Good morning, and welcome to Lazard's 1st quarter 2026 earnings conference call. This call is being recorded. Currently, all participants are in a listen-only-mode. Following the remarks, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Instructions will be provided at that time. If anyone should require assistance during the call, please press the star key followed by zeroon your telephone keypad. At At this time I will turn the call over to Alexandra Deignan, Lazard's Head of Investor Relations and Treasury. Please go ahead. Thank you, Chelsea. Good morning, everyone, welcome to Lazard's earnings call for the first quarter of 2026. I'm Alexandra Deignan, Head of Investor Relations and Treasury. In addition to today's audio comments, we posted our earnings release on our website. A replay of this call will also be available on our website later today. Before we begin, let me remind you that we may make forward-looking statements about our business and performance. There are important factors that could cause our actual results, level of activity, performance, achievements, or other events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, those factors discussed in the company's SEC filings, which you can access on our website. Lazard assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of these forward-looking statements and assumes no duty to update them. Please also note that unless we state otherwise, all financial measures we discuss today are non-GAAP adjusted financial measures. We believe these non-GAAP financial measures are meaningful when evaluating the company's performance. A reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to the comparable GAAP measure is provided in our earnings release and investor presentation. Hosting our call today are Peter Orszag, Lazard's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, and Tracy Farr, Lazard's Chief Financial Officer. After our prepared remarks, Chris Hogbin, Chief Executive Officer of Asset Management, will join us as we open the call for questions. I'll now turn the call over to Peter. Thank you, Ally. Good morning to everyone. Before turning to our first quarter results and outlook for the year, I want to start with our announcement of the acquisition of Campbell Lutyens and the future establishment of Lazard CL, a new private capital advisory unit within Lazard that will serve as our third global business closely coordinated with our world-class M&A and other advisory practices. This transaction underscores how Lazard is building on its core advisory franchise while both diversifying our business model and accelerating our growth. Campbell Lutyens is a premier global private markets advisor focused on fund placement, secondary advisory, and GP capital advisory services. Along with our existing PCA group, the transaction combines two highly complementary advisory platforms that will create the leading primary and secondary advisory business globally with approximately $500 million in anticipated combined 2027 revenue. The acquisition marks an important milestone on the path toward Lazard 2030 and an exciting avenue for additional growth. Lazard 2030 is a multi-year plan to build a more productive, resilient, growth-oriented firm. Our focus is on enhancing our long-standing strength in M&A while also building leading platforms in restructuring and liability management, Capital Solutions, and Private Capital Advisory. Our recent investments have expanded the solutions we provide for clients and diversified our revenue mix. Revenue related to private capital connectivity has increased from approximately 25% of total advisory revenue in 2019 to 40% today. Upon closing the Campbell Lutyens acquisition, we will achieve our 2030 target of approximately 50% even while delivering total revenue growth. The acquisition of Campbell Lutyens and establishment of Lazard CL strengthens our ability to deliver for clients at a time when fundraising is increasingly competitive and liquidity solutions are more complex. Operating across all major alternative asset classes and in all major global markets, Lazard CL will provide an unparalleled platform for independent, differentiated advice that meets the evolving needs of institutional investors, financial sponsors, and their portfolio companies. By pairing the combined proprietary data sets of these two businesses with our AI capabilities, we will deliver deeper insights for clients while advancing our goal of becoming the leading AI-enabled independent financial firm. We view this acquisition as strategically disciplined, financially accretive, and culturally aligned. We share a commercial mindset, collegial approach, and unwavering commitment to our clients. With Lazard's heritage in Europe, including the U.K., where we have had a significant presence for well over a century, we also have a shared respect for Campbell Lutyens' roots and for the importance of preserving local identity within a global firm. This step highlights our further investment in the U.K. and in growth across our global franchise. Taken together, this transaction reflects how we are positioning Lazard to lead across both public and private markets with exceptional advisory and Asset Management capabilities while remaining anchored in the strategic advisory work that defines our firm. We anticipate the transaction closing before the end of the calendar year, and we look forward to welcoming the Campbell Lutyens team to Lazard. Now turning to the quarter, for firm-wide adjusted net revenue was $673 million, up 5% compared to one year ago. In financial advisory, our outlook is optimistic despite geopolitical uncertainty, with conditions depending in part on the path forward in the Middle East. Client engagement remains very active, and the pace of client interactions continues to accelerate. Total conflict clearances are up significantly, reinforcing our confidence in our deal outlook. As one example, conflict clearances for deals above $5 billion are up 50% year-over-year. The broader underlying dynamics supporting activity also reinforce our constructive outlook. Companies continue to look to achieve scale and focus amid rapid technological change and a regulatory environment that is constructive. Dispersion in corporate performance continues to drive elevated restructuring and liability management alongside M&A. We anticipate ongoing strength in fundraising and the potential for increased private equity activity. These dynamics align with our existing financial advisory and future Lazard CL businesses, providing multiple and complementary levers for revenue growth. Financial advisory activity can admittedly be uneven from quarter to quarter, and during the first quarter, we had several transactions move to later in the year. As a result, revenue from this business was not as strong as we anticipate the rest of the year will be. Robust growth in restructuring and liability management and private capital advisory, along with solid M&A performance in Europe, supported overall results and underscored the benefit of our diversified model. Looking beyond 2026 to the next phase of Lazard 2030, retaining, promoting, and recruiting top talent remains a core component of our long-term growth strategy. We more than exceeded our goal of expanding our financial advisory MD group by 10-15 net additions from the first quarter of each year, with 28 net additions for 2025. Our recruiting pipeline is strong. We remain opportunistic about adding new MDs in 2026, while we also focus on integrating Campbell Lutyens following the transaction's close. In Asset Management, we delivered net inflows of $9 billion this quarter, the highest level of quarterly net flows in almost 20 years. The momentum we see in our results underscores that our strategy is successfully pivoting the business where active Asset Management provides an advantage. While with our focus, sorry, on areas of the market where information is imperfect and where our systems and research carry a distinct edge, including in quantitative strategies and emerging markets, we continue to see client demand and growth. Even with significant inflows for the quarter, our one, but not yet funded pipeline remains strong. While the environment remains uncertain, our business is well-positioned for the year ahead as market volatility creates more opportunities for active managers, and global diversification is firmly back on the agenda for investors. We continue to believe 2026 will be a year in which investors increasingly reallocate towards emerging and international markets, which is where Lazard's presence and capabilities are particularly strong. With a more diversified platform, best-in-class research and investment processes, enhanced global distribution strategy, and new leadership, our Asset Management business is well-equipped to capture opportunities aligned with client demand. Overall, client demand continues to grow for independent, differentiated advice and investment solutions grounded in contextual alpha, the broad insight and judgment needed to navigate complex macroeconomic and geopolitical dynamics, and that is what Lazard excels at delivering. As we reflected in our annual shareholder letter published last month, Lazard today is a structurally and culturally different organization, more commercial, more globally connected across public and private markets, and better positioned to deliver long-term growth beyond traditional cycles. Let me turn the call over to Tracy to discuss our financial results. Thank you, Peter. Financial advisory adjusted net revenue was $356 million for the first quarter of 2026, 4% lower than the prior year. Building on our momentum in private capital advisory, recent assignments include advising Valerius Capital Partners and Fleming Capital on continuation funds and advising NOVA Infrastructure on the raise of NOVA Infrastructure Fund II. Further reflecting the diversification of our franchise, liability management and restructuring assignments include debtor roles with Finnair and Xerox Holdings Corporation and creditor roles involving Anthology and DISH Network. Demonstrating global reach with complex assignments, we completed transactions with Keurig Dr Pepper's $23 billion acquisition of JDE Peet's and planned subsequent separation into two independent companies. Recently announced transactions include Zurich Insurance Group on its GBP 8.2 billion recommended cash offer for Beazley. Turning to Asset Management, adjusted net revenue was $309 million for the first quarter of 2026, up 17% from the prior year quarter. Our revenues reflected management fees of $296 million for the first quarter, 25% higher than the first quarter of 2025, and up 3% on a sequential basis. Incentive fees totaled $11 million. As of March 31st, we reported AUM of $259 billion, up slightly compared to year-end and demonstrating improvements in flows. During the quarter, we had net inflows of $9 billion, market appreciation of $354 million, foreign exchange depreciation of $3 billion, and divestitures of $1.5 billion. Average AUM for the first quarter was $266 billion, up 2% compared to the prior quarter and up 15% compared to one year ago. New mandates highlight ongoing demand for our quantitative, global, and fundamental equity capabilities. In the first quarter, we secured several new mandates spanning our advantage platform, systematic equities, fundamental strategies, fixed income, and private markets. Related to a few key transactions during the first quarter, the sale of our stake in The Edgewater Funds was an attractive resolution for our investment in the firm. This resulted in a $78 million non-cash gain in our GAAP results, which is excluded from our adjusted reported results. In addition to our organic growth investments, yesterday's announced acquisition of Campbell Lutyens represents an important step in the execution of our Lazard 2030 strategy, materially accelerating revenues, scale, and the diversity of our platform. Upfront consideration is all stock, with optionality on deferred payments to be either stock or cash. The acquisition is expected to be EPS accretive in 2027, with no synergies assumed. Equity ownership is broad-based at Campbell Lutyens, this transaction creates significant value through retention and performance alignment with long-dated deferrals. It also has the near-term effect of strengthening the balance sheet with additional cash and de-leveraging the business. Turning to firm-wide expenses, our adjusted compensation expense was $471 million for the first quarter of 2026, resulting in a compensation ratio of 69.9%. Our adjusted non-comp expense was $149 million for the first quarter of 2026, which equates to a non-compensation ratio of 22.1%. Improving operational efficiency and delivering profitable growth is a top priority. We continue to take a disciplined approach to expenses while investing in the long term. We are committed to achieving efficiency over time as we balance both sides of the equation. Shifting to taxes, our adjusted effective tax rate for the 1st quarter reflects discrete tax benefits related to stock-based compensation awards that vested during the quarter. Currently expect our effective tax rate for the full year of 2026 to be in the high 20s% range. Turning to capital allocation, in the first quarter of 2026, we returned $174 million to shareholders, including a quarterly dividend of $47 million. In addition, yesterday, we declared a quarterly dividend of $0.50 per share. Guided by our Lazard 2030 strategy, we are building a stronger and more resilient firm. The addition of Campbell Lutyens and the future establishment of Lazard CL as our third global business will accelerate our strategy and strengthen the scale, relevance, and strategic importance of our connectivity to private markets. With ongoing focus on disciplined execution across financial advisory and Asset Management, we are positioning Lazard to deliver sustained growth and long-term value across cycles. We will open the call to questions. Thank you. We'll take our first question from Devin Ryan with Citizens JMP. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. First question, obviously appreciate the comp ratio dynamic in the first quarter, it's kind of a math equation. Can you just talk about kind of the full year? You know, do you think you can drive some improvement there just based on what you're seeing right now in the revenue backdrop, you know, appreciating things can change? You know, bigger picture probably for Tracy Farr, just, you know, as you've been in the seat here for a bit, are you identifying any opportunities that could maybe drive more leverage as we look out beyond 2026? Thank you. I think Tracy can take both of those. That's fine. Appreciate the question. First of all, I'd go to Peter's opening comments around our positive outlook for the year. As you can fully expect, comp ratio is, you know, a factor of two different metrics. As we gain more and more confidence around the revenue pro-projection, there's leverage there. I want to be careful. I mean your comment is exactly right. It's effectively a math equation. The accrual that you'll see of the 69.9%, I think we would still guide you closer to a comp ratio for the full year, similar to what we had last year, around 65.5%. You understand from a GAAP basis, we're required to accrue on a fixed compensation basis, that has a larger impact in the first quarter. Some of the math, which I understand is complicated, shows that there'll be a higher accrual in the first quarter versus the second. I do think that there are opportunities to be more disciplined. Obviously me being in this role, one of the things that I had stressed that I would focus on was operational efficiency and cost management. I think there's additional ability to be disciplined in the comp ratio itself directly. I think you have seen a relatively strong amount of discipline on non-comp already in the first quarter. To your question about just other areas, yes, I think there are opportunities, particularly in our support functions around streamlining operations between both geographies and businesses, that we have a renewed focus on finding efficiencies there. We've launched a long-dated program to address some of those costs and cost reductions. I think we'll have more details that we can give on that in the second half of the year. I further believe that there's still opportunities as we see advancement in technology and AI in other parts of our business. Again, I think you'll see a continued focus on my part around operational efficiency. Great. Thanks, Tracy. Peter, I won't leave you out here. First off, congratulations on the Campbell Lutyens acquisition, seemingly get you in the top couple of firms in Private Capital Advisory. Obviously, you already had a strong business, but, you know, this scales that quite a bit. The question really is. You know, Campbell Lutyens didn't have all the other advisory, you know, advisory capabilities that Lazard does. And your existing Private Capital business was pretty integrated with from my sense. Can you just talk about the network effects that you think you can get off of Campbell Lutyens? And then also, you know, what that could mean for like productivity uplift of those partners or just more broadly across the firm as you integrate all those LP and GP relationships with broader Lazard? Thanks. Sure. Thanks so much for the question. First, I'd note, we believe, and I think the data show that we're pro forma the leader, not one of the leaders, in primary and secondary fundraising business as a whole on a pro forma basis for Lazard CL post-close. Second, there is a network effect, so a flywheel effect in both directions from M&A restructuring and liability management to the fundraising business and vice versa. This is one of the major motivations that Campbell Lutyens had for joining Lazard, which was the recognition that they needed more of those capabilities in order to compete in the fundraising business. Again, this was a big part of the discussion, which is the ways in which there was business flow in both directions. We're very excited about the opportunities for enhanced productivity from not just the kind of base business, but from in a sense, referrals in both directions. This was a core part of the strategic logic of the transaction. In addition to that, I don't wanna discount the data piece of this. As you know, really nuanced information and data on both GPs and LPs is difficult for most people to obtain. This combined business will have a data-rich environment that will be coupled with our AI systems that will help facilitate that flywheel effect that I was mentioning earlier, in addition to helping on the core primary and secondary fundraising business itself. There's a lot of opportunities for uplift here that we're excited about. Thank you. Our next question will come from Alex Bond with KBW. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, everyone. Another question on the deal and congrats there again. Can you help us think about the business mix at Campbell Lutyens just in terms of maybe secondaries advisory related revenues versus the primaries business relative to your existing in-house units currently, and also in a similar sense, in a geographical split of their business compared to yours? And essentially just trying to determine where you think their business will fill in the most white space relative to your existing offerings. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that. What was attractive for us about this transaction is the LEGO piece, nature of it in terms of very little overlap and a lot of where they're strong, we were weaker and vice versa. I would highlight in particular their strength. We're now balancing in the secondaries market, for example, GP transactions that are a source of X funds with LP transactions that are on the Campbell Lutyens side, more of the focus. Across asset classes, we're adding complementarity between real estate, private credit, and infrastructure and other, for example, and so that's fitting very nicely. On the fundraising piece, strength in North America with strength in Europe and in Asia. You're just seeing as we went, you know, two or three layers down, the entire ecosystem coming together in a comprehensive way. I think it is exceptional having, you know, having seen lots and lots of potential transactions, the degree to which the pieces fit together to form a coherent whole. We also have some additional information on the mix of activities and what Lazard CL would look like in the supplemental deck that we posted yesterday on our website. Great. Thanks, Peter. Maybe for my follow-up and going back to the comp and I guess we just want to drill down on maybe the impact of last year's above-trend hiring there. You obviously added the 28 NMDs last year, well above the 10-15 target that you have out there. Maybe if you could just try to help us quantify maybe how much the hiring last year impacted the comp in one to two relative to the full year 2025 rate, and then also maybe how we should think about the above-trend hiring last year, maybe trickling through and impacting hiring trends in 2026, if at all. Thank you. Sure. Let me take that question and then, and then Tracy can take. Or I'll take that part of the question, and then Tracy can take the kind of, I don't wanna call it the mechanical part. I'm not assigning that to you, Tracy, but the calculation part. Obviously, last year, we added a lot of talent, and well above our 10- 15 net add per year target. We have added some bankers this year. Healthcare services is a good example. We're interviewing others. I would note, just as an aside, one of the people, I interviewed earlier in this week before this transaction was announced was highlighting the importance of the secondaries business to his M&A franchise, so just coming back to the flywheel effect. We think that with Lazard CL will have an even expanded ability to recruit and attract top talent. Bottom line, I think that we will be, you know, within our range this year, in terms of net adds rather than above it. 2025 was an unusual year because we had a lot of talent that we thought was productive and valuable. I'd also note just on the timetables here, that also means that if you look back over time at the separations we've done, to help, you know, modernize our culture, and then when the net adds have been, you know, a lot of, a lot of the future productivity, I've talked about this before, is still yet to come, as the bankers that we've been hiring ramp up onto our platform. If you look at the year-by-year net adds and subtractions, and then add a lag of, you know, one to three years, depending on what kind of ramp you want to do, the vast majority of the productivity gain from the hiring we've done is yet to come. Yeah. I think the only thing I'd add to that on the mechanics, I mean, Peter talked about is the hiring and the expectation around hiring this year. Naturally, we've talked about the ramping, and we've talked about that percentage of MDs that are still in that ramping period. Keep in mind that that still remains at a relatively high level of around 40%. Again, as that number were to come down, which would be effectuated by, for example, Peter's comment of us being in the middle of that range, you'll see a little bit of, you know, comp leverage as that matures. I guess mechanically, maybe what I'd point you to is when you think about total fixed comp, which obviously has a component to that of guarantees as you're bringing in MDs from external places. Total fixed comp, if you were to compare it, you know, first quarter this year versus last year was up kind of low double digits. When you think about, then total adjusted net revenue being up effectively 5%, there's naturally going to be a higher accrual rate in the first quarter. I think that math and that mechanic probably paints a tougher picture for the first quarter than what I believe the full year will look like. We think that through both, a more positive outlook on the revenue front, through a much more disciplined approach on comp this year than maybe what has existed in the past, given, my involvement in that process. I think that the guidance that I gave you around, comp coming down closer to where it was last year is important. Thank you. Our next question will come from James Yaro with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Good morning, and thanks for taking the question and congrats on the deal. I did wanna touch, Peter, on the sponsors backdrop right now. You know, it remains the weaker part of M&A once again so far this year. You did sound a constructive tone on this part of the market. Maybe you could just expand a little bit on the timing and speed of sponsor M&A recovery and the ingredients associated with that as you look ahead. Sure. Look, I struck a constructive tone on the market as a whole. I don't think I struck a constructive tone on the private equity piece of that. In fact, you know, for example, the conflict clearances above $5 billion, the rapid growth there, those are almost all just given the deal size, public transactions. Those are much less likely in the private capital sphere as an example. I agree with you. There's a little bit of a, you know, waiting for Godot kind of phenomenon where with regard to private equity activity, we've all been, you know, waiting for that moment. I'd say if you listen to the heads of the large alternative asset managers who are gonna drive a lot of this activity, they are still saying that 2026 will be the year in which they're going to be selling and buying a lot of firms. We will see how that plays out. The other point I wanted to make is that our connectivity to private capital, the reason that our revenue share on the advisory side has gone from 25%- 40%, extends well beyond private equity M&A and involves restructuring and liability management engagements with these firms. It involves the Private Capital Advisory business, which is growing rapidly. It involves our Lazard Capital Solutions business. I think the piece that you're focused on appropriately is a subset of the overall private capital activity. I agree with you that we're, you know, we've been waiting for a substantial uptick in private equity activity. We'll have to see how the year turns out. We are seeing, you know, a significant number of processes that we're involved in. That's promising in private equity M&A. The second thing I'd say is, again, look to the public comments of the leaders of these firms in terms of what they say they're gonna be doing in this calendar year. We'll have to wait to see it actually, you know, manifest itself. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. My fault, for mischaracterizing your comments. Maybe just a little bit on Asset Management here. I was hoping, you might be able to expand a little bit, on the flow outlook from here. I guess, do you expect to be able to continue at the recent level of inflows? Perhaps if you could also just unpack a little bit the fee rate dynamics in the quarter in Asset Management and how we should think about the fee rate going forward as well. Chris Hogbin is gonna take that first. Sure. Thank you for those questions. Look, on the flows, we obviously enjoyed a very strong first quarter with $9 billion of net inflows. I think that reflects, you know, a deliberate sort of focusing of our distribution efforts. You know, strong investment performance across a number of services. Client demand in areas, you know, where we have very strong offerings. As Peter mentioned in his remarks, you know, we've seen, you know, clients looking to diversify into international emerging markets and global strategies. As a reminder, 2/3 of the AUM we manage is non-dollar denominated, so, you know, we benefit from, you know, from that. In terms of the flow dynamic going forward, we still have a very strong one, but not funded pipeline. We see a lot of commercial activity. I would not straight line the number from Q1 through the year. In fact, in the next couple of months, we might see a little bit more of a moderation in the net flow level. As a reminder, net flows are the difference between two big numbers, gross flows, inflows and then outflows. We think that, you know, while we continue to see very strong gross flows, there are some areas of our business where we may see some level of redemption. We still remain very confident that we will deliver on our commitment of having net inflows for the full year. We're very confident at that level. Secondly, to your question on fees. Fees in the average management fee in the quarter was 44.6 basis points. That's actually up sequentially from 43.9 in the fourth quarter and up meaningfully from the 41.2 from a year ago. Obviously in a fee rate, a lot depends on the evolution and the mix of the business going forward, but we feel comfortable as we see the business today, that the fee rate should stay around this level through the remainder of the year. Thank you. Our next question will come from Brennan Hawken with BMO. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Congrats on the Campbell Lutyens deal. Could you help us understand the price paid for Campbell Lutyens? Thanks for the clarity on the equity financing, Tracy. When was the deal price struck? Could you help us understand that too? As far as the pricing was concerned. Yeah, I can take both of those. You'll have hopefully seen that the reference share price was $46.50. As you can imagine, we had throughout the process, you know, a long set of negotiations between the heads of terms and the ultimate pricing. It was based on kind of a medium range VWAP during the period. On the questions on the equity financing and maybe it's just helpful to walk through this for everyone. The $575 total non-contingent consideration, the $460 million of that is paid up front. That's the $460 is based on that $46.50 reference share price. A significant portion of that, about half of it, we can get into the details, would be effectively released upon issuance, not locked up. About another half of it is locked up over a period of three years. There's also $115 million of a deferred payment, which would not be priced at $46.50. It would be priced at issuance, which is two years from close. Also subject to then a further one-year lockup on that. As was noted in the materials that Peter referenced, there was another $85 million of performance-based burnout. On both the deferred and the earn out, we have the ability to pay or settle in either a cash-like security or stock. That gives us some opportunity to manage dilution depending on where the share price is. That was important to us. We thought that the all-stock nature of the transaction was attractive for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the alignment of incentives between the people that are joining our firm and our existing employees. The nature of the deferral has strong retention dynamics between just the elongated nature of the deferral and the grant dates, but also, forfeitures associated with it. We thought that that was powerful from a retention perspective. Lastly, as was mentioned, we think it's a powerful tool in just further enhancing the balance sheet and providing future strategic flexibility. This would be a de-leveraging transaction naturally, but as we continue to think about other organic or inorganic investments that we want to make, increasing that strategic flexibility was important. Thanks, thanks for highlighting all that. Another angle that I was interested in pursuing, Tracy, was, you know, just sort of getting an understanding of the price paid on the actual earnings that you are acquiring. Could you maybe help us understand the earnings that is embedded, you know, either in your 2027 revenue base, where you have the combined entity. Importantly, you know, what kind of profit margins CL had or, you know, anything that we can kind of get a little clarity on the underlying metrics? Yeah, it's a great question. When you think about it from an acquisition multiple perspective, and we talked about it being, you know, accretive in 2027, the way that I would think about it is it was effectively acquired at a multiple similar to our total consolidated weighted average multiple, which is why it's effectively breakeven in the first year and lightly accretive in the second year. That gives you a bit of a sense on just the earnings multiple related to it. The revenue of the business is slightly larger than our own PCA business, but with really healthy operating margins in the mid-20s% range. This was both a high growing and high performing asset. It was a chance to invest in both revenue growth but also profitability. You didn't ask it, but I also think that this is an opportunity going back to the comp ratio perspective. Not only does it help from a scale perspective, which always helps with the comp ratio, but I also think when you look at respective comp margins in respective businesses, this is another area where our consolidated comp ratio could benefit over the medium term. Thank you. Our next question will come from Ryan Kenny with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. Just want to clarify, as you focus on integrating Campbell Lutyens, does it rule out additional M&A near term in areas like Asset Management? I'll take that. The short answer is that, I think we've been disciplined in the acquisition targets that we have been looking at. Campbell Lutyens, I think is, right down the fairway in terms of the type of business that we find, attractive. I think I've talked before about, avoiding advisory firms that are, you know, one-man band kind of thing that where you're putting a premium on something with very little to no terminal value. We will continue to pursue, an approach in which, we're gonna avoid doing that. On the asset side, we were disciplined. You know, obviously we were being pitched a lot of private credit, opportunities early in my tenure. We decided not to pursue those, in part because we did anticipate that the valuations looked high, and you know, we anticipated there might be a wobble in the market at some, at some point, which is exactly what has occurred. That having been said, there may well be teams within Asset Management that we find interesting, not, you know, not necessarily major acquisitions. The only other thing I'd say is we are taking a very active look at our wealth management opportunities, and we believe that there may be pathways for growth in that arena. I'll leave it at that, which is on the advisory side, I think we've been pretty clear about the criteria that we would apply to acquisitions. On the asset side of the business, you know, I don't think you should anticipate anything in the traditional asset management space, but we're looking through the growth opportunities in our wealth management business. In addition, we're actively always looking at adding talent and teams in our core Asset Management business where we believe that it's differentiated. All right. Helpful. ... one other thing, as we look at any opportunity, I just want to emphasize it's got to fit strategically. It's got to fit from a valuation perspective and a shareholder value perspective, it's got to fit culturally. We're really pleased with Campbell Lutyens from that perspective, but those are the only transactions that we're gonna be doing where you hit all three. We will continue to be quite disciplined in terms of what we look at. All right. Separately, Peter, what are your thoughts on the new proposed merger rules in Europe? Is it meaningful to your advisory business there? It could be. I think look, the backdrop in Europe is that there are lots of great European companies, but the macro backdrop has been stymied. To some degree, the corporate backdrop has been impeded by you don't have as many frontier firms in Europe as you do in the United States. I think going back to the Draghi report, this was one of the recommendations that was in that report. In addition to the potential that there's opportunity created by moving in this direction, I'm also glad that Europe's moving on some of the Draghi recommendations because I think that's important to not just M&A in Europe, but also European economic growth. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question will come from Mike Brown with UBS. Please go ahead. Great. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Peter, you noted that several large transactions slipped out of Q1, but the conflict clearance is above $5 billion or up 50% year-over-year. Can you just talk about that pipeline to revenue conversion timing here? Is this potentially coming through in 2Q, or is it really gonna apply kind of a heavy second half skew? Is there risk here that, you know, some of these deals ultimately don't reach the finish line? You know, maybe some color there about kind of what drove that slippage this quarter. Thank you. Sure. I mean, I think, you know, the short answer is this is not a quarterly business. It's a lumpy business. You have to kinda look at underlying trend because the quarters can bounce around. That is what we're very excited about. We are, if anything, ahead of schedule relative to our Lazard 2030 plan on all of the indicators that we're, that we're tracking to achieve that plan. Quarter to quarter, things can move around. It's. I don't know that there's one explanation for the various different slippages. A lot of them are idiosyncratic to specific deals or regulatory approvals or what have you. It, it seems to move around. With regard to the outlook from here and the conflict clearances, what I would say is I would just underscore that again, which is that, you know, there is no guarantee that a conflict clearance turns into an announcement, and then that turns into revenue. It is encouraging and an indication of the increasing traction that we're getting as a firm. I see this in a more qualitative way in terms of the boardrooms that we're now in, the CEO relationships we now have that did not exist a couple years ago. The frustrating part of this business is that takes a long time to mature, and it takes a long time to convert into revenue. It's happening, and the conflict clearances, I think, are an indication of that. I don't wanna provide false precision on exact conversion timing, but I do wanna give some encouragement about the underlying, you know, under-the-surface momentum that the business is creating in terms of relationships and those relationships turning into mandates and then ultimately mandates turning into revenue. Okay, great. Appreciate the color there. I just wanted to ask about Campbell here. A lot of good color. I like the way you framed kind of the LEGO building blocks here. It doesn't seem like there's much overlap, but when you if you were to think about some of the synergies, clearly there's some network effects. You talked a little bit about that. Maybe expand on that a little bit. Is this an opportunity to continue to kind of find ways to get paid more from sponsors if ultimately, there's less deal activity coming through? Then maybe on the expense side, is there any opportunities that could come through there? Tracy, maybe touch on any, like, shared services or other expense opportunities here. Thank you. Sure. What I would say is I do think that there is a benefit to being the market leader. Actually, even the responses we've gotten over the past 24 hours from some of our major clients underscores how excited they are that we will be able to offer the full suite of services that they may need in primary and secondary with a global fundraising practice that, you know, fills in the holes. It's therefore, if anything, even more effective on their behalf. So, I'd say the past 24 hours has been encouraging on the additional revenue that will come to the combined business precisely from the combination. Then I've already highlighted the data point. I'd say in private markets, this is particularly important. The more insight you can have across a wider array of private markets participants, the more effective you're gonna be for any given, any given client. Third, I'd say the scale itself opens. We'll have more to say about this in the future, but the scale itself opens up a whole array of new opportunities, which I'll leave as vague for right now, but that we're excited about in terms of what we can offer to counterparties and to others associated with Lazard. More to come on that. On the cost side, the accretion in 2027 that Tracy mentioned, you can fill in additional detail, Tracy, does not assume cost synergies. We're excited about this transaction even in absence of that. Obviously, as we move through the integration process, undoubtedly in these sorts of things, as we examine different ways in which we can be more efficient together than we were separately, I have confidence that there will, you know, those synergies will be possible. It's just that we didn't assume any. Thanks, Peter, and it's a great question. I think maybe one point I would add on the revenue front, in the negotiations that we had with Campbell Lutyens, keep in mind they, this was bilateral negotiation. One of the things that they found very attractive about Lazard itself was our preeminent M&A practice. In their own revenue pipeline, which obviously we diligenced a fair bit, there's a lot of opportunities where they collaborate and with other advisory partners where that now could be a revenue synergy within our existing business. I would say that that is a more revenue synergy. On the cost side, you're exactly right. I appreciate you using the shared service concept. As you know, I've shared my views around legacy Lazard not having kind of a shared service mentality in corporate. I continue to believe that there are significant synergies there. They have a lot of support functions that we'll come across that can complement that analysis, so that scenario. Peter already mentioned the geographical LEGO compatibility with their business in addition to the client and the service offering. There's a geographical one that is beneficial. From a real estate perspective, I think there are also some synergies which we did not include. The last one I would say is, you know, I'd be remiss if I didn't compliment the talent at Campbell Lutyens, both in their corporate and within the business. I had a significant amount of time to spend with their finance, legal, and other support functions. I think simply as we evaluate other cost efficiencies throughout Lazard, the talent that we're able to bring over from Campbell Lutyens will be an important component to that strategy. Thank you. Our next question will come from Daniel Cocchiara with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. We came into the year just with a lot of emerging market excitement, but the war and energy price spike has kind of thrown that into question. I was wondering if you could just talk about how these developments have impacted your near-term outlook just for the Asset Management business. Thank you very much. Chris will take that. Yeah. I mean, it's interesting. If you look through the first quarter, the flows picture was actually very consistent from January to February to March. Of course, you know, as the Iran conflict kicked off, we didn't really see any impact in the flows in our business. As a reminder, you know, institutional investors tend to be a little bit more longer term, if anything, see any of those market movements as an opportunity to achieve their longer term asset allocation. It really hasn't changed much in the outlook for our business at this point. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question will come from Brendan O'Brien with Wolfe Research. Please go ahead. Good morning, and thanks for taking my questions. Just to start, you know, there's been a lot of noise on the private credit space at the moment where there's growing concerns on the outlook for credit performance just given their greater exposure to software companies. Just wanted to get a sense as to whether you're seeing any signs of building stress in both sponsored portfolio companies, broadly as well as within their software holdings specifically. Just as we think through the timing of this opportunity, is this more of a 2026 kind of fee event or more of a long-term one in your view? Just how does the private credit loans or the fact that it'll be more private credit concentrated potentially impact the opportunity from a liability management versus Chapter 11 perspective? I'll take a little bit of that, and then Tracy, you can come in also. I'd say the following. I'd say in our, you know, in the parts of our business that deal with sponsors who are in the software space, you're seeing an effect. It's not universal. It's a bit idiosyncratic firm by firm. That is a very, very small share of our overall advisory practice. In general, I'd say the private credit challenges are concentrated in the software sector. They're also, I'd say, more salient or more severe, if you will, in among alternative asset managers or private credit players that have also turned to retail investors. The reason for that is, I think retail investors are more used to having the ability to just withdraw money whenever they want to. There is a tension between that thought and the relatively illiquid nature of many of these investments. Institutional investors who account for the vast majority of funding of the private credit market overall, I think understand that point, but it's something that many retail investors are not quite as used to. That disjuncture is exactly why these private credit funds have gating constraints on the size of withdrawals that are possible at any point in time. It's still somewhat awkward when someone wants money back and they don't get it back immediately. Anything else you wanted to add, Tracy? I would just go back to a couple points. I mean, we noted earlier the restructuring practice having a broader mandate between creditor and debtor. I think there's a lot of opportunity there. I actually came out of the capital solutions business within Lazard, where I spent the majority of my career. Keep in mind that practice is really a very bespoke credit and private capital advisory business where, frankly, as some of these challenges emerge, that business actually performs better, as it's dealing with kind of bespoke credit or private capital solutions that exist. Then I go back to part of the rationale around PCA and Campbell Lutyens. I think inasmuch as any kind of the complexities in private credit manifest themselves in challenges in whether it's M&A, Peter mentioned IPOs earlier, but just other financing solutions that enable transactions, the ability to pivot towards continuation vehicles and secondaries, again, we see that as a natural hedge within the business and frankly, just a high-growing area. That's helpful color. For my follow-up, I just wanted to touch on the cross-border environment at the moment. You know, with the conflict in the Middle East once again highlighting the fragility of global supply chains, just want to get a sense as to the extent of which some of your larger multinational clients are rethinking their respective footprints and whether you see this as spurring more cross-border M&A activity once we're past the conflict? I would say that large multinational firms are definitively rethinking their supply chain footprints. That's pretty much across all sectors. I would also say that I think even when this conflict is resolved, and we could talk more at length about the various options there, but even when this conflict is resolved, the risks associated with being cognizant that there are various choke points across the global economy are, I think, you know, much better appreciated today than was the case a decade ago. Leadership teams and boards are responding to that recognition by trying to create more resilience. The trade-off is it's not so easy to decide in some sense how much insurance you're gonna take out against those choke points because it's expensive to do it. I think I don't mean literal insurance, I mean, geographic dispersion that attenuates the choke point. I think that's what you're seeing. I don't know that the end of the hostilities in the Middle East is going to be the kind of break point for those questions because I think there's broad scale appreciation that we're just in a new environment. Even if peace breaks out in the Middle East, the risk that various choke points across the world will again be used for leverage in geopolitical conflict is well appreciated by boards and C-suites, and so they're evaluating how to respond to that. I would just highlight again, I think, while this sort of uncertainty is unfortunate for the global economy, it is also something where clients increasingly look to a place like Lazard to help them guide, to help get insight into what they should and could be doing. I've emphasized before the contextual alpha era that we're in. I think we are living in an era of contextual alpha. Lazard's geopolitical team, integrated with our with our banking teams and then also integrated with our investment professionals on the asset side, meet that moment. Thank you. We have a final question from Alex Bond with KBW. Please go ahead. Alexander, please make sure that you're unmuted. All right. This does conclude Lazard's first quarter 2026 earnings conference call. You may now disconnect.