these charts exclude public positions and just look at the privates. The idea is it allows investors to see where exit events might occur based on age of the overall portfolio. You can see that over the last three years, the average age of the portfolio as it's matured and as we built out that portfolio has increased steadily over that time period now to 3.5 years, which is the highest it's ever been in the portfolio. Importantly, also, we haven't updated these stats, but we did in June look at the trailing EBITDA and revenue growth. Revenue growth in the existing portfolio as of the end of June was 17.7% on average across the portfolio, and EBITDA growth was 16%. We believe we have a portfolio that is both maturing, but also continuing to perform well. We look back on this year, obviously, feeling very good about the numbers that have been generated, but also look at the portfolio today, and feel very confident about the quality of the portfolio, and the overall positioning of where we are as of today. With that, I'll hand it back to Peter to talk about the performance on both an absolute and relative basis. Thanks, Paul. As you can see, NBPE has generated attractive NAV total returns over the short, medium, and long term. Our year-to-date and one-year NAV total returns have been extraordinary at 43% and 58% respectively. Our 1, 3, 5, and 10-year returns have also been strong at 92%, 138%, and 293%. As you can see, in each of these periods, we generated significant outperformance versus the MSCI World. Our share price total returns have been actually even stronger. Our share price total return was 57% for the first 11 months of this year. According to a recent release by the Association of Investment Companies, NBPE has had the strongest share price total returns of any private equity-focused investment company this year, and the sixth highest among all investment companies across all sectors. Our 1, 3, 5, and 10-year performance have been strong as well, at 74%, 81%, 124%, and 479% respectively. All significantly outperforming the FTSE All-Share for these periods. Over the last nine years, we've consistently implemented our policy of paying dividends to our shareholders of at least 3% of NAV per annum. We pay our dividends semi-annually and have never suspended or reduced this payout. Our last dividend was declared in July of this year. It was $0.41 per share, and our NAV has increased by 15.6% since that time. In conclusion, we are pleased that our strategy of direct co-investments has generated strong performance for our shareholders both this year and over time. Our direct investment approach allows us to dynamically control our investment pacing and is reinforced by our strong capital position and fee efficiency. We continue to be optimistic about the prospects for NBPE, both in the development of our current portfolio and the opportunities for new investments, as Paul outlined. Thank you very much for your attention today. We'd now like to turn to your questions. As a reminder, you can enter your questions through the Zoom chat function. Looking at the questions that have come in, we have a couple questions that actually relate to IPOs and positions in the portfolio going public. The first question is, how long does NBPE typically stay invested after an IPO before making a full exit? The answer there is really, it depends. First of all, I should say, AutoStore is a good example of that, as Paul mentioned. It's not uncommon for us to receive some realization proceeds even before a company IPOs, right? From the sale, either from a recap or from the sale of an interest while the company is still private. That would be sort of the first piece there. Once the company goes public, you know, there's typically obviously a lockup after any IPO for the significant holders. Remember, we are co-investing alongside the lead private equity managers. We're typically in a vehicle that is controlled by the lead private equity manager. The share sales are done out of that vehicle and are done where the lead manager will typically then be looking to settle those down in orderly fashion and so that there's not market disruption. That could be anywhere. Obviously, there's always an initial lockup of at least 180 days, but it's not at all uncommon for it to take, you know, multiple months or even a few years, depending upon the relative size of the position, you know, for those positions to be realized. We regularly try to negotiate the release of our shares so that they're within our control. Sometimes that's something we get, a term we get, sometimes not. That's on a case-by-case basis. You know, long answer to the question, but really it's a broad range. Sometimes it's relatively quickly after an IPO, sometimes it takes a fair amount longer. Just a couple of things to quickly add. No need to turn to it, but for people's reference, in the presentation in the appendix, there is information on the public positions and just around valuations. We do typically mark to the public price at a given date within our reporting. Exactly. That was another question, which is exactly how we value those. We value those on exactly as Paul said, based on what the public stock price movements are. That's the approach that we take there. As a general matter, just by the way, on valuations, we use what's called the practical expedient approach, which means that we're typically following the valuations of the lead private equity manager. You know we conduct significant diligence on their valuation policies and procedures, and then we do that before we make an investment with them. Then we typically follow those lead managers' valuations for investments more generally. The next question is, are all the co-investments sourced via managers that NB invests with, or are there any unique to NBPE? I'd say that as a general matter, NBPE participates in transactions that other parts of our private equity platform are participating in. Very rarely there's a situation that works just for NBPE but not for other accounts due to the nature of NBPE's evergreen structure. That's very unusual for that to be the case. It's happened a few times over the 14-year life of NBPE, but relatively rarely. We do absolutely use that network of relationships that we have. At Neuberger, we're invested in more than 500 different private equity funds. We sit on about 250 LP advisory boards. A very deep network of private equity managers that we partner with across our platform, and NBPE benefits from that wide net that I mentioned earlier. A couple of others I can hit on very quickly. One, there's a question on the valuations in the portfolio. We release that every six months, and the last time we did that was as of June 30. Obviously the portfolio changes marginally in terms of exits and new companies that come in. As of the end of June, the overall valuation multiple was 15.2x EV/EBITDA. That's only obviously for companies that are valued using that metric, but that gives you a good idea of where the portfolio was held quite recently in terms of valuations. Another question, which I'll quickly cover, is there's a question around the commitment percentage and it being relatively low compared to others in the industry. Again, that is something which we do try to highlight, and we do see as a real advantage of the co-investment model that we have. At the end of November, we were 108% invested, yet we have a very low level of commitments and a high level of liquidity against those commitments. That is because we are a direct co-investor. Today, you know, we're not making fund investments, we're not committing to programs. We're investing directly, which means we can start and stop investing whenever we choose to. That is the approach that we're using. I would say, you know, we typically look to be around 110%-115% invested. That is a range that we certainly for the foreseeable future intend to be in or around. Now, it could go a little lower. We're never going to invest to hit a target, so it could fall somewhat, and there are times it could go slightly above that, if we saw particularly attractive investments, and we felt that we had the appropriate capital structure to fund those. That is the target range and the expectation in the short to medium term. There's a question here regarding the weighted average holding period having lengthened, and what do we believe is driving that. I think a couple of things there. One is, frankly, I'd say it was more that the two-year average hold period that we had a few years ago was just unusually short. The reason for that was because we had, you know, debt investments in the portfolio, and that debt was being taken out through a refinancing activity. As we've shifted more towards a pure equity portfolio, the 3.5 years that we're at now is more natural. I think we've also had the opportunity where private equity managers have felt that, you know, while there's been a very robust exit market, and when they hold a high-quality portfolio company, they feel the opportunity, why sell it too early when you can continue if you expect the company to continue to perform well and continue to compound. While our average hold period has lengthened, when looking at NBPE's portfolio versus, you know, some of our peers in the industry, I believe our hold periods are still shorter on average than is typical in the marketplace. Maybe that's just a quick comment on that one. There was also a question that had to do with buybacks. That's obviously a decision made by the Board. That would be a decision for the Board to make. The Board has, you know, over time, first of all, I should say that NBPE has repurchased shares at various points in time over the years, and repurchased about, you know, more than 10% or so of our outstanding stock over the years. It's not something that the Board has historically not done. On the other hand, there's been a clear view from the board that the way that for NBPE to return capital to shareholders is through our dividend policy. We have returned $hundreds of millions to our investors through our dividend policy, which you know we mentioned that that's been continuing. We are proud of the meaningful uptick in the dividend that we declared in July and paid in August of this year. Obviously, the board has indicated that policy being ongoing. Dividends really being the core method that the board has taken up till now for returning capital to shareholders. Sort of returning to the existing portfolio, there's a question which was asked around essentially, given the strong year we've had for liquidity in 2021, does that mean in 2022 and 2023 you should expect a lower level of liquidity? Which I think is what many of the questions on holding period probably are getting at. Obviously, I can't make any forward-looking statements, but I can say. Obviously the holding period on average is 3.5 years. Our investment level at the end of November is still 108%, and we have 94 portfolio companies in that portfolio, which again, slightly dated, but as of the end of June, I mentioned the revenue and EBITDA growth. Kind of pulling all that together, we still believe we have a portfolio that's performing well, that is positioned in sectors which we're seeing a lot of M&A activity across still. There is an average holding period that means it's certainly conceivable that we should continue to see liquidity going into next year. We don't believe that having one good year of liquidity means there's not more liquidity to come. Of course, it's hard to predict timings or results of those. We do really think we have a well-positioned portfolio. Maybe just one thing to add to that. Obviously, as Paul said, this is not a prediction with regard to NBPE, but just maybe informative of historical market data for the asset class. Historically, in private equity, when you have had a period of strong NAV uplifts, that has led, what has followed typically after that has been a strong period of distribution. If you think of the distribution to NAV ratio, it's an upward sloping curve, meaning that if you have the ratio of previous period NAV increase to what the distribution to NAV ratio is, that's been an upward sloping relationship in private equity, in the private equity industry more generally. Obviously, any particular portfolio will be based upon market conditions and the idiosyncratic nature of those particular assets. There's a question involving the 2022 ZDPs and paying those down. You know, the board has not made any determination on that at this point. Just, you know, those come due in September of 2022. The good news is that, given both the portfolio liquidity that we generated and the long-term capability, capital availability that we have, through our long-term credit line as well, the company is in a very strong position to be able to fully repay those if that's the decision that the board makes, and that's the right thing to do for all parties, you know, or roll those if that's the right thing to do. Importantly, you know, we want to maintain a very strong capital position. As previously mentioned on one of the previous questions, we do have a very low degree of unfunded commitments, and that's by design. That's part of our concerted effort and clear strategy to invest on a transaction by transaction basis, giving us, we believe, frankly, a safer capital structure than vehicles that are pursuing strong overcommitment strategies. With that degree of flexibility, we're very comfortable with the position that we're in and having that full flexibility to be able to pay those off when they come due without any issue, if that's the right decision. Great. Go ahead, Paul. A question on the sector view for the next few years. I think we have, as I mentioned, really been trying to make sure we stick to the themes that I mentioned, which are really companies again which are expected to have low cyclicality or secular growth trends, which we think positions the portfolio well across different market cycles. The original reason for doing that, as I mentioned, was a late cycle environment and expecting to have to go through a downturn. I'm not saying we're predicting that now. I think it's very hard to predict the macro, which is exactly why we think those two themes are most appropriate still in the go forward. Of course, also, I mentioned we have very strong deal flow of all types and a very broad set of relationships around the world in private equity. We do see different transaction types. Occasionally, we may do an investment if we believe it's the right asset and the right sponsor that doesn't necessarily fit exactly those two themes, and you probably will see us do that over time. I think you'll still see, certainly going into 2022, those themes broadly applying across most of the new investments we make. One of the other questions we had was, do other NB Private Equity vehicles invest in co-investments as well, in the same transactions that NBPE invests in? The answer to that is yes. That's actually a very important aspect of our platform. We are able to generate the transaction flow that we have because of the deep relationships we have with the private equity managers, but also because we can be a real solution provider to those private equity managers. If we were only investing out of NBPE, we wouldn't be able to be that solution provider because not everything would fit for NBPE. Just the size capital that would be prudent for NBPE to invest might not be of sufficient size to fill the gap that a private equity manager needs in equity in a particular transaction. That's where it's very important that we have this flexibility across the Neuberger Berman private equity platform to do everything from a co-investment that might be, let's say, you know, $20 million or one that's many hundreds of millions of dollars. NBPE then has the ability to participate in that full range of transactions. That's a very important aspect of giving the best possible opportunity set to NBPE by having that very wide net that we have by being able to be a strategic partner to a broad range of private equity managers. Then, one question on the industry sector exposure. There is a pie chart actually on the second page of the monthly fact sheet that we also released this morning. We have a vintage year pie chart, geography, and then sector exposure. Just to summarize, tech, media, and telecom is 24%. Industrials and industrial technology, 18%. Consumer and e-commerce, 17%. Business services at 14%, and so on. You know, really, I think the point is well diversified, but with a bias to the sectors and themes that I mentioned. Great. Well, I think that seems to be the end of the questions that we have received. Thank you very much to all of you for your participation today, and please feel free to contact us directly with any additional questions you may have. Thank you very much, and enjoy the rest of the year, and happy holidays to everyone. Thank you. Thank you.