I'd like to remind everyone that today's call and webcast are being recorded. Please note that they are the property of Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance and that any unauthorized broadcast in any form is strictly prohibited. Information about the audio replay of this call is available in our earnings press release. I'd also like to call your attention to the customary safe harbor disclosure in our press release regarding forward-looking statements. Today's conference call and webcast may include forward-looking statements and projections, and we ask that you refer to our most recent filings with the SEC for important factors that can cause actual results to be drawn materially from these statements and projections. In addition, we will be discussing certain non-GAAP measures on this call, which managers believe are relevant to assessing the company's financial performance. These measures are reconciled to GAAP figures in our earnings presentation, which is available in the stakeholder section of our website. We do not undertake any obligation to update our projections or projections unless required by law. To obtain copies of our latest SEC filings, please visit our website at www.apollocref.com. Your call is at 212-515-3200. At this time, I'd like to turn the call over to the company's Chief Executive Officer, Stuart Rothstein. Thank you, Operator, and good morning, and thank you to those of us for joining us on the Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance first quarter 2025 earnings call. I am joined today by Scott Weiner, our Chief Investment Officer, and Anastasia Mironova, our Chief Financial Officer. Quite a bit has changed since our year-end conference call, where we expressed optimism about the positive momentum in the real estate market, given the healthy overall macroeconomic view and increasing real estate transaction activity at the time. As we highlighted on that call, we perceived a slowdown in the overall macroeconomy as the biggest risk to the real estate market. Without getting into the weeds with respect to monetary policy and the approach to implementing tariffs, it is safe to say that overall capital markets volatility has increased as investors try to understand the short and long-term implications of the changes announced, and recessionary fears have risen. As I previously stated, commercial real estate tends to be a lagging indicator. In the present real estate market, participants are still quite active, and there continues to be significant amounts of both equity and credit capital available for deployment into real estate. To date, the recent volatility has led to modest spread widening and a more cautious tone in the market, and we still hold the view that a broad recession presents the greatest risk to the ongoing real estate recovery. We believe tariff effects are likely to drive up construction costs and further reduce new supply, as evidenced by recent data on new construction starts for multifamily and logistics properties indicating levels at 10-year lows. Limited supply should be positive for long-term real estate values and fundamentals. Also, when compared to other asset classes, real estate appears to be starting from a more reasonable relative value position. As such, while clearly not immune to volatility in the short term, we believe real estate looks better positioned than many other asset classes, and historically, real estate has performed quite well in an inflationary environment. Specific to ARI, the first quarter saw continued velocity in loan originations as we committed to $650 million of new loans. Our Q1 originations were for loans secured by properties in the United States, although our forward pipeline continues to consist of transactions in the U.S. and Europe. Three of the four transactions closed in the quarter were loans secured by residential properties, an asset class that continues to have strong secular tailwinds even in potential recessionary scenarios. The other transaction was a data center construction loan, which is an area we have become very active in over the past 18 months. Our strategy with data centers has been to finance developers where we are confident in their ability to deliver facilities on time and within agreed-upon specs, and to provide loans on facilities that have been pre-leased to strong credit tenants with long-term leases. ARI continues to benefit from Apollo's broad-based real estate credit origination efforts, which totaled over $5 billion of originations in Q1. Following quarter end, ARI completed an additional four transactions totaling just over $700 million, bringing year-to-date volume to $1.5 billion, including add-on funding. Turning now to the loan portfolio, the quarter-end ARI's portfolio was comprised of 48 loans totaling $7.7 billion. No additional asset-specific CECL allowances were reported in the first quarter. The update on 111 West 57th Street is that strong sales momentum has continued, and the closing of three units in the first quarter generated $35 million in net proceeds. Subsequent to quarter-end, two additional units closed, and with those closings, the senior loan ahead of ARI's position was fully repaid and also allowed for a $29 million reduction in ARI's net exposure. Going forward, all unit closings will go toward reducing ARI's loan, and currently, there is an additional $127 million in executed or pending contracts across another seven units. We remain highly focused on proactive asset management and executing the plans on our focus loans, as we seek to maximize value recovery and convert the capital into higher return on invested equity opportunities. We have defined pathways for each of our future assets, and we are actively pursuing resolutions. Before I turn the call over to Anastasia to review the financial results, I wanted to reiterate that while Q1 earnings were slightly below the current quarterly dividend run rate, as we look to the rest of 2025, we are comfortable that ARI's loan portfolio will produce distributable earnings that support the current quarterly dividend run rate. With that, I will turn the call over to Anastasia to review ARI's financial results for the year. Thank you, Stuart, and good morning to everyone. ARI reported distributable earnings of $33 million or $0.24 per share of common stock for the first quarter, with GAAP net income of $23 million or $0.16 per diluted share of common stock. As Stuart mentioned, our Q1 earnings were slightly lower than the current quarterly dividend rate, providing 96% coverage of the quarterly dividend. It is worth noting that our first quarter distributable earnings included the impact of timing of capital deployment in Q1, which was heavily weighted toward the end of the quarter. As we look to the rest of the year, we see Q1 results representing a trough of distributable earnings per share that is beneath the $0.16 quarterly dividend rate for the remaining quarters. The expected increase in distributable earnings is driven by the potential growth of the loan portfolio from previous year-end and recirculation of underperforming capital to continue transactions. Our loan portfolio ended the quarter with a carrying value of $7.7 billion, up from $7.1 billion at year-end. The weighted average and leveraged yield of our loan portfolio as of the quarter-end was 7.9%. We had a strong quarter of loan origination, closing four new commitments for a total of $650 million and completing an additional $73 million in add-on funding for previously closed loans. Loan repayments totaled $93 million during the quarter, which we were able to redeploy for new originations since quarter-end. Cash activity in Q2 to date amounted to $709 million in total commitments on new loans, in addition to another $309 million in add-on funding. With respect to risk rating, the weighted average risk rating of the portfolio quarter-end was 3.0, unchanged from the previous quarter-end. There were no asset-specific CECL allowances recorded during the quarter and no movement in ratings across the portfolio. Our general CECL allowance increased this quarter by $4 million, reflecting the growth of the loan portfolio from the previous quarter-end, as well as the more cautious stance on the macroeconomic factors. Total CECL allowance in percentage points of the loan portfolio averages plus basis is down quarter- over- quarter from 507 basis points to 475 basis points. Moving on to the right-hand side of the balance sheet. During the quarter, we were very active with our secured borrowing counterparty, upsizing our facility with JPMorgan by the $500 million, for a total capacity of $2 billion. We also expanded and matured our JPMorgan and UBS facility by $3.5 million and 2 years, respectively. Post-quarter-end, we closed two new secured credit facilities with new counterparties for an aggregate borrowing capacity of about $700 million and on favorable terms. Liquidity in the secured borrowing market continues to be plentiful, as lenders have favorable capital treatment for these facilities and, in many instances, prefer them over directly lending to properties. Our debt-to-equity ratio quarter-end was 3.5 times, up from 3.2 times at year-end, as we recirculated proceeds from a number of repayments that happened right before year-end into new leveraged yields in Q1. The company ended the quarter with $218 million of total liquidity, comprising cash content, committed and drawn credit capacity on existing facilities, and loan proceeds held by the servicer. ARI book value per share included general CECL allowance and depreciation of $12.62, a slight decrease from last quarter, primarily attributable to the impact of the RSU vesting and delivery. With that, I would like to ask Anastasia to open the line for questions. Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Our first question comes from Rich King with JPMorgan. You may proceed. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Look, one of the things that stands out is that you guys have significant specific allowances. It's actually been a while since you have realized any material losses. I suspect, and again, the optics of realizing losses are not optimal, but at the same time, you have almost $500 million in non-accruing assets. I'm curious how we think about the cadence of actually realizing those losses and being able to redeploy the capital. I'm curious if the strong origination volume that we have seen post-quarter, particularly, is a signal that some of that capital is about to be recycled. Hey, Rich, thanks for the question. Look, I think from a cadence perspective, I would say the way to think about it just from a pure cadence perspective is a lot of the specific ceaseful is tied up in two assets, right? 111 West 57th and then Liberty Center, which is our asset, retail asset. In Ohio, we expect to be in market in selling the Liberty Center asset sometime the latter part of this year. We are pretty confident from a valuation perspective and, as such, hope to get to the finish line. That'll sort of crystallize things, but we feel good about where we're reserved there. Obviously, you heard the update on 111 West 57th in terms of sales progress. Not sure when we get to the full finish line, but momentum is certainly positive there. I think what you're seeing in our actions is that we feel confident right now that there are no additional surprises coming, and we are comfortable putting capital to work, expecting that the latter part of this year and the early part of next year, there will be more capital coming our way through resolutions. Great. This was a very helpful answer, and thank you. Clearly making some strong progress in terms of selling units. That certainly comes through. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Rich. Thank you. Our next question comes from Joe Carter with UBS. You may proceed. Thanks. Understanding that kind of the change in the market is still relatively fresh, but any sense you have in conversations about whether this might delay either repayment of loans or kind of the putting out of new money and kind of how you're thinking about the marketing effects? Yeah. Look, I think the market is still functioning pretty robustly. I would say across a broad spectrum of credit opportunities, I would say the volatility that we've seen in the equity markets has been much more muted in the credit market. I would say at this point, no anticipation of slowdowns and no anticipation of people walking away from transactions or pulling back from transactions. I think the real question in our mind, Doug, is if you think about a decision tree, if recession, and then if we assume yes recession, are we talking something that is shallow and short-lived or something that has breadth and length to it? I think it's too early for most people to know, just given sort of the fairly volatile changes from direction to direction, given what's going on. I would say right now, the need to put capital to work, the volumes of capital looking for return are overweighting sort of what might be some changed behavior if we truly enter into some sort of meaningful recession. Appreciate that. As you think about the asset classes, either in your portfolio or more broadly, if we have a recession, how are you thinking about the vulnerability of various asset classes? I think obviously, if we had a recession, the asset class that we would think most about would be on the hospitality side short-term, because obviously, the ability for cash flows to move there most quickly. I think you heard my comments on multifamily, which I think has legs even in a recession, just given sort of the need for housing. To the extent you "worry" about things and a recession causing big capital decisions to be made, I think we've clearly been in a recovering office market, and it's been moving in the right direction. Does a meaningful recession cause people to slow down those decisions? I think it's something you always worry about. I would say we haven't seen it today, and we're actually pretty encouraged about the level of activity across our various office, across the office assets supporting our loans. That is how we think about it from an asset type perspective. Again, the long-term positive implications are, I think we are going to be living in a muted supply environment for quite some time. It should mean that existing assets are better protected, both in terms of replacement costs or operating position as you think about limited new supply. I think, as you rightly inquired, if we do get into a recession, I would say I do worry about hospitality first, just given the ability for revenues to move quickly. Great. Appreciate that, Stuart. Thank you. Our next question comes from [inaudible] with BTIG. You may proceed. Thanks. Good morning, everybody. Stuart, maybe on 111 West 57th, now that your senior mezz loan A has become senior in the cap stack, does that portion go back on accrual? Can you start recognizing it can come again, or is there a different treatment there? No, there's a different treatment. Let me try and put a finer point on it, right? We've had our position is still comprised of both mortgage and mezz. What was in front of us was a financing from JPMorgan that was effectively financing a piece of our position. At this point, if we were to turn income back on, we'd effectively just be paying ourselves, in which case we'd be taking income, increasing basis, and then putting more pressure on what the ultimate recovery needs to be. Our approach is going to be to keep income turned off. To the extent recovery is better than expected, and certainly we're ahead of pacing today, I don't know that that will continue. To the extent recovery is better than expected, it will come through in recovery of reserve as opposed to taking near-term income down. Got it. Appreciate you making sense of that. In terms of portfolio growth, obviously, first quarter was light from a repayments front. What are your kind of near-term repayment expectations? Do you think you can continue to grow the portfolio to kind of pace that you were able to in the first quarter? I'm sure there are many who are tired of me talking about not getting too hung up on one quarter or another. I think we're looking at plus or minus $1.5 billion of repayments this year. It could be more if pacing on some of the focus assets is even better than expected. We're going to react in the market. Will it be lumpy quarter- over- quarter? Yes. With $1.5 billion coming back our way and having already done, call it $650 million in the first quarter, it's going to be a pretty active year from a deployment perspective. I just can't tell you what quarters it'll come in. I would say a lot of the repayment, I would say, is expected to come in sort of think about it middle to late second quarter to middle to late third quarter as you think about when the dollars will be coming back to us. Obviously, we'd like to be ready to deploy as soon as the money comes back so there's no earnings drag. Got it. Last one for me, just quickly, you mentioned focus assets. Any update on performance of The Mayf lower, the D.C. Hotel, how that's been holding up? Yeah. Look, year to date, it's been a good year. It's outpacing last year. Obviously, a little bit of help in the first quarter given inauguration, etc. It has been performing quite well. I think that is an asset that, on a finance basis, generates a nice levered return for ARI. ARI is perceived better if we reduce REO over time. I think the question for us is, when is the right time to bring a hotel to market, particularly in light of some of the back and forth Doug and I had two minutes ago about what asset classes might have a more negative bias if we truly do get a recession. The hotel itself right now is performing quite well. Got it. Appreciate the answers. Thanks, everyone. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Jai Agarwal with KBW. You may proceed. Hey, Raymond. Just wanted to ask about a couple assets we haven't touched on in quite some time. The Berlin office, the Chicago office, both of those risk-rated 4. And then two risk-rated 3s, the Manhattan office and Cleveland multifamily. Would you be able to touch on those four items? Yeah. I mean, I'll give a bullet point on each. Scott, are you on? Do you want to talk about that? Yeah. Yeah. I'm on. Hey, great. Yeah. I would say with the Berlin office, we are working with a sponsor who's also a co-renter on the deal with a mod, whether it be new equity invested as well as more time for lease-up. They're also getting close on a major lease. We wanted to wait till that was fully documented before returning it to a 3. Our expectation is in the coming quarter, assuming that all gets papered with new equity coming in and the mod, that would become a 3. Like you said, we're hopeful that this could at least get signed, which will help reduce the vacancy. As far as the Chicago office goes, there has also been some recent positive leasing and some additional equity coming in from the sponsor. Again, hopeful, as I think Chicago is behind New York, but we are seeing green shoots in other assets across the non-ARI portfolio that we have in Chicago in terms of stores, inquiries, and leasing and return to office staff. On that deal, the sponsor actually owns other properties in the market and has been working on some people who needed to grow from one property to another, moving them to this building, which has been helpful. Was there another one or? Yeah. Manhattan office, $256 million risk-rated 3, and Cleveland multifamily, $76 million risk-rated 3. Yeah. On the New York office, that is one where we are the senior-most in capital structure, and there are various players of mezz and equity. That one, we've been working on a recapitalization with the senior-most mezz who is willing to invest capital. Right now, exploring two options. One would be taking advantage of the change in law and code in New York and converting part of that to multifamily and taking advantage of the tax. The junior capital has been working on that business plan. At the same time, with New York leasing off and the quality of this property and the location, there also is a strategy of just maintaining it as office. Kind of parallel pathing to both of those. I think the conversion makes a lot of sense and still helping work in a good shape there. At the same time, there's some dialogue around some major tenants. If we can get one or two of these major tenants to be exploring the property to commit and take a lot of agency, then it's easier to keep it as office. In all cases, the capital behind us is willing and committing additional capital behind us on that. As far as Cleveland, yeah, the multifamily there is doing well. The junior capitalist there who stepped in and foreclosed the prior owner out and has put capital in. Reporting management is doing well there. There's also a retail component that has really been the focus in terms of some of that with converting that from percentage rent to direct rent. Heading in the right direction with the high-quality property. We have senior capital who has been committed and investing additional capital behind us. Okay. 111 West 57. Tracking the numbers, the balance was $403 million as of 3/31, which is up from $390 million at year-end. Do you know why it increased? Yeah. There were some costs that we need to comply and present. Most of it was really for the retail. We had signed a long-term lease with Bonhams to move their office house headquarters there. As part of that, there were some TI leasing commissions that were funded as well as some carry costs. That was already all factored into our reserves, those costs. Okay. Do we need to expect further increases? No. I mean, the numbers, as we've been selling units and obviously spending money on the retail, are much lower. The amount of sales that we have will be each quarter, you'll be seeing a dramatic increase in the size of the position. Okay. It is $403 million, then there is $29 million post-quarter end, and then another $127 million. Stuart mentioned seven executed contracts. Once those close, the pre-format balance should be something like $247 million. There are also some transaction costs, I assume, commissions and such. Is that in the ballpark? You're in the ballpark, Jai. Yeah. Yeah. To clarify, there's five signed contracts, which you can see on StreetEasy. Then we have two contracts out, which isn't too distant. Okay. Yeah, Jai, your math is roughly in the ballpark. Okay. That would suggest nine or so, actually, five plus probably consolidate some units. Are there around seven units remaining to be sold? Eleven. Oh, 11 remaining to be sold, including the seven, the five signed contracts, and two offers for the ownership. Okay. If the seven makes you've got 11 units plus you've got the condo. Plus as we indicated on prior calls, there's also some insurance proceeds, etc., that will come to us when settled due to sort of construction issues along the way. Okay. All right. Thanks so much. Thanks, Jay. Thank you. Our next question comes from Steve Delaney with JMP Securities. You may proceed. Good morning, everyone. Stuart, thanks for your macro thought. It's certainly a lot of uncertainty out there for all of us to deal with. I wanted to touch on, I think, probably the most unique thing about Apollo is your exposure in the U.K. and Europe. Almost half the portfolio and just under $4 billion. I think Tom actually cited that in his recent upgrade of the company. It totally is unique among the 20-something with the mortgage rate. Just talk a little bit about how Apollo or ARI has been able to do that. Does Apollo on a larger scale have boots on the ground in the U.K. and Europe? If not, how are you sourcing and managing these assets if you're not using your own Apollo people? Just curious about how that's kind of evolved in giving sort of a unique edge to ARI. Thank you. Yeah. Look, I'll start, and then Scott may add some comments. The short story is the real estate credit business was effectively told to doing deals in Europe because some of the sponsors that we backed in the U.S. were certainly active in Europe, liked the relationship with us, and asked if we would consider opportunities there. That was sort of the genesis of the business in 2012, 2013. We committed, and we took one of the more senior members of our team by the name of Ben Eppley, and moved him to London in, I'm going to say, 2013. I think he off by a year or so. Ben, with the help of many, including Apollo's commitment to the European market in general, has built a full-scale originations management engine based in London covering Europe throughout. We've got an investment team comprising of plus or minus a dozen folks. We've got an asset management infrastructure on the ground in London covering Europe. I would say, to his credit, Ben and team or to their credit, Ben and team have, over a dozen years' worth of work, established themselves as a leading bridge lender in the market. We are fully committed to the market. Not everything we do ends up in ARI, no different than the way we do things in North America. There are often times when we share transactions across capital if there is other Apollo capital looking to deploy into the market. There are also times where there are things our team sources that do not necessarily fit for ARI but fit with some of our regulated balance sheets. It just furthers the track record, reputation, relationships that Ben and team have created. We made a commitment to the market a dozen-plus years ago, and the execution has been pretty strong. As you've heard me say, from ARI's perspective, often, similar quality sponsors, similar types of real estate transactions, only lending in markets who we feel as if our lender protections are no different than between the U.S. and Europe. It's really turned into just a seamless part of the overall real estate credit business. I'm sure Scott might have some additional thoughts, but it turns out quite well. Yeah. I mean, I'm actually sitting in our London office with Ben, so I'm actually spending quite a lot of time here. Yeah. I would say we got a little bit of a first mover advantage because we have been here over a decade. We actually were voted Alternative lender of the year last year, so we've been quite active. I would say, yeah, we benefit from the overall Apollo platform because the financing leverage that we get is important. It's great relationships with the banks here. I would say there's really some structural incentives in this market. First and foremost, there's really not a very active securitization market. Where in the U.S., the single assets are a market, it can be very active and may be challenging to do larger deals. That doesn't exist here. Our ability to seek larger deals by marrying the ARI capital or other capital and doing pan-European deals, larger deals, portfolio deals is really a competitive advantage. Just like in the U.S., as Stuart said, relationships are important. It's a piece of business. People know when we say we're going to do something, we do it. We can do everything from what they call PBSA here, which is PB Housing, from logistics to the data center, hotels, really all the property types across the geographies. It's a really good asset business for us. I would say we also hedge everything against the dollars, so we're not taking FX risk. That at times, obviously, can also help with the return. We're not taking any kind of FX risk. Legally, we're making sure we're all in countries where we can always enforce, and we have different structures for that. Yeah. It is really just an extension of the strategy that we do in the U.S. We just have to be over here. FX. I'll thank you both for the most detailed explanation. That's a lot of history that I was not aware of. Greatly appreciated. Great. A great year ahead in the U.K. and the U.S. Thanks, Steve. Thank you. Our next question comes from Harsh Hemnani with Green Street. You may proceed. Thank you. Stuart, you mentioned that you were expecting about $1.5 billion in returns through the course of the year. Just looking at what you've done year to date, it seems like $1.5 billion has already been funded. It sounds like you want to continue on that deployment path. How are you thinking of funding those incremental deployments if it's going to come through incremental leverage that could be a show and resolving from REO assets? How are you thinking about that? Yeah. Working backwards, right? Given where the entire sector is trading, I think until the sector and we specifically can get back up above book value, there's no equity issuance coming. The new deployment will be funded based on repayment from existing outstanding levels or achieving resolution on some of the focused assets, which will bring capital back that we can redeploy. There will be a natural increase in leverage, which is in no way a reflection of any change to our view of leverage in general, which is to say when I have an underperforming asset that I'm not levering, when I can get to a resolution and get that capital back, I will most likely deploy that capital into something where I originate a new loan and then use back leverage to generate my return, which is sort of standard operating procedure. There'll be a modest uptick in leverage just as I bring back some of the capital that I want to get back from the focus assets. It is basically repayments, and getting to resolution on the focus assets should give us more than enough capital to need to be quite active in the market this year. Got it. Yes, actually. Maybe given a lot of the transactions and once you were focused in the U.S., it seems like some of the transactions post-quarter end have also been more than usual towards the U.S. Is that sort of something you should be expecting going forward through the year as well? Maybe on that point, right, I think you also need to be said that the private market hasn't really changed quite a bit in terms of lending activity still happening. Maybe given the slowdown we've seen in securitized markets, is it sort of fair to assume that you might be getting increase in loans from borrowers at this point? Yeah. I mean. Go ahead. Yeah. I would say certainly in the U.S., with the disruptions in the securitized markets, yes, I think the balance sheet option that we offer gives people certainty because I think we've seen it. There are deals that we lost to a securitized bid where they were sold and the execution may result in not getting. Certainly, whether it's the economics or certainty in the U.S., those larger deals were certainly spending more time on them and getting more inbound. Europe is a bit different. It's not so much securitized. It would be more banks or other lenders we'd be competing with. I mean, in some ways, we're hedged, right? Most of the new activity we're going to be doing is going to be in response to repayments. If some of these repayments don't materialize, we just won't be doing new deals, right? The growth is really coming from, for example, Steinway, as we get that money back to 111, money that was debt capital that will redeploy. If a $300 million loan doesn't get repaid, then if you don't have that capital back, and we don't need to get the capital back because we're earning a good return on that money, we just won't do that. We'll do less business. That is why I kind of like to say we're hedged a little bit. The loans that are going to get refinanced, obviously, we like them and happy that they're levered appropriately and generating a good return. If you stay out longer, that's not a bad thing. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I would now like to turn the call back over to Mr. Rothstein for the closing remarks. Thank you, operator. Thank you to those of you who participated this morning. Obviously, myself, Scott, Hillary, Anastasia, we are around if there are further questions. Thank you all. Thank you. This concludes the conference. Thank you for your participation. Good night.