Good day, welcome to the PJT Partners Full Year and Fourth Quarter 2022 Earnings Call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Sharon Pearson, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Good morning, welcome to the PJT Partners Full Year and Fourth Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. I'm Sharon Pearson, Head of Investor Relations at PJT Partners, joining me today is Paul Taubman, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Helen Meates, our Chief Financial Officer. Before I turn the call over to Paul, I want to point out that during the course of this conference call, we may make a number of forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, there are important factors that could cause actual outcomes to differ materially from those indicated in these statements. We believe that these factors are described in the Risk Factors section contained in PJT Partners 2021 Form 10-K, which is available on our website at pjtpartners.com. I want to remind you that the company assumes no duty to update any forward-looking statements. The presentation we make today also contains non-GAAP financial measures, which we believe are meaningful in evaluating the company's performance. For detailed disclosures on these non-GAAP metrics and their GAAP reconciliations, you should refer to the financial data contained within the press release we issued this morning, also available on our website. With that, I'll turn the call over to Paul. Thank you, Sharon, and thank all of you for joining us. This morning, we reported 2022 full year revenues of $1.026 billion, adjusted pre-tax income of $221 million, and adjusted EPS of $3.92 per share. We're pleased with how we navigated 2022's challenging market environment with total revenues up 3% from year ago levels. As PJT Park Hill again delivered record performance, our restructuring revenues grew meaningfully, and our strategic advisory business performed well on a relative basis, down significantly less than the declines in global M&A and capital markets activity would suggest. Our 2022 cadence of face-to-face client meetings and engagement returned closer to pre-COVID levels, which not only helped build new relationships but strengthened existing ones. This significant ramp in spending on travel and events drove our aggregate non-comp expense 19% higher, our non-comp expenditures, excluding these categories, grew low single digits. Partner headcount was up 8%, and total headcount was up 9% for the year as we continue to attract highly talented professionals to our firm. We remain focused on managing share dilution resulting from these investments in talent, ending the year with a fully diluted share count below year-ago levels. All in all, we're pleased with how we navigated 2022's myriad of challenges. After Helen takes you through our financial results, I will review our business performance and outlook in greater detail. Helen? Thank you, Paul. Good morning. Beginning with revenues. For the full year 2022, total revenues were $1,026 million, up 3% year-over-year, with increases in restructuring and PJT Park Hill more than offsetting declines in strategic advisory revenues. For the fourth quarter, total revenues are $280 million, down 11% year-over-year. Significant revenue growth and restructuring was more than offset by year-over-year revenue declines in PJT Park Hill and strategic advisory, with lower corporate capital raises during the fourth quarter, the principal driver of the decline in placement revenues in the quarter. Total revenues that met the criteria to be pulled forward in the quarter were less than $8 million, compared with approximately $12 million in the same period last year. Turning to expenses. Consistent with prior quarters, we presented the expenses with certain non-GAAP adjustments. These adjustments are more fully described in our Form 8-K. First, adjusted compensation expense. Full year adjusted compensation expense was $657 million, up 5% year-over-year, with a compensation ratio of 64.1%, up from 63% in 2021. We will communicate our accrual for compensation expense for 2023 when we report our first quarter results. Turning to adjusted non-compensation expense. Total adjusted non-compensation expense was $148 million for the full year 2022 and $38 million for the fourth quarter. As a percentage of revenues, our adjusted non-comp expense was 14.4% for the full year 2022 and 13.7% for the fourth quarter. For 2022, the majority of the year-over-year increase in non-comp expense was due to increased travel and related expense. Our non-comp expense, excluding travel and related, grew 6% in 2022. Looking ahead, we expect our travel and related expense to increase in 2023, reflecting more normalized levels of travel, increased headcount, and higher travel costs. With our full year run rate for 2023 more consistent with the fourth quarter run rate in 2022. Away from travel and related expense, we expect our non-comp expense to grow in aggregate in the mid-to-high single digits year-over-year, driven primarily by higher professional fees and a modest expansion of our office space. Turning to adjusted pre-tax income. We reported adjusted pre-tax income of $221 million for the full year 2022, down 9%, and $61 million for the fourth quarter, down 24% year-over-year. Our adjusted pre-tax margin was 21.5% for the full year and 21.9% in the fourth quarter. The provision for taxes, as with prior years, we've presented our results as if all partnership units had been converted to shares and that our income was taxed at a corporate tax rate. Our effective tax rate for the full year was 26%, up slightly from the 25.8% estimated rate that we applied for the first nine months of the year. In 2023, we would expect our effective tax rate to be in line with 2022. We will refine our view at the end of the first quarter. Our adjusted if converted earnings were $3.92 per share for the full year, compared with $4.44 in 2021, and $1.08 in the fourth quarter compared with $1.52 in 2021. The share count for the year ended 2022, our weighted average share count was 41.7 million shares, down 2% year-over-year. During the year, we repurchased the equivalent of approximately 2.2 million shares, primarily through open market repurchases. On the balance sheet, we ended the year with $223 million in cash equivalents, and short-term investments and $355 million in net working capital. We have no funded debt outstanding. Finally, the board has approved a dividend of $0.25 per share. The dividend will be paid on March 22, 2023 to Class A common shareholders of record as of March 8th. I'll now turn back to Paul. Thank you, Helen. Beginning with PJT Park Hill. As the year progressed, the fundraising environment for alternative investments became significantly more challenging. Sharply lower public market valuations left many investors overextended on their alternatives allocations, which in turn reduced the quantum of capital available for new commitments. This denominator effect, coupled with the frenetic pace at which capital was called in 2021, made for a difficult fundraising environment. Even with this backdrop, revenues grew modestly year-over-year as PJT Park Hill delivered another record year. Our close relationships with capital allocators and our best-in-class distribution capabilities enabled us to represent the highest quality managers with in-demand investment strategies. Turning to strategic advisory. In 2022, a sharp downturn in equity markets, greater economic and geopolitical uncertainty, and slowing global growth all adversely impacted the pace of strategic activity. The 425 basis points in Fed tightening across 7 consecutive rate hikes represented the largest and sharpest annual rate increases in more than 40 years, significantly impacting valuations and roiling financial markets. Announced global M&A volumes were down roughly 25% for the first half of the year and nearly 50% for the second half of the year, as the impact of these rate hikes and continued political and economic uncertainties further weighed on markets. While we were not immune to these market dynamics, we performed well on a relative basis with full-year strategic advisory revenues down only modestly, notwithstanding the dramatic decline in industry-wide volumes. Our shareholder engagement practice continued to evidence strong momentum as these dislocated markets resulted in increased client engagement on shareholder advisory, strategic IR, and shareholder activism topics. This strength offset the considerable drop-off in our corporate placement revenues, particularly in the fourth quarter. We continued to invest, adding talent across industries, product capabilities, and geographies, including the opening of a Paris office this past year. Strategic advisory headcount grew 10% and strategic advisory partner count grew 18% year-over-year. In restructuring, in 2022, the headwinds that dampened M&A activity became tailwinds for restructuring and liability management activity. A combination of sharply higher financing costs, dislocated capital markets, and more challenging operating fundamentals pressured an increasing number of highly leveraged companies. We experienced an uptick in liability management mandates as companies worked to restructure debts and create additional liquidity runway. Overall, our restructuring revenues increased in 2022, and we ranked number 1 in announced US and global restructurings. As we look ahead. While 2023 is shaping up to be another choppy year, our firm remains well-positioned to navigate these uncertain times. In PJT Park Hill, we expect the environment for alternatives fundraising to remain challenging as investors remain highly selective, with many fundraisers expected to be smaller in size and take longer to close. PJT Park Hill's 2023 revenues are forecast to be around 2022's record results, even though Q1 revenues could well be down $30 million-$40 million given the expected timing of 2023 closings. In M&A, the environment, while improving, is still not particularly favorable for deal-making. While the recent snap back in equity valuations and the first green shoots of a reopening in the IPO market are promising harbingers for M&A activity, the low level of global M&A announcements in recent months may well continue for some significant part of 2023. In contrast, we expect our restructuring activity levels to remain elevated for an extended period of time. For 2023, we expect significant growth in our restructuring revenues beginning in the second quarter. Any headwinds we face in strategic advisory in 2023 will be more than offset by tailwinds in restructuring. Looking beyond 2023, we remain highly confident in the intermediate and long-term outlook for our strategic advisory business as we benefit from the significant investments we have made, which expand our client reach and increase our market share. As before, we remain confident in our growth prospects. With that, we will now take your questions. If you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you are using a speakerphone, please make sure your mute function is turned off to allow the signal to reach our equipment. Again, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one. We'll pause for just a moment to allow everyone the opportunity to signal for questions. We will take our first question from Devin Ryan with JMP Securities. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking the questions. Absolutely. Good morning, Devin. I guess just wanna start on where you left off, Paul, on the outlook. Piecing it all together, it sounds like there's still an expectation right now for some level of revenue growth in 2023. Is there any way to maybe parse out a little bit around what you're seeing in restructuring and the order of magnitude of acceleration? It doesn't feel like we're back to pandemic-era stress yet, but have been kind of building maybe in that direction. Just love to get a little more context around what you're seeing there. Sure. Well, the reality is that we've been living in abnormal times as it relates to distress. Twenty twenty was aberrationally extreme in the level of distress, and we're not seeing anything remotely like 2020 levels. The flip side is 2021 and 2022 were equally aberrational the other way, given, you know, risk-on appetite, near zero interest rates, and abilities for even the most highly leveraged companies to secure financing and to manage their debt stack. I think where we're headed is to a more normal normal, and I think there are two things that I look at which frame that. The first is, you know, default rates the last two years were in the 1.5% rate, which is meaningfully below what the long-term default rate average is, even if you strip out, you know, the extreme peaks of global financial crisis and COVID and the like. Simply getting back to a more normal environment creates significant momentum in the restructuring business. The second is that the quantum of debt outstanding and the liabilities potentially to be managed in some way, shape, or form are meaningfully greater today than they were 5 years ago. Here's the most important point. While companies have done a very good job in moving out their maturities, the reality is that we're sitting here today with less runway for most companies than they've had in more than a decade. By that, I mean, if you just look at how much debt is likely to mature in the next few years, you know, that number is at levels that we haven't seen since 2009, 2010. I think there's an opportunity for just in a more normal operating environment for there to be significantly more restructuring and liability management activity. Then finally, just given how much debt was issued with relatively cov-light covenants, the opportunity to be creative in managing liabilities for companies, I think there are more degrees of freedom now than there were historically. As a result, we see a lot of runway for a long period of time without having to be doom and gloom. Okay, terrific. Thanks, Paul. Just to follow up on strategic advisory, just love to maybe discuss the visibility that you feel like you have heading into this year, just in terms of that outlook. You know, it feels like it's harder to have conviction in the outlook, maybe more than normal just in the current environment. Just trying to kinda think about the framing here. You know, appreciate, you know, announcements have been relatively light over the last few months. That's gonna feed into the first quarter or two of this year. At the same time, it sounds like maybe conditions have improved a bit in recent months, but it's way too early to say it's, you know, sustainable, especially with all the macro uncertainty. Would love to just maybe kinda think through the strategic advisory comments and maybe what could make things turn out better this year and maybe where it could go south as well. Yeah. You know, this is probably a year where there's less visibility on how things will shake out than historically has been the case. I think part of that is, you know, as the marketplace heals, you know, you need certain conditions to present themselves. We're certainly getting there. I view what has transpired in the first five weeks of the year as necessary but not sufficient for a, you know, return to a higher level of deal-making. Therefore, the good news is we're seeing those conditions fall into place, and we're starting to check them off. That gives us, you know, a reasonable degree of confidence that it's just simply a matter of not if, but when, during the year that you start to see that. When you try and figure out when do you get lift off, you know, is it, you know, a week from now, a month from now, three months from now? Just given the extended periods of time for transactions to ultimately close and how much of that hits in 2023, it's just a cloudy crystal ball as it relates to strategic advisory this year. If I step back just a little bit, I can see much more clearly just given the client engagement that we have, the revenue opportunities, the opportunity to bring the entire firm together. We're a far more advanced organization today than we were, you know, two or three years ago. At the right time, that'll all work through. Where I do have clarity is because those headwinds which may lean on strategic advisory in the near term serve to elevate restructuring in the near term. If I think about it as a pair trade, I'm quite confident that we'll be net beneficiaries of this uncertainty. Then as I get a little bit further out, I have greater clarity in where we can take the business next. Got it. Perfect. Just to clarify there, Paul, and then I'll hop back in the queue. When you talk about kind of the engagement with clients and the momentum, 'cause again, we see the deal announcements, but we don't get to see a lot of the behind-the-scenes, the new client wins and sometimes mandates way before announcement. Like, any kinda either qualification or quantification around that type of momentum that you're seeing and maybe how that's progressed over the last couple of years, just, you know, that's kinda behind the scenes that we don't see as well? Thank you. Sure. Well, I'll give you a few highlights. One of which is we continue to build out our geographic presence, and we continue to build out our industry presence. We're now at a point where we have had enough success, and we have a critical mass that we opened an office in Paris. I think that follows what have been, you know, very considerable successes in France and across all of Europe. Our European business continues to build out. It continues to establish its brand and its presence. As we have more industry colleagues who can help, and as we leverage the fact that we have a differentiated culture, we're doing more and more on a cross-border transatlantic way that really wasn't available for the taking a few years ago. The second is the way in which we've integrated our PJT Camberview capabilities into strategic advisory and where we are from shareholder engagement, strategic IR, activist defense, and the like, and how wrapped in that is and the opportunities and the boardrooms that we're present in, as well as the commercial opportunities for the firm. The third is, just as we've continued to build out our holistic capital markets advisory business, the ability to be much more present as it relates to direct lending initiatives, to be working more closely with restructuring to deal with companies that are not yet ripe for traditional restructuring but benefit greatly from the capabilities. I think those are just a handful of examples where we're touching more clients, far more clients, and these are at elevated revenue potentials. The only thing that I cannot control is just how quickly the macro environment sorta shifts into gear, and then it becomes very much a micro story, which is client by client, what's the cadence of their, of their reengagement, and then how quickly do some of these mandates translate into revenues. It's all, it's all being built, and, we're very comfortable with where we are at this point. We love the fact that we have. This diverse but highly integrated group of businesses which continually present more opportunities for us. I guess one last thing I'd address is we've gotten increasingly better at integrating the Park Hill sponsor relationships into our broader sponsor coverage, and that becomes another opportunity where we're more present and better able to commercialize some of these relationships. Okay, great. Leave it there. Thank you very much. We will take our next question from James Yaro with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Good morning, Paul and Helen. Good morning. I just wanted to start with, you know, a little bit more on the M&A backdrop, you know, the differences between the dialogues with sponsors and strategics and how your expectations have changed or what your expectations are for how, you know, the mix of M&A should evolve in 2023 and 2024. Well, look, you know, I was always taught that trees don't grow to the sky. The notion that financial sponsors would just be, you know, all things at all times in M&A dialogues, I just am not sure that that was the right extrapolation from where we've been over the last few years. I think there's no doubt that financial sponsors, as they continue to accumulate assets, as they continue to move into, you know, broader and broader reach of strategies, as they look at, you know, traditional buyouts as well as minority investments, venture and the like, they're gonna become an increasingly important part of the ecosystem. That doesn't mean that it all becomes all about sponsors all the time. I think there's no doubt that, you know, in a risk-on world where capital was incredibly plentiful, where rates were at historic lows and where LPs were very comfortable, you know, pushing a lot more dollars into alternatives, that you saw a meaningful spike up. I think what we're just seeing now is a little bit more of a regression to the mean, where this is an opportunity for corporates to take advantage of the fact that the capital deployment that's coming from sponsors has slowed. It's slowed for a few reasons, one of which is, as the fundraising environment becomes more difficult, sponsors are appropriately more conservative in capital deployment. That's a macro trend. At the micro level, when it's harder to secure committed financing or where the committed financing is available, but far more costly, it just makes it, you know, more difficult to be everywhere in strategic dialogues. I think that there's a recognition in corporate boardrooms that at least in the near term, while the playing field may not have tilted to strategics, it's at least leveled. You know, it's either leveled or tilted a bit their way. I suspect that, you know, you will see with the increasing pickup in activity it to be more corporate-led than sponsor-led. Ultimately, you know, this all gets back into equilibrium and sponsors will be and have been an incredibly important part of the ecosystem, but I'm not sure it's going to be the dominant part of the ecosystem. That's incredibly helpful, Paul. I just wanna touch on one other one, which is, you know, you're obviously very focused on, investing in new talent. Maybe if you could just touch on how the hiring backdrop has evolved versus earlier in the year, whether you're seeing, you know, better opportunities to bring in, you know, top talent. And then just sort of what your hiring aspirations are for 2023 and whether that could impact the comp ratio trajectory at all for the coming year. We've been consistent that the years 2020 and 2021 were difficult recruiting years, but for very different reasons. In 2020, it is hard to recruit when everyone is locked down, and it's a virtual world, and there are bigger issues as you've got a global health crisis and the like. Trying to, you know, find the next platform to be an investment banker is not necessarily highest on the list. I've said consistently that the best way for us to continue to recruit at a very aggressive clip is to return to a more normal cadence of face-to-face engagement and the like. We're there, and that's been incredibly helpful, and you've seen that our hiring has ramped from there. The second issue was in 2021, with everyone so busy and with such activity in, you know, strategic world, it was hard for individuals to leave their clients in a lurch and to make a shift. As a result, we also said that we needed the world to calm down a little bit. I think in 2022 and 2023, where we're in a lower velocity environment, where a number of the larger banks are, you know, creating a less attractive opportunities for their best talent and where we can engage face-to-face, that's the perfect recipe for us to attract talent. We're seeing that in the number of incomings. We're seeing it in the quality of candidates that are, you know, appearing before us, and our conversion rates are higher. I think this is a much better recruiting environment for us, and we're gonna take advantage of all of that. As far as how that, you know, flows through the comp ratio and the like, it's very hard to see until you get further into the year and you understand, you know, what's the actual pace of onboarding as well as, you know, what's the revenue profile for the firm in 2023. Okay. Thank you for the perspective. The headline is. Oh, thank you. Sorry. The headline is, I love this environment. This is like a perfect recruiting environment for us. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Thank you. We will take our next question from Steven Chubak with Wolfe Research. Please go ahead. Good morning. This is Brendan O'Brien filling in for Steven. Good morning. Morning. To start, I wanted to follow up on the comp ratio. You know, based on your comments on the current environment, your expectations for revenues to grow in 2023 is encouraging. However, given we've already seen some pressures on the comp ratio this year despite revenue growth and your headcount is up 9%, was hoping you could speak to your confidence in your ability to hold the line on comp next year. Look, we've always thought that as we get further and further into the build-out, that we'll be able to, you know, demonstrate, you know, meaningful, compensation leverage, but that we're not gonna, you know, resist making investments which are the right thing for the long term if there's a little bit of short-term turbulence. If you give me, you know, a wider berth of 2-3 years, I kinda know the direction of travel. If you ask me in any given year, you know, does it stay flat, does it come down, does it bump up a little bit? There's just so much information we need to have at that moment to make those decisions, which, as I said, are how much talent can we attract, you know, in 2023, and I do not wanna be deterred from that. We've always said that we don't add just to hit a recruiting, you know, target. Therefore, in some years, if we don't see the talent, we're gonna be light on additions. If in other years we have an abundance of opportunity, we'll lean in a little bit more. I think it's too early in this year to know exactly where that's all gonna land. As I said, I think we have a differentiated platform that, you know, enables us to navigate these turbulent times better than most, and therefore, that should be an advantage for us. We'll just sort of play it out. One thing I think everyone appreciates, we have incredible regard for creating shareholder value. We're big owners in this firm, and we're always gonna do the thing that creates the most value over the longer term, even if it creates a bit of noise back and forth. Sitting here today, I have no reason to believe, you know, 2023 is gonna be aberrational one way or the other. Hopefully we'll be able to, you know, continue to show progress on all dimensions. That's great color. Thanks for that. Then I guess for my follow-up, in your remarks you noted that our restructuring prospects have continued to improve, and it seems like you've had greater success than some of your peers in winning these mandates so far. Just wanted to get a sense as to what you feel is driving that relative strength versus peers so far or in this past year. Do you feel like you're better positioned for an environment where mandates are more coming on the debtor side due to the higher level of cov-light loans outstanding? Well, that's a, that's a great question. Look, it's a highly competitive environment, and we compete against, you know, very formidable firms, and there's always a cadence of, you know, mandates that you win and mandates that go elsewhere. Everything is, you know, not always a straight line up and to the right. Having said that, we have had impediments in competing against others that each year those constraints melt away. It really boils down to 2. If we have a smaller advisory footprint, and if we are, you know, competitive in fewer industry verticals, it means that the heads-up or the front-end sales force is less able to present opportunities to our restructuring colleagues than if it was further built out. Every year that we build out and we're in more geographies, have more presence, have more industry and domain expertise, have more corporate relationships, that gets us better aligned with the competitive set, therefore, we're able to leverage that. The second is, as we continue to build out our sponsor capabilities, we're picking up more and more liability management opportunities for sponsors as well. It's just all part and parcel of the methodical build-out of the firm. As the strategic advisory business gets bigger, more formidable, more present, it becomes a greater additive to the restructuring franchise. I think that's the macro trend you're seeing. As far as, you know, in any given quarter, you know, what mandates travel to us or elsewhere, I try not to get too caught up in that because there's always noise in the very short term. You've got to look over the longer term, but there's no doubt we've been pleased with our performance on both a relative and an absolute basis. That's great, Paul. Thanks for taking my questions. Absolutely. Thank you. We will take our next question from James Mitchell with Seaport Global. Paul, you know, a number of your peers have talked about engagement levels still remaining high in the strategic advisory side, just, you know, not being able to pull the trigger given the financing markets. One thing you haven't really talked about is sort of that aspect of strategic advisory. You've talked in the past about, you know, backlogs, engagements, and sort of pre-announcement type thoughts. Can you kind of give us a sense of what you're seeing on the strategic advisory side? Are you seeing that same level of engagement, just not seeing triggers get pulled yet? Yeah, it's a great question. It's complicated just because the way this world has unfolded. I would say the following: if you started last year, strategic engagement and interest was red hot, and as the market cooled, engagement levels did not waver. In some respects, it was the crisis of confidence was on the investor side, not in corporate boardrooms. We saw our engagement levels at record levels for most of the year. I think as you got to, you know, the end of the year, you know, some of these transactions just were not viewed to be actionable in the near term. I think clients, you know, they suspended sort of working on some of these things because while they still had every interest in pursuing them, they were deemed to not be actionable. The mandate count, if you will, that were active sort of receded a bit. What's happened is, you know, in the first five weeks of the year, I think there's a clear recognition that things that were maybe put, you know, on the hold pile are now coming back. We're seeing a lot of that just because it's been so fluid and so volatile, and the sentiment moved sharply negative, you know, from Thanksgiving to the end of the year, and it started to inflect to the positive. I haven't talked about it as much because I don't really wanna make too much of either the downturn in the last six weeks of 2022 or the pickup in the first five weeks of 2023. I think it's still muddied. The reality is, if you step way back, the corporate needs for transition and transformation are as great today as they've ever been. When you think about what really drives M&A activity, you can run all the correlations, you can do all the analysis. The single biggest correlation is equity valuations. Given the start to the year, that is a very healthy sign. I suspect that if we can maintain some of these levels for a bit, you're gonna start to see a lot more of the hold pile come back into the active or red-hot pile. Okay. That's helpful. Maybe for Helen, just to make sure I heard correctly, it seemed like you guys had a few large transactions close in early January, but you I think your pull forward comment was $8 million. Is that correct? That is correct. Yep, that's correct. Okay. Paul, do you have any, you commented on the restructuring business, sort of a second quarter event. You talked about Park Hill being, you know, starting off weak and getting better. How do we think about any visibility on the strategic advisory into the beginning of the year? No, honestly, it's hard. It's really hard to tell. I mean, that's just the one where I have the least confidence, particularly try to talk about how it's gonna be quarter to quarter other than to sort of state the obvious, which is, if you think about last year, last year started down, but respectively down, then inflected further. My gut is that this will look sort of as the mirror image of that, which is soft but building. I think that probably is a good read across to how I would expect our business to be. I just don't have the same precision because the world is more unsettled for M&A than it's been. When we're in a recovery phase, trying to pick the exact recovery when you're in a you know, a stasis, when you're in, like a regular cadence of activity, it's easy to sort of, you know, see it. When you're either seeing it, you know, turn down or turn up, trying to see how that matches to revenue recognition is a little bit more challenging. I'd have to say all else equal, it should be. If you asked me to go to Las Vegas and put a bet, I'd say second half a lot stronger than the first half. Right. Okay. I appreciate the help. Thanks. Okay. We will take our next question from Matt Moon with KBW. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. Absolutely. Good morning. Just one on Park Hill. Just curious on the environment there. Very, very clear on the fourth quarter impacts. You did say 2023 was a record year for the overall Park Hill business. Which given the placement fee performance, I think would suggest a strong level of secondaries activity. You know, with this in mind, I'm just kinda curious on the environment as we start 2023 on this front, kind of the impact specific to a new year on this side of the business as GPs and LPs kinda reset. And then kinda just secondarily on the other side on placement revenues. I did hear your comment on placement revenues to be down $30 million-$40 million. Was that to come in at $30 million-$40 million in the first quarter? First of all, I just get back to placement. We did highlight the fact that corporate placements were down significantly in Q4, so you can't attribute all that decline to Park Hill. When we say Park Hill was up year-over-year, it was up in both secondary and in the primary business. That would be the first thing. Secondly, just looking at Q1, given the timing, what we see coming in in Park Hill, we see it being down significantly year-over-year. Last year was a record Q1 for Park Hill, so that would be down $30 million-$40 million year-over-year. Just for the first quarter with recovery for the rest of the year. Understood. Understood. One of your competitors also cited kind of a strong year in 2022 as it relates to shareholder activism, that persisted from the 2021 levels. Just kind of curious on what you're seeing as with respect to PJT Camberview, what you saw in the year and kind of how we should kind of consider the environment for that business as we enter 2023 as well. Yeah, I think as I was mentioning in my remarks, you know, turbulent environments, you know, play well for shareholder engagement, right? You have companies with dislocated share prices who may look for help on strategic IR to better position, you know, their story with investors to try and figure out how to, you know, get the right investors in. They may be vulnerable to an activist taking a position or creating, you know, a distraction for the company. All of that creates a more productive environment for shareholder engagement. When times are good, it's probably less top of mind than when you're dealing with a dislocated equity market. I think just as our restructuring business benefits from a more challenging environment, I think it also has a read across to our shareholder engagement initiatives. Okay, great. Last one for me. buybacks were relatively light in the quarter. Just given the M&A advisory outlook and kinda some of the uncertainty there is it fair to think that there's a general sense of conservatism as it relates to the buyback, I guess, near term? Just wanted to think about that outlook over the course of the early parts of this year. Yeah. Just probably just the opposite. We said at the beginning of last year that we were gonna deliberately front-end load our share buybacks for the year. We were very clear that we were going to, you know, manage the dilution. We reduced the share count for the year. We increased our, you know, balance sheet strength. Our view was, if we're gonna retire the shares, we'd rather do it, you know, early in the year rather than wait till late in the year. That's exactly what we did. While I don't think we have a committed, you know, cadence to what we're gonna do in 2023, we intend to be, you know, very, very forward-leaning in, you know, buying back stock. All else equal, our bias has been, if we're gonna do it, you know, probably do more in the first half of the year than the second half of the year. Simple as that. Very clear. Thank you, guys. Okay. Thank you. That was our final question. We will now turn the call back to Paul Taubman for his closing remarks. Once again, I wanna thank everyone for joining us on this morning's call. We very much appreciate the dialogue and the interest in our firm. We look forward to speaking with you when we report first quarter results in the spring. Thank you.