Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for joining. We really appreciate you being here physically. Also appreciate those people that joined online. So, I'm the board of Prosus, and this is our annual general meeting. Joining us today in person and virtually are some of our valued board members and some both independent, both non-executive and executive members. Lynelle, just run through the list. Thank you, Koos, so we're very pleased to have with us today Hendrik du Toit, Craig Enenstein, Steve Pacak, Debra Meyer, Rachel Jafta, Roberto Oliveira de Lima, Manisha Girotra, Cobus Stofberg, Angelien Kemna, Nolo Letele, Sharmistha Dubey, Mark Sorour, Ying Xu, as well as Fabricio Bloisi, our CEO, Basil Sgourdos, our CFO, and of course, David Tudor, our group legal counsel. And we have Lynelle Bagwandeen, our company secretary, next to me, and then keeping the good order, Joyce Leemrijse. She's a notary at A&O Shearman here in the Netherlands, as well as Ingrid Buitendijk of Deloitte Nederland. So we hope to keep the meeting as efficient as we possibly can. So I'll say just a few opening words before handing over to other chairs of committees, to Fabricio, Basil, Ingrid, and so on. Now, we've pre-recorded these introductions in case there's a technical problem. The notice of the meeting was available on the 10th of July this year, together with all the meeting documents. I think I can declare the meeting properly constituted, and consequently, we may adopt valid resolutions. May I now, with your permission, hand over to Lynelle, who will explain how the voting process works and how you can pose a question during the Q&A session. Over to you. Thanks, Koos. So very briefly, shareholders virtually present who have registered to vote and are in receipt of the required link and security passwords may vote online during this meeting on all agenda items. Shareholders attending in person received voting details at the registration desk, and they can use your smartphone, tablet, or computer. Voting is now open, and you could submit your vote on all voting items. But if you need any assistance, please let us know, and we will render that. Attendees are reminded that only shareholders, both virtual and in-person, may ask questions today. You can do so by submitting your written questions anytime from now until the Q&A begins, and the introductory statements referred to by the chair will now be played. Ladies and gentlemen, folks, it's a real pleasure to have you today at our annual general meeting. You know, industry is evolving on several axes simultaneously. You have tech breakthroughs that keep coming, like artificial intelligence. Then the needs and the wants of society are changing, and that, of course, in turn, causes regulations to adapt. Alongside that, trade rules and politics fluctuate in a pattern that's quite hard to predict. Now, most of these fall outside our control, so it's a complete waste of oxygen to complain. Our job is simply to adjust to these changes faster than any competitor, to prosper when they decline, so that we can create value for all our stakeholders, and that includes shareholders, the societies where we operate, and our staff. This year, we've reached a milestone, which I dare say, many of you have longed for. That's the moment when our total basket of non-Tencent assets reached profitability, and hope to remain so. Note to management: To reflect this profitability, the board recommends that we should increase our dividend by 43%. Later today, you'll have a chance to vote on this. We will also continue our open-ended share repurchase program. The idea remains to reduce the discount at which we trade compared to our net asset value. We then welcome Fabricio Bloisi as our new CEO. You know, he's an innovator with extensive experience in building world-class tech companies in growth markets. I believe Fabricio has made a good start over the past weeks. He may well turn out to be a superb leader for Prosus and Naspers, but no doubt, you'll judge for yourself. On behalf of the board, I reiterate our thanks to Bob van Dijk for his years of service. I also want to thank Ervin Tu for his excellent stewardship as interim CEO. In his new role as president and chief investment officer, Ervin will work closely with Fabricio to develop our ecosystem. On behalf of the board, I extend our deepest thanks to our people. That's the real lifeblood of this business. In a highly competitive industry, your enthusiasm propel us forward. We also want to thank our shareholders for your continued trust and support. We value those very sincerely indeed. May I now hand over to Debra Meyer, who'll review our sustainability. Thank you, Koos. As we make progress on our sustainability journey, we know that for every milestone we reach, new ones appear on the horizon. Worldwide, shareholders, regulators, and other stakeholders now expect more substance and transparency on how companies meaningfully and measurably embed sustainability into their business practices. We remain committed to discovering and scaling digital services and technologies that help address shared global challenges through our diverse portfolio. We have set verified science-based targets, charting the course of our business to support more responsible consumption and greener business models. These are critical for whole economies to move towards a resource-efficient and low-carbon growth path. It is our intention to harness the power of technology to create solutions for challenges like climate action and social inclusion. For example, digital financial services stretch to the most remote regions to help people previously underserved by traditional financial institutions. Our EdTech platforms are enabling an increasingly diverse group to access online learning anytime, anywhere, without the environmental footprint of a physical learning institution. Similarly, grocery delivery and e-tail platforms are combining convenience with a lower carbon footprint. Our best-in-class food delivery businesses are creating livelihood opportunities in countries with high youth unemployment. At the same time, they are focused on curbing the environmental impact of delivery services through sustainable packaging initiatives and zero-emission vehicles. Our classifieds businesses are driving the transition to a circular economy. This means moving from linear, take, make, waste, to circular, reduce, reuse, recycle. OLX has calculated how reusing consumer products like smartphones, TVs, laptops, and cars equals substantial resource savings. Looking at just the vehicle and electronics categories, OLX sold over 9.3 million second-hand items in the past year. This helped conserve more than 2.5 million tons of materials and over 400 million cubic meters of water, while preventing 3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. You can read more in OLX's Annual Impact Report. We continue to monitor regional developments and their potential impact on the group. Despite broad jurisdictional differences in reporting requirements, we are committed to climate action and a transparent sustainability approach. To illustrate, we are on track to achieve our verified science-based corporate target of reducing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions to zero by 2028. More importantly, science-based targets are driving a multi-year engagement program with our portfolio companies to set their own science-based reduction targets by 2030. As Chairperson of the Sustainability and Ethics Committees, I see our role as maintaining oversight on the group's long-term sustainability ambitions, broken down into clear short-term goals. Each year, we report on progress to our stakeholders. As mentioned in our annual report, our journey towards European compliance has begun. As always, we welcome your feedback on our sustainability performance, including how well we look after our people, the role we play in society, and the impact of our businesses on the planet. Ultimately, we are all united by our shared values and shared purpose, which is to improve everyday life for billions of people through technology. Over to you, Fabricio. Hello, partners. It's my honor to address you today as the new CEO of the group. My position is new, however, I'm working with Prosus and Naspers for more than 10 years, actually almost 15 years, and during all this time, I had a big admiration about the history of the group and how it changed so much and it adapted to so much. Naspers and Prosus started as a print company, but evolved into a TV network, evolved to a mobile company, evolved to a social network business, and today, it's an e-commerce business. I'm certain that with all the assets we have, all the amazing companies that now I know very well, we will keep thriving and creating new opportunities. We are in times of deep change. The whole world is changing, and the companies that can innovate, adapt, and keep the discipline will unlock significant value. So I'm very excited by the opportunity to lead Naspers and Prosus into a future of much more change and delivering a lot of results because we have this potential. That said, I have to tell you, we also navigated through difficult times. Our performance over the recent year has not been good. At the same time, I'm optimistic about the future. However, I recognize that we need to perform differently and better to deliver all our potential. I believe that the results we are showing today marks a turnaround point from which we can deliver real and sustainable progress. First, we beat our targets for consolidated profitability in our e-commerce business. Our profit trajectory has improved meaningfully by $450 million. It's a good growth in profitability, but at the same time, our growth rates were substantially better than all our peers. A second thing, we created $32 billion to date through our buyback program. Our open-ended program will continue while our discount remains elevated. We greatly simplified our operations, eliminating the cross-holding between Naspers and Prosus, and I know you asked for that a lot. Our planet has had its hottest June ever. I am the father of four daughters, and I really believe that the best companies are going to not only deliver results, and growth, and innovation, but have a big impact on society, and Prosus is doing a lot for that. We have a big project of electrification of our fleet that can have a big contribution to a zero-carbon future, and also, we are investing a lot in education through technology to impact many communities all around the world, and I think the impact of Prosus on society is only going to increase. Although we have recorded robust growth in several sectors, there are areas where we did not meet our expectations. Specifically, and it's important to say that we recognize that our internal rate of return from our portfolio and the level of our holding company discount is bad. Only by facing these brutal facts, we can make the informed decisions and the difficult decisions about our future, and implement them to make the change and to get the results that we need. We listen to your concerns, we understand them, and we will do all of that. That said, it's important also to tell you, we are not going to satisfy everyone. We have different shareholders with different time horizons and different strategies that require different things, many times, opposing things. I'm sure we'll create a lot of value for Prosus by renewing a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. We will do that by making the Prosus ecosystem our competitive advantage, capitalizing our management model, sharing our best practices, cross-selling through our group, having a lean approach, meaning first investing small, learning, and then scale, and have a lot of speed and agility on a really innovative way of managing our business. We believe with all of that, we will create an AI-first world that will change the whole society over the next years. With all of that, we will empower our thirty thousand employees to think big, to act boldly, creating an environment where innovation can really flourish. We are intensified our focus in leading the transformation to an AI-first world, focusing on our e-commerce sectors, where we see significant growth opportunities. At the same time, we will continue to enhance our robust corporate governance practice, ensuring transparency and building trust with all our shareholders. This commitment is fundamental to our long-term success, a responsibility I take very seriously. We understand that we can only grow our business if we do so responsibly and in a way that benefits the broader society. I believe the best companies of the future will lead in terms of social impact, and we will do that. I'm optimistic about our future. Our goal is to become a global technology leader with a clear focus on innovation, driving economic growth, and creating value to all our shareholders. Together, we will continue to drive innovation in an AI-first world, creating much shareholder value and making a positive impact to the world. Thank you for your trust, and before I hand over, I'd like to thank you first, Basil. Basil spent 29 years really creating who Prosus is today. Basil leave us as CFO in November, so hope you can spend a deserved quality good time with your family. Thank you, partners. Thank you, Basil, and talk to you soon. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, shareholders. Thank you for your investment in Prosus and Naspers, and for the opportunity for me to share with you our financial progress for the year ended 31 March 2024. The 2024 financial year was a transformative one, in which we proved that growth and profitability can coexist. This is reflected in our strong growth as we continue to outpace our peers. Group revenue grew 19% year over year to $5.5 billion. The growth I reference here is organic growth, so we've adjusted for the impact of currency and M&A. This 19% organic growth was a 2% acceleration year over year, and it was 12% higher than the listed peers of the verticals in which we operate and benchmark against. The acceleration of growth year over year and the significant outperformance versus the listed peers during a time when the world is seeing a slowdown in growth, points to the resilience and further future potential for continued profitable growth of our businesses. E-commerce consolidated trading profit improved by a sizable $451 million to a profit of $38 million, driven by growth, scale, and cost reductions. We achieved an important milestone this financial year, our first ever consolidated e-commerce profitability, and we did so six months ahead of our commitment to you. The team's focus is on delivering continued good growth profitability improvements, with the ambition now also to deliver consolidated profitability for the entire group in the financial year ending March 2025. We continued to look for long-term growth opportunities, and external investment was $571 million for the year. This is meaningfully below the $6.3 billion peak of 2022, as we maintain discipline in a challenging investment landscape. Substantial value was created through the open-ended share repurchase program. Since its inception in June of 2022, this program has reduced the free float share count by 21% and generated $32 billion of value for our shareholders. The progress in financial performance, the open-ended share repurchase, and discipline towards new opportunities, reduced the combined holding company discount of Naspers and Prosus by 21 percentage points. That translates to 8.2% accretion in the net asset value per share. Our balance sheet remains strong and liquid, with cash of $14.6 billion and debt of $15.2 billion. Internally, we see opportunities for businesses to expand and scale their ecosystems and to harness the significant opportunity of artificial intelligence. A strong balance sheet creates flexibility to explore opportunities with potential to sustain the group's profitable growth over the long term and deliver a good return. We incorporate past experience. We've strengthened our teams and our processes, and we keep the bar for returns high when we will consider new opportunities. Artificial intelligence creates new opportunities for the world, and in the years to come, many businesses that will be large and very successful will be built. Through our own businesses and acquisition, we endeavor to participate in the significant value creation that's going to occur. I want to share five final highlights with you. We restructured by eliminating the cross-holding structure. This simplification was a significant achievement in a very complex backdrop. iFood reinforced its status as a leading global food delivery service. The core restaurant delivery, part of the iFood business, delivered growth and a trading profit margin of 24%. The classified segment, particularly OLX Europe, recorded strong organic growth of 27% and a sharp increase in profitability, improving the trading profit margin by 13% to deliver a trading profit margin for the year of 24%. PayU is growing its core payment service provider business with increased revenue and profitability, notwithstanding the significant regulatory changes in India. The sale of the PayU GPO business is ongoing, and we expect to conclude it in the second half of the financial year. Our Edtech businesses are navigating through tough macroeconomic conditions and the need to integrate generative AI tools into the products and services. There is also significant work focused on improving the financial performance of the Edtech businesses in the current financial year. Our strategic priorities are designed for growth and sustainable success. We are building a future that values innovation, delivers profitable growth with strategic investment and responsive capital allocation, ensuring we remain at the forefront of industry developments and continue to create value for you, our shareholders. Shareholders, this is my last annual general meeting as your Chief Financial Officer and Financial Director. My decision to step down has been a difficult one. I make it for my family, whom I love and care for dearly. It is time to pay forward my family's unwavering support and love for me over the thirty years that I've lived my passion for this group. Thank you for the opportunity to be your CFO. It's meant a great deal to me. Thank you for the Chair, for your message. It means the world to me. I will now hand over to Ingrid. My name is Ingrid Buitendijk, partner at Deloitte and responsible for the audit of Prosus. I'm pleased to present to you the results of our audit of the 2024 financial statements. On June twenty-second, we issued our unqualified auditor's report on the 2024 financial statements... as included on pages 109 to 116 of the annual report. We have obtained reasonable assurance that the financial statements, taken as a whole, are free from material misstatements. In our report, we discuss various aspects of our audit, including the application of materiality, our scoping, and key audit matters. You've been able to read our report. I will now provide you with a summary of the main elements of our audit. This was Deloitte's first year as an external auditor. We've performed procedures on the opening balance sheet, which was audited by our predecessor, PwC. Materiality drives the nature, timing, and extent of our audit procedures. We determined our materiality as a percentage of net assets, which is generally accepted benchmark and reflects focus on long-term value creation of the investments. As for the scope of our audit, we have performed full scope audit procedures at seven components and certain selected procedures at one component. We issued instructions to our component teams, and my senior team members and myself have conducted a number of physical visits to the local teams and local management. In addition, we held calls and video meetings with our component teams throughout the year and reviewed selected working papers of the work performed by component teams. I will now briefly cover our Key Audit Matters. Key Audit Matters are those matters that, in our professional judgment, were of most significance in the audit of the financial statements. Our key audit matters involve complex accounting, significant estimates, and management judgments, and our procedures were designed to test these for bias and error using specialists and third-party information. In this year's audit, we identified three key audit matters. Our first key audit matter covers the accounting for the equity accounted investment in Tencent. Our second key audit matter covered the assessment of impairment of goodwill, equity accounted investments, and investments in subsidiaries with limited headroom. The third key audit matter addressed the significance of share-based compensation schemes and valuation of share-based payments. The key audit matters are covered in detail in our auditor's report. Other matters reported on in our auditor's report relate to our approach to going concern, as well as our approach to fraud risks, which are all covered in detail in our report. We did not identify specific indications of fraud or suspected fraud. Finally, in addition to the core teams at group level and component level, we involved specialists and experts in the areas of valuations, remuneration, tax, IT, forensic, and accounting. Throughout the year, my team and I met with a wide range of people within Prosus, including members of the board. We have had robust discussions at all levels of management and with the Audit Committee. There was active engagement, and our insights are respected and taken seriously. This concludes my comments. Good afternoon. We have made several changes to our remuneration structure to better align with our strategic goals and shareholder interests in response to feedback from our shareholders and the investment community during our annual remuneration roadshow. We have done our best to incorporate your recommendations and made further disclosure and adjustments to the remuneration design of both the CEO and CFO. We have published our detailed response. I wish to highlight some of these changes to you. First, we have enhanced disclosure of our performance metrics for long-term incentive schemes, and second, we have introduced new performance stock units, or PSUs, directly linked to total shareholder return to ensure our executives are motivated to drive sustainable long-term value. The PSUs will vest only if the performance conditions are achieved. As we welcome Fabricio to his new role, his remuneration package has been designed to reflect his responsibilities and the ambitious goals we have set. Fabricio will receive a competitive base salary of $750,000. Short-term incentives are linked to key financial and operational targets, ensuring immediate contributions to our core metrics. Following further engagement, we supplemented his STI target to include: improve the holding company discount over the twelve months of fiscal 2025. The same applies to the CFO. As mentioned, we place significant emphasis on long-term incentives, including PSUs and share appreciation rights or SARs. These are closely aligned with shareholder returns and the demonstrable growth of our e-commerce businesses. Perhaps most notably, the Moonshot Award offers Fabricio $100 million in shares if he doubles our market capitalization to $168 billion within four years. This is also a testament to our confidence in his leadership. To better explain the mechanics of how the Moonshot will be calculated, we have provided additional detail on how the market cap will be determined to account for corporate actions, spin-offs, and acquisitions to ensure that shareholder value creation is the key objective, emphasizing the alignment of Fabricio's compensation with the ambitious growth and performance targets set by the company. We have emphasized that this arrangement is not designed to disincentivize the share buyback. This is all part of our ongoing work to ensure our remuneration practices support our strategic objectives and maintain market competitiveness. The Remuneration Committee has, and will continue, to engage extensively with stakeholders to refine these frameworks. We thank you for your continued feedback, which has been invaluable in helping us shape a Remuneration Policy that is robust, fair, and aligned with best practices. In closing, the adjustments we have made to our remuneration policies are designed to better motivate and reward our exceptional talent. We are confident that these changes, particularly the innovative approach to Fabricio's compensation, will support us in our drive to achieve our long-term objectives. Thank you for your continued trust and support. So we now move on to the Q&A session, and I have some information on the votes that may be cast today, details of which will now be displayed on the screen. Shareholders were able to raise questions ahead of the meeting, and answers to these questions have been published on our website. If you've been unable to answer a question during this meeting, we invite you to please email the Investor Relations department, and their address is now displayed on the screen, and further contact details are also available on the website. We will deal with the shareholders attending in person first, and then move on to any questions we receive virtually. We invite you to please raise your hand, so you may be identified and invited to join us at the microphone in the center of the room, and we request that you please start your question by stating your name and the organization that you represent. We will then move on to questions from shareholders attending virtually. For those shareholders attending virtually, please remember to click the Q&A icon on your screen, and we invite you also to type in your name, so we are able to identify you together with the organization you represent, and then simply send your question through. We do appreciate if you ask your questions in English, but if you're unable to do so, we do have a Dutch translator available. Questions will be read out, and addressed in the center of the room, and the chair will then allocate those questions to people who are best able to answer it. After this Q&A session, we will proceed to the voting. Folks, you can, if you have a question, make your way to the microphone, state your name, and ask your question, and we'll do the best we can to answer. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Pieter Fortuin, and together with Florine, I'm representing VBDO. This is the Dutch Association of Investors in Sustainable Development. Very well known to us. Thank you. Okay, very good, so we had a nice meeting past Monday, and we are also fairly impressed about your environmental impact report. For example, that your fraction of plastics in packaging is decreasing. We could see that there. But we have now a question on, on governance, on the of your company concerning the employees. So would it be possible that for next year, you report the percentage of women in leadership roles or other type of, let's say, KPIs on how your company is managing things like payment gaps between for similar roles and similar experience? So we've seen other companies reporting those type of things, and we hope that you can also, in that direction, expand your reporting, which is then the sign of action being taken if needed. Okay. So you said similar jobs sort of calibrated across? Yes, exactly. The one complexity we have is we have many different countries, so in India a driver would presumably earn a lot less than in the Netherlands. What do you say? First of all, good afternoon, everyone. I was here half an hour without talk, so thank you for the question. I can talk something now. I'm Fabricio. I'm the new CEO, and very excited about this new position. Very excited about what we can do together, so happy to start this conversation here. Thanks for the question. I believe diversity, in terms of having a more diverse team and leaders, is critical to our organization, not because it is fashionable or not fashionable, because that make companies better and societies better. Running that in iFood, it was a big priority for me for many years. So we really talk about our goals to talk about how the company work and make everything more public. I believe we can make public more data about that. I don't know exactly what data, because there are so many countries, so many different criteria to look that, but I think we can be more transparent on that, and hope to talk more about that issue. Okay. Thank you. You see, you've got two allies. Debra Meyer, who you see, she has a moral crusade about green, and she's giving us hell. Fabricio, for a reason I don't quite understand, he was born in Bahia, so he loves nature, but he also started carrying on about moving to electricity, so in Brazil, where the pressure wasn't so high, so you have two people squeezing us from two directions, so maybe you'll get movement. Questions, folks? Any comments, please welcome. Good afternoon, my name is Keyner. I speak on behalf of VEB, European Investors Association, not-for-profit organization representing shareholders, retail shareholders, but also institutional investors throughout Europe. This is the first time I'm visiting your AGM. I asked my colleagues, "Please, I want to do this AGM this year. I need to learn a lot about your company, your atypical company listed on the Dutch Stock Exchange." So some of my questions may be pure ignorance, so I hope you help educate me a little bit. I'm looking at a company purely from an economic point of view, and the purpose of being a listed company in Holland would be to increase economic value in whatever way. And for Prosus, obviously, one way is to at least ensure that the discount, compared to whatever you hold in Tencent primarily, that the discount is being reduced. It's a very logical step to indeed making sure you sell a small portion of your Tencent shares and buy back your own shares, so that's very rational. Nevertheless, you haven't been able yet to really decrease the discount to a very small percentage. So first question, obviously: what else can you do? That will be the first question. I've got several questions which are related, which are very strategic. I've got also several other questions about remuneration, but if you allow me to, I would like to ask them in a separate session, maybe later on. The second question, as a novice to Prosus, if I were in your place, again, I'm not as competent and I'm fairly ignorant about your business, but if I were in your place, purely economically, I would say, "Let's liquidate Prosus. Let's stop doing all the other stuff. Let's try to sell everything, and you're just stuck with your Tencent shares." Isn't that the best way to create economic value? Wouldn't that reduce the discount to a very large degree? You would also save a lot of cost. Some of your business ventures are becoming profitable, I congratulate you with that, so it would be even easier to sell them at a reasonable price. So why not doing that from an economic point of view? So that would be the second question. Okay. Let's just so we don't lose the argument- Okay. Let's split it in two, and we'll give you a chance to ask the others also. So Basil, first on the discount. So there is the implication your discount reduction doesn't amount to much, so tell us what's wrong with that? Thank you for coming to the AGM, and thank you for your question and for your challenge in terms of driving further value for shareholders. Of course, that's why we're here, and that's our responsibility to the shareholders. We've made some very significant changes in recent years in response to trying to improve things. Our share buyback is the largest of any company in terms of percentage shares bought. We bought 22% of our shares since starting the buyback. There isn't a comparable company in our space, in our sector. So we're doing that at quite some pace. It's had a significant impact in terms of value creation, $32 billion of value created, right? Since the start of the program. It's reduced the holding company discount by 21%, admittedly from a very high level to a lower level, but not where we are happy with. So we share your ambition in trying to find ways to reduce the discount further. There isn't one single thing that drives a discount. It's a combination of factors. There's external factors, there's internal factors, there's financial performance that comes into it. So as, Fabricio communicated in his opening comments, our intention is to continue with the open-ended share repurchase for as long as the discount remains elevated. What will that do? It will reduce our share count, increase shareholders' ownership in the underlying assets, so it increases your NAV per share and ultimately creates value. Over time, that will be reflected in a lower discount. Why? Because it's pure math, right? Less shares in circulation, bigger ownership on a per share basis. We enhance the returns we deliver from our core operations by adding this perspective. In terms of going forward, Fabricio spoke very clearly, and I've also shared in my speech, what we want to do is continue to innovate so that we can sustain profitable growth over the long term. Now, if we do that well and do other things that are good around capital allocation, not only will our discount come down, but we will create the opportunity for investors to realize returns over the long term. Now, it's not guaranteed. We have lots of work to do. There are external factors and internal factors, and that is our responsibility, to try and navigate those as best we can. On your point of, well, should we just liquidate everything? It's an interesting point, and it's one worth discussing. To do that, you incur certain tax costs. When you go and factor in, it's, and the math changes. Tax law changes all the time, and you put all of that in. There's at least 20%-25% of tax cost, either in the Netherlands or in South Africa. Secondly, there's cost to just creating immense liquidity. It actually, there's a cost to shareholders, not to the to shareholders, right? Because all of a sudden, there's these shares. Maybe everyone doesn't want them, maybe some want them. So when you start to add that up, a holding company discount in the 20s or 30s, purely on technical factors is not unrealistic for conglomerates like we are. If you look at our discount today, it's in the it's been sub-40 for a while. Relative to our peers, our internet peers and other conglomerates, not disproportionately high. In fact, lower than the median. But that's not victory for us. I'm not saying this to justify our position. I'm just contextualizing our situation relative to the broader market. We're committed to continue to do more work, not liquidating everything, but of course, looking to drive growth, be good at capital allocation, innovating, and realizing the value of AI. And hopefully, we can reduce the discount further and give you long-term returns. Thank you very-- A lot of the, this... I was not that ignorant. A lot of this I understand. What I try to challenge you, why being a conglomerate at all? Why not being just a pocket of money with lots of, lots of cash, and primarily just being, a company holding lots of Tencent shares, and stop with all the rest? And stopping doesn't only mean stop investing, but also making sure that some of the things which are becoming profitable, selling them at a good price. The stuff that is not profitable at all, I'm not sure there will be big tax exposure there, in contrary, I would, I would assume. So I'm just trying to get away from the conglomerate discount, because what I suspect, this was one of the other thoughts I had in my mind, it could be that your Tencent shares, as well as your very strong balance sheet, is a curse in disguise. Because that triggers sometimes doing things which may not be economically viable and so on. It gives you some kind of peace, some kind of rest. You're starting to wake up, so I understand that as well. But it could be a curse in disguise as well. I'm trying to challenge you to get away from the conglomerate discount and making sure that every single investment decision has to pay off. Two quick points on that. Can I ask Fabricio to take that one? Just a, maybe a comment. Of the five most valuable companies in the world, all are conglomerates, right? Apple is a conglomerate. Amazon is a conglomerate of many companies, of which AWS is immensely valuable. So you can get a sugar high by spinning it off, but then you destroy the entity, and the entity is why Apple is or Amazon is so valuable. The different components support each other. So there is no company in the world that's a pure company that does one thing. It doesn't work like that- I agree A t the top level. At the junior level, easy. For Fabricio, so the question really is the non-Tencent part, what can you do with that? First, two of the suggestions that we got, similar to what you just said in the past, was. Thank you very much. Getting tech support from the chairman here. Thank you very much, Koos. So, Keyner, right? Keyner. So the first thing was, you should do a much bigger buyback. That was the big suggestion a few years ago. Actually, we are doing one of the biggest buybacks in the world, so- I support it. We are- I support it. ... progressing on that. Hope you enjoy this part. The second thing is that the cross-holding participation was something that was a big problem one year ago, and actually, we made a big progress on that. Not my merit, I just arrived here, but we are doing some good progress. I agree on that. Said that, you finished talking, saying something like, "Maybe you have some peace there because of the curse of the Tencent." Well, I think we should not say that Tencent is a curse. It's a very good thing. We are very happy with that, and there is nothing related to peace in this company. We are running faster, desperate, because we have an amazing opportunity ahead. Over the last one month and a half, when I'm CEO, I could visit most of the company. Many times we spend our time here talking about the buyback. It's amazing to see what we are doing in eMAG, where we have an amazing ecosystem in Central Europe. What we are doing now, OLX on classifieds, where we're innovating a lot through generative AI, to try to create a new behavior on classifieds, and eventually expand it beyond where OLX is today. iFood is one of the best food delivery businesses in the world. PayU is doing well in India, one of the most interesting markets in the world. We are doing. The market expects that there will be an IPO of one of our portfolio companies in India quite soon, that we think is going to unlock a lot of value, too. This is just a few companies that are moving well, fast, and I really believe we will unlock a lot of value through better operations there. This company is growing quite fast, as we I think we announced it, 20%-80%. It's accelerating. The profitability, we announced it a few months ago, that we increased it by $450 million last year. We cannot make numbers public today, unfortunately. I like to talk a lot, but in three months... However, in this quarter, we make more money than last year, and we are accelerating. So I think we will have one of the best-operated tech companies in the world. I work a lot on that without any kind of peace, and hopefully next year, Keyner is going to say, "Thank you, Fabricio, you were right." So hope you stand by and wait for the news, because I think we have much more opportunity than we talk about here in these meetings. I understand, as far as Tencent and your strong balance sheet, of course, we are all happy with that. But there is also the risk to that, which means you take maybe... You do investments which may not be that sensible, but you can afford it. I won't say you're lazy, but that's, in financial way, a management team can become lazy if the balance sheet is too strong, and you've got all those Tencent shares there waiting to generate some kind of return at some point. The last point, let me then make the switch to remuneration. Why not? Because I believe your biggest challenge is not Tencent. You're not managing Tencent, you're owning a big portion of that very large company in China. Your big challenge is indeed the rest of your portfolio, where you try to add value, to try to find the good chances, opportunities in the market, maybe AI, which may be a challenge anyway in itself. If you talk about remuneration, and you see why you need to have a very competent executive team and the people behind them, why don't you reward the executives primarily on the things that you can influence very much yourself operationally? Why not looking at the rest of the portfolio and see to what degree are you adding value in economic sense, and make that the basis of any kind of reward, as far as variable pay is concerned? Okay. Craig is over here. He's absolutely waiting for your question. I'm sure he did. Welcome, Craig. Thanks for the questions. Nice to see everybody. Appreciate everybody being here. The remuneration portfolio, by definition, needs to be a portfolio because there isn't a lever that solves for all things. At the end of the day, we're very sensitive at the Remuneration Committee, at the board, to the reality that you're paid ultimately in the creation of value in your share price. That's your bet. You need a return on that investment. What we don't want to see over the long run is for management to be rewarded in a manner that's misaligned with your well-being and your outcome. It's fundamental. In order to accomplish that objective of alignment, we believe that the best toolkit in the long-term incentive pool is to create a portfolio of mechanisms to recognize the methodologies to promote that alignment. So let's get a little bit more specific. In terms of your point about the so-called controllable assets, 50% of the base LT LTI program is in the form of e-commerce SARs, which do exactly that. They're one-to-one aligned with dollar-for-dollar value creation in the non-Tencent portfolio. So we agree, that's important, and it's built that way. If that portfolio doesn't grow in value, no reward is given, period. The second piece goes back to my initial statement, which is, at the end of the day, however, you're ultimately rewarded in TSR, the return on the stock appreciation, any dividends, of course, as well, baked into that, as well as any other distributions you might receive. And so for those who've been around a long time, the MultiChoice spin-off that was done years ago was an example of mechanisms that the group has that are not simply what happens inside the share price, but it was beyond the share price, but also quite accretive, about $4 billion at the time of distribution. So we think of TSR as a mechanism that we think is quite important, and we've built into the new program a performance share unit that is linked to TSR. A performance share unit here is actually tied against what we believe to be a fairly tough group of relevant global competitors. It's a bespoke index. We think it's harder than any other index that would otherwise be available by design, and we've asked management to compete against that in driving shareholder value, using the totality of their toolkit, inclusive of what happens in the e-commerce portfolio, which we think can be a material contributor to total shareholder return, so it's embedded in there, insomuch as that has to return a material benefit, has to beat cost of capital, so to speak, which in the near past, it did not, and so this PSU linked to TSR, we think is another way to reflect incentivization of aligned outcomes. Finally, the Moonshot is another piece where we've asked management to do something extremely bold, which is to double the entire scope and scale of the business, as reflected in market cap, market cap being adjusted for events that would ultimately allow it to be aligned with performance in the share price. So what we want management to do is think about the e-commerce portfolio, to grow it faster than cost of capital. We want that to be unlocked in the perceived value that is embedded in a share price through reduction of the discount, and we want them to take actions that are innovative and outsized that can also create value, like spin-offs, take publics, et cetera, and to be rewarded and reflected as such. And then finally, we want them to be capital allocators, smart every day, recommending big decisions along the way, from exits to termination of things that don't work, to pursuit of changes in capital structure that ultimately benefit the share price. And so we think of it ultimately as in need of being aligned, and we think your point is right, but we think it also has to include the other features in order to be holistic. If I may add one final comment, because, to a large degree, I follow your explanation. There's only one thing which is maybe not represented very well. I would fully agree with your story if Tencent would be, like, 5% of your portfolio. However, whatever Tencent is doing is much more important than whatever you're doing yourself for the next one, two, or three years. To give you one very clear example, if Tencent would double its market value or triple its market value, you would lift as well, even if your discount would increase, a little bit more. So you would say, "Well, okay, you should be happy as a shareholder," because as VEB European Investors, we do believe in shareholder returns, obviously, but it has nothing to do with your performance. It's a big difference if your if Tencent is 5% or 50% or 80% of your net asset value, that changes your explanation a lot. My point is, I think whatever the Tencent CEO is doing has got much more influence on our returns or our investment in Prosus than whatever you're going to do in the next two or three years. That's the issue which I'm having with your Remuneration Policy. And I appreciate that point. And, what I've said to certain shareholders over time is, if you ultimately believe that Tencent will perform equal to or better than how we will perform, swap out and be there, because your underwriting would suggest that that's the better place to be. May not be a popular thing to say at a shareholder meeting. I think people are in this room because they believe that that's probably not what's gonna happen, because they believe that the leadership team, over time, has the ability to unlock enough value that we won't simply track our one concentrated position, that we'll create value through our alternative investment choices, the way we manage the portfolio, the way they operate related to capital structure decisions, et cetera. And so I take that mostly as a challenge, and I think it's the challenge that Fabricio and the team are signed up for, is to say: We don't accept that we should only ride on the outcomes of someone else. If we don't, if we do that, not only will we only track to Tencent, more likely than not, we'll probably track below them, because we'll see value destruction, potentially, in the rest of the way we perform. So at the end of the day, the challenge for them and the design of the incentive for them to unlock is to reduce that discount, to build value in the e-commerce portfolio, to make capital structure decisions where they can, or recommendations to the board where they have ideas. And so if you think about the share buyback as an example, while management can't make that decision independent of the board, management brought those ideas to the board and influenced a decision that I've heard from all shareholders they've been very appreciative of. So I think there's ways to make influence, even in light of your statement, that will allow them to unlock value. And ultimately, at the end of the day, I think people vote with where they decide to make their investments, and we're hoping that those choices you're making are the ones that ultimately are reflected in the outcomes. Thanks a lot for your answers. Any further questions or comments? You're welcome, sir. Yes. Dear Mr. Chairman, my name is Gillian Gaillard. I work at PGGM. PGGM is the asset manager of the Dutch Healthcare Pension Fund. Today, I'm here on behalf of some of our medium-sized participants, amongst others, APG. I wanted to share some concerns and have some questions with respect to agenda point three and agenda point eight. Would it be appropriate to ask those questions right now? Yes, I think. Split them, and then we answer one, and then you can come back to the other one. Well, actually, in total, there are five with respect to remuneration, but I'll split them in Remuneration Report and Remuneration Policy. So first, on the policy, on the former CEO's remuneration, we noticed that the STI will be awarded in full, even though the former CEO will stay on as an advisor until the end of September only. We believe it's current market practice to award such a bonus only to the elapsed performance period and not the entire year. The committee, the Remuneration Committee, has not elaborated on why the STI is paid in full. Could you explain why? Craig? Thank you for the question. So Bob van Dijk was out of his full-time position in September of last fall He continued as an employee through March thirty-first in a consultative position to Ervin and the team. His STI continued to vest through that period, given that his role and employee status was maintained. He maintains a consulting role from April first of this year through September thirtieth, but is not eligible for STI during that period- O nly the base rate, which is approximately EUR 113,000 per month. But there is no STI during this fractional period. That's for the prior fiscal year. Okay, clear. And how about the LTI? Because I understood that the former CEO will also be compensated for the lapse of certain LTI awards if the original performance conditions are met. So embedded in that idea is that there's vesting that continues during the period of that continued service. The vesting then ends. Because that's a fractional period, it's not in the normal measurement of the LTI program. And so he, he's treated as if he's paid out as of that final measure, and so there's a protection of the payment through the vesting period. The unvested portion will lapse. Okay. Clear. Thanks, Mr. Enenstein. Moving on to the amended Remuneration Policy. First, we have some concerns about the removal of the shareholder requirements for the CEO. We believe it's beneficial for the company as well as shareholders if the CEO does hold on to shares in the company. Can you explain why these have been removed? W e agree that that's a great feature. The reason it was removed, to be very transparent, is first, Fabricio, as he noted, has been part of the group for a long time, and he has a material ownership stake in one of our most important holdings, which is iFood, which is worth approximately $300 million. He's materially exposed to performance inside the company via that mechanism. However, that's not enough of an answer. In moving to Holland, which was one of the requirements for the CEO, he faces what he has learned to be a very juicy tax exposure, which he's managing, and we appreciate him adapting to. That all said, he has said that he's committed and interested in buying into both Naspers and Prosus shares over the course of the near period. Given the material cost for him to make this transition, we felt that at this moment, while he's in the transitional period, he's dealing with the tax authorities, he's dealing with all the different changes. Rather than putting that concept in place immediately, it made more sense to let him get settled, get his financial affairs in order, and then let us understand his intentions, and then we can come back and readdress that as appropriate. So it's not something that's away or off the table. We just believe we're in a transitional period that has a lot of movement and consequence to our CEO, and we wanted to make sure we weren't, at the same time, putting a gun to his head with an immediacy of a topic that we all believe to be important. When Remuneration Policy will be renewed again, this will be on the table as well? Absolutely on the table as a topic for consideration. I'm not gonna promise you what we're gonna put into a future policy or give you something we haven't made a decision against. But it's by all means, something we find attractive for our CEO to be aligned with the shareholder interests- A nd we think this is one of, but not the only, tools that is very powerful in accomplishing that objective. So, Craig, let's ask Fabricio. Do you think it's a share worth buying? Look, I even opened my mic here. I am aligned with you. I want to buy more shares. I'm going to keep doing that, and I want to hold those shares. So let's do it. That's the plan. I think there's just a transition moment because of the change of country right now, but my intentions are to be a long-term holder of lots of shares of Prosus. Well, that's very good to hear, of course. Second, on the Remuneration Policy, and this is something big for us as Dutch pension funds, the Moonshot Award, the elephant in the room. We strongly believe that the Moonshot Award of $100 million is excessive and disproportionate, especially in the Dutch market. The CEO already earns. The remuneration is already one of the highest of all AEX companies, with a pay ratio of 217 to 1 in the year 2024-2025. And we also believe that the proposal would not get societal support in the Netherlands, which is a very important factor for institutional investors. No question, that's just a comment, a remark from us as a pension fund, but it's shared amongst other pension funds in the Netherlands. I know APG also thinks about it that way. And lastly, we believe that the Remuneration Policy lacks some important details on thresholds, targets, and maximum levels of the LTI opportunities. For us, it's not really transparent at the moment. Also, part of the PSUs for the CEO will vest at a below medium performance, which we don't believe is aligned with the pay for performance remuneration principle. And the policy still includes the possibility to grant share options to the executive directors without any performance conditions attached. These two, three reasons together will make it that PGGM at least will vote against the Amended Remuneration Policy. And we would strongly encourage executive leadership to engage with minority investors on their concerns with respect to remuneration, because we do feel that hasn't been done sufficiently in the past. Those concerns haven't been taken into account sufficiently. So that's what I wanted to share on the Remuneration Policy. T hank you for your comments. Let me take the last piece first, but then we'll hit- S ome of your other important points. Maybe I'll ask Lynelle, what percentage of the shareholders did I speak with this year, in terms of taking feedback? I don't have the exact percentage of the free float on hand, but it was the majority of our top 10 shareholders and in excess of 30 shareholders over a series of meetings. Okay, and I appreciate that the word you used was minority, and that said, the objective isn't to not engage in any way with any shareholder. One of the things I can also say is, all shareholders over the course of the year who've submitted any inquiry on the topic of remuneration were received a response. So what I would say is, if D id you submit any questions during the year? No, I haven't personally. Okay, that's fine. But our colleagues from APG probably have. No, they did not. They haven't? But we welcome you to do so in the future. I think I would put it back to you and say this might be an opportunity for sharing. Many have reached out, all of them have been engaged. We welcome you to do the same. I say that not to be dismissive, but actually to be very welcoming. So your point's well taken. The good news is, the door's wide open. Thank you. That's, that's that piece. In terms of context, one of the things that I think is the hardest conversation oftentimes, whether it's a Dutch context for the Prosus meeting or if I were in the Naspers meeting talking in the South African context, is we are neither a Dutch nor a South African company. Our team is global, and we operate in one of the most competitive markets, which is the e-commerce market, and we do that at a global scale. Our talent pool from which we recruit, as a consequence, is a global talent pool that we're bringing in from the best companies in the world. I was chartered with the responsibility of the CEO search, and I can tell you that when we build our index, the tough companies I mentioned before that are in our TSR index for PSUs, I had the great honor and pleasure of speaking with many of the senior-most executives of those companies as potential candidates for this role. Those are the people we seek. This isn't a theoretical statement. This is how we made a market for talent. The market for talent, when you study those companies, is very expensive. I agree with you. It is not without real cost, but that's the market we live in. And so in order for us to buy talent at a level worthy of managing this complex global business, there is a market price that we are obliged to operate within, and I appreciate that that may not be satisfactory as an answer, but that is the case in which we operate. In terms, lastly, of the Moonshot, 'cause you brought that up as your first point in your commentary, it's a big number. We also believe that if we go and see this leadership team create the bold endeavor over the next four years of adding approximately 84 billion or more, 'cause there's no cap to how much- M arket cap can be created. There is a cap to how much payment there can be. But if they create that kind of incremental shareholder value, we think on a percentage basis, it is not only a small percentage of the total, albeit a big number, it is also relative to what we see in comparable companies, far from any of the largest packages we see. It's actually among the more modest Moonshot packages we see across that portfolio of competitive situations. And so while I absolutely respect that the idea of anybody earning that kind of money seems quite lofty, at the same time, we think that the rate at which the work must be done, the quality of work, the ingenuity, is so bold, so audacious, that it was worthy of this- P hraseology and that payment, and at the end of the day, if they don't achieve no less than that amount of performance and sustain it for the subsequent twelve months, payment will be zero, and so that may not make you satisfied, but I want you to understand the logic behind it. A nd thanks for that elaboration. Of course, we definitely understand the reasoning why, but then again, we do feel like in the Dutch market, a hundred million is excessive. I think last year, Universal Music Group also had a similar Moonshot Award, and we don't think this should become a trend in the Netherlands. So while I understand your reasoning, we do think differently about it, but thanks for elaborating on it. If I can just add, Craig will not like the answer because he makes the point that tech valuations are different to other companies' valuations. But since you see it from a Dutch perspective, let me place it in a Dutch context. So Fabricio said, which I wouldn't have said, I think it's nuts. He said, "In the next four years, just four years, I'm gonna create new value, which doesn't exist today, which is comparable to the combined market cap of Philips and Heineken put together." Okay? So he's saying it doesn't exist today, I'm gonna create the value of Heineken and Philips put together. Okay? That is enormous. No Dutch company is gonna do it, and we don't compete in the Dutch market because it's not a, the hub of tech, the heart of tech. Although we have many people here that do other things, functions well, tech is basically manufactured in the U.S. and China, to some extent Japan, to some extent Korea, but it's not really a European phenomenon, and the problem is, that's the world we compete in, where we have to attract people. Any comments? Further questions, please. Keyner, VEB. Just based on the previous speakers' questions, there are two additional comments I would like to make regarding remuneration again. I'm not against high pay, by the way, and I'm not a jealous person at all. I'm doing very fine. Don't need 100 million, not even 10 million, so I'm happy as I am. Thank you, Keyner. There's nothing Dutch about that at all. However, the Moonshot target of doubling your market cap to 160 billion can be achieved if something which is beyond your control at all, if Tencent triples in value, easily. And even if you make a mess out of all your other ventures, that will still happen. So for me, this means at least whatever you think about 100 million, whether it's too much or not, it doesn't make sense to grant somebody a reward like that if the major component of that may come of something which is totally beyond your control. You may want to reward the CEO of Tencent instead. That would be the first comment. The second comment, again, I don't mind if somebody gets paid 10, 50 million or 100 million. That's, that's a different story. The criteria are very, very, very key. However, does a high pay or high bonus system or Moonshot Award, does that ensure that you get the right level of executive and that this executive performs very well and adds value for shareholders? As you remember very well, the previous CEO, not this interim, but the previous, Bob van Dijk, I think his name was, was also paid reasonably well. Not one hundred million, but I remember something like fifty million, which is, in Holland, it's a lot. Maybe in the U.S. it's not so much, but in Holland it is a lot. Regardless of this very high pay, it was not a huge success as far as value creation is concerned at all. So this would be, and again, this may be a very Dutch mentality, but these are two kind of comments which I think put a little nuance to your, well, your explanation why the pay should be as high as you're proposing, well, as you will be executing yourself. We're in agreement that we'd be disappointed if all that was done was to ride the back of someone else's accomplishment, Tencent or otherwise, but Tencent's being the obvious, given the concentration in their stock price, their stock value. But as we noted earlier in a similar dialogue, value creation outside of Tencent is critical, and value creation needs to be holistically examined, both in terms of the e-commerce portfolio, as well as work against the discount, as well as any other forms of unlock that can be done along the way. Because those things will have impact on the perceived value in the stock price, in the market cap, regardless of whether Tencent performs well. Value can be destroyed by inflating the discount, by destroying value in the e-commerce portfolio, by underperforming the growth in the market. Moreover, another thing that we required, which we haven't talked about today, is that we also have to beat at least the median of the peer index during that period of time. And so it's not sufficient that Tencent goes up, but we also have to go up in a relative basis better than the peer set. So there are a lot of pieces embedded. Is there a business case where we underperform in every other way and simply ride the back of Tencent? Technically speaking, that could potentially be inside the outcome, and I appreciate if that causes you to vote no. That said, the reality is, and we've seen this over time, as you've watched the actions of this company and its behavior and how the markets perceive that behavior, what happens inside that discount has enormous correlation to the perceptual value of whether or not value is or is not created outside of Tencent, and whether or not smart capital allocation decisions are being made. Moreover, whether or not we sell Tencent and buy shares back, those are other variables that will fit into the mix, because that in turn creates outcomes that affect the way that the share price moves, which is embedded into the market cap. So we don't disagree with you that we don't want to just simply ride the actions of anyone else, and what I'll encourage you to do over time is spend time with this guy next to me and find out if he is a complacent person who's going to simply watch others create value, or if he's somebody with an enormous agenda who wants to help you win every day. And I think you'll be pretty happy with what you see. Final comment, because thanks for the invitation to make sure that Mr. Bloisi gets even more disturbed than he probably is already right now. Potentially, maybe it's cynical what I'm saying right now, but it's more with a joke as well. Maybe the best thing he can add value is not do anything at all. Because not doing anything, because it's not without risk. You know, in portfolio management, finding new companies in artificial intelligence, we may be in some kind of bubble right now or some kind of hype. I'm old enough to know what happened in the nineties and around the end of the century. So it could be the best way of avoiding throwing money out of the window. I wanted to use a different word, as you may know. Throwing money out of the window would be to do nothing- T o sit on your hands. So that would maybe be a cynical final comment. Let me give you a cynical response. You're good at that. J ust in the spirit of enhancing the quality of our relationship. I'll say bingo, that's a great idea. However, once upon a time, someone could have given that advice to the man sitting next to Fabricio, and maybe we wouldn't have invested in Tencent. Yes. Brilliant. Thank you. Thanks, Craig. If anyone wants Craig's job, it's available... for a small fee. Any questions, folks, or comments? Welcome. Lynelle, do we have anything online? So I think, Chair, we seem to have dealt with all the questions in the room, and I'm going to now move on to check whether we have any virtual questions. And I actually have been checking with the team as we built up to this moment, and they have confirmed that, in fact, we don't have any. Okay. Then it seems we've reached the end of the M&A. So, Lynelle, and- Thanks for helping us so far. Thank you for your participation and also the questions. You know, sometimes when you ask a question, you make us think. And although we give you an answer, next week we sit down and we start to question ourselves, and we find a new way to solve the problem, so it's a useful discussion. So, could you put the specific agenda items to us- And then tell us about the final voting? Yes, so, of course, we've moved on to the section of the meeting which- D eals with voting. I'm gonna invite all shareholders who've registered to vote. They now have the opportunity to cast their votes. If you haven't done so already, the explanations for each agenda item were provided in the notice of the meeting, so I won't repeat them now. I will simply, in the interest of time, note the agenda item, and it will be displayed on the screen. We move on to agenda item, the voting items that is, starting with agenda item number three, and the next is agenda item number four. We then move on to agenda item number five, and swiftly on to six, followed by agenda item seven. There are quite a few to get through, and then we move on to agenda item eight, agenda item number nine, agenda item number ten, agenda item number eleven, which consists of eleven point one through to eleven point five, which is the reappointment of our directors, and then agenda item number twelve, dealing with our accountants, agenda item number thirteen, agenda item number fourteen, and finally, agenda item number fifteen. We will take a short pause for approximately thirty seconds as we tally the votes and ensure that they're all in and that the voting process has been followed. So if you just bear with us. So Chair, the voting is closed. That was pretty efficient. So, We're just gonna- We'll- Finalize the votes now. Yes, okay. So while we finalize the voting results, we're going to share a short video providing an overview of our global business, and following that video, we will share the results of the meeting with you. So, Chair, I can actually confirm that all agenda items have been passed with the required majority, and the details of our results will now be displayed on the screen in front of you as we work through the various agenda and resolutions put to you, and the full details will be published on our website and the stock exchange news services and business wires later today. So back to you, Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, it seems that all agenda items for the meeting have been dealt with, and, as all the business on the agenda has been completed, I declare the meeting closed, and thank you very much indeed for your patience and your participation in the meeting. Thank you.