All right. Thank you so much for being here with us. It is my pleasure to introduce to you Jeffrey Eberwein, the CEO of Star Equity Holdings. Take it away. Thank you everyone. Thank you for your time and attention, and for being here. It's nice to be here in sunny, beautiful, California. Star Equity is a unique company. You're probably not going to run across anything like it at this conference or out in the marketplace. We are an investment holding company on Nasdaq. Our ticker symbol is STRR, and we have non-convertible preferred stock that trades that we've been using as an acquisition currency, and that ticker symbol is STRRP, also on Nasdaq. We believe we have a tremendous amount of upside potential from what we've already built. We've built a platform, a multi-industry platform of companies. Thus far, we've merged together three micro caps that had been publicly traded for some time and needed an exit strategy. In August, we signed an agreement to merge with a fourth micro cap, and that should close at the end of this year. We just filed the S-4 for that transaction on Monday. It's taken a while to get to this point, and there's been some messiness in the structure, and multi-industry holding company might not be for everybody. We've had some turnover in our shareholder base, but as we move forward and deliver the results, we think our stock has a tremendous amount of upside potential. Trailing 12 months, we generated $6 million of EBITDA, and without any further acquisitions, we see this going to $40 million of EBITDA by the end of the decade. It'll be here before you know it, and I'll walk through how we're going to get there. In addition, one of our predecessor companies comes with a significant amount of NOLs, over 200 million of NOLs. We have a tax shield that we can use for all the income we generate and for acquisitions that we make. We have a long history of buying back stock. We think our stock is undervalued. Insiders own a significant amount of our stock, 35%. I personally own 30% of the stock and have consistently been in the market buying stock and have never sold a share. We're out in the market looking for acquisitions, other micro caps that could be part of our platform of companies or private companies, we could be a good exit for them. Just a little more detail on our financials. Over the last 12 months, generated about $225 million in revenue, about $6 million of EBITDA. We have had negative earnings, so we are not quite earnings positive. If we deliver on this vision by the end of the decade and have $400 million of revenue, $40 million of EBITDA, that suggests roughly $10 a share in earnings. Our stock price today is around $10, and I think if we execute on this, our stock price has a huge amount of upside potential. Our NOL also has value depending on how much of it we end up using, but it is a significant asset. Here is the detail by division, and I will give a little more detail on the businesses we are in. Our Building Solutions business obviously has some cyclicality to it, and this is a low point in the cycle. We have some growth initiatives that I can talk about, but that business has a lot of upside potential from some of the growth initiatives and from just a return to kind of normal business conditions. Our Business Services business, we have been investing heavily for growth here, making this business, incorporating AI into the service offering, and that is causing us to gain share. We have been rising up through the rankings of our peers. two years ago, this business globally was ranked ninth and has moved up to fifth, and in the most recent rankings that came out, it moved up to three. So we feel like we are on the right track there. We have an Energy Services division that is doing very well right now, and they have done an excellent job of diversifying into geothermal drilling, carbon capture drilling, hydrogen, helium, mining, water wells. Any kind of drilling that is needed, we will use our tools. Just a minute on the corporate costs, and this is where some of the value comes from merging three micro caps together. Do not remember exactly what the corporate cost would have been of those three micro caps standalone, probably in the low to mid teens. The most recent merger that we completed a year ago resulted in $3 million of annual cost reductions, and that is one of the initial benefits of merging micro caps together. So would love to have you in our stock, but would also love you to bring us ideas. Some of the companies here at this conference have a really bright future, and they are going to do well. But ones that stay as a micro cap for a long period of time, I would say, are doing a disservice to their shareholders. A little bit on who we are today and what this amalgamation of three different micro caps looks like. Our Building Solutions division, the theme here is wood-based construction is done in a factory. We are in two geographic locations right now. One is the Northeast, the other one is in the Minneapolis area. Our businesses can prefabricate an entire house in a factory, so just think prefab construction. We can prefabricate walls, we have some lumber yards, we have design teams, we also have some engineered wood products. We think factory-built construction is going to gain share over time. It is already gaining share. It has gone from 3% market share pre-COVID to 7% today. As labor goes up, the other costs go up, we think more and more developers are going to use a factory-built solution. Our Business Services division, this used to be a standalone microcap that was a little bit orphaned. This is in the Business Services space, so it serves Fortune 500 companies. What this business is, it's an outsource solution. You think about a typical Fortune 500 company might have 20,000 employees globally. We will take care of, globally, all of the things that recruitment agencies do for them, all the things that a staffing firm will do for them and say, half their HR department. If they outsource all of that to us, they end up saving a significant amount of money and there's a much better alignment of interest. More and more companies are choosing an outsourced option like Hudson. Hudson's the business I'm talking about that two years ago was ranked ninth, moved up to third, and has moved up to, yeah, moved up to third in the global rankings. A little over a year ago, we bought a private company that's in the Energy Services space, and they rent a mission-critical tool that is used to drill any well, and it's the kind of business we like. Even though these businesses, you might say, don't have a lot in common or there's not an industrial logic of putting these together, they're all orphaned microcaps that were subscale as public companies, and they do have some characteristics in common. Lastly, we have an Investments division, and this is one that also has a significant amount of upside that we think we don't get much credit for. We have real estate assets that can be monetized. That's probably $10 million. We have an investment in a healthcare company. It used to be one of the predecessor companies, and we merged it with another company. That's a transaction that could not have gotten done had it been a standalone microcap company. We still have an investment in that company. It's controlled by a PE firm. When that PE firm sells, that investment will get monetized. We look a little bit like a private equity firm. We are a good home for private companies or microcaps. We have some differences and some benefits versus private equity. We think this model will cause our stock to outperform the Russell and eventually get added to the Russell. One of the thoughts behind it is that if you combine three or four or five microcaps together and you get enough size and scale to get added to the Russell, you benefit from something that none of those microcaps could have done on their own. Just carrying this analogy a little bit further, Star has 12 employees. That looks and feels like a small private equity firm. We take care of all of the public company responsibilities, and we have an internal M&A team, like a small PE fund. What we are not are operators. We entrust that to the local operating teams, and this part on the right looks similar to the holdings of a private equity fund. If the part on the left is the private equity firm, the part on the right is the private equity portfolio. The companies we own have about 1,500 people, and these are the businesses generating the $225 million of revenue that I talked about earlier. Just a few examples here of some things that our M&A team has done. The first part was we merged one of the businesses with a similar business that was owned by a PE fund, and there was a lot of strategic value of putting those businesses together, and the rest of that investment will get monetized at some point. In our Building Solutions business, we have done some bolt-on acquisitions, one in 2023, another one in 2024. Then we bought a private company in 2025. That is the Energy Services division. We have monetized the real estate there, and that business is generating $4 million of EBITDA. If you do the math on the multiple we paid, it is less than 3x EBITDA. It has been a really good acquisition for us. Then the most recent merger was completed last year, and that was a merger between Star and Hudson, and Hudson became a division of Star in that merger. Another thing we do, and this is in our Investments division, that is unique and sets us apart is we are willing to make an investment in another microcap. Our team will identify a microcap that we think is cheap, we think has some strategic value, possibility it could be part of Star. But the shareholders feel strongly that they have given the company enough time and it is time for the company to explore strategic alternatives. What we will do is take a 5%-10% stake in another microcap. We will approach the company. We are private at first. Then we become public, and we are willing to be an activist, we are willing to run a proxy battle, we are willing to go hostile, and you just do not see that much in general, and we do not see anyone else doing this kind of thing in microcap land. The first one we did, oil services company, ended up, after some back and forth, hiring a banker, running a process, selling itself to a strategic. We made a nice return on our investment. Went on to the next one, and we have now done three of these, and as we have done these and gotten a little bit of traction in the marketplace, that is causing frustrated shareholders to bring us ideas. Our best ideas are ones that come from frustrated shareholders. We are not trying to convince the shareholders of anything. We are more just the tip of the spear for what they are doing. The second one was in the aerospace industry, which is an industry we like. There is a lot of consolidation right now. Long-time family-owned company in Buffalo called Servotronics. Mission-critical component that is in every aircraft engine. It was an orphan company, not on anyone's radar screen. They did not talk to investors. They acted like a private company. We took a stake, we approached them, nominated directors two different times. Had enough change on the board that there was enough shareholder representation on the board that the board gave the management time to show what they could do. That time was up, and this was all very friendly. The company ultimately hired an investment bank, ran a process. I do not know that I have ever seen this before. A bidding war erupted for this little mission-critical company, and two big public companies were in a bidding war for it. TransDigm, I imagine a lot of you know TransDigm, been a huge, successful aggregator of aerospace companies, ended up paying $47 a share, and I think the cost basis of our investment was like $11 a share. So it was a four-bagger for us. So great outcome for us, great outcome for shareholders. Little snapshot of our financials. I think the most important takeaway here is that we're a lightly levered company with some hidden assets. We keep some debt down at the operating companies. That's $14 million. We try to keep the cash up at the parent company level, and that's our dry powder. So our net debt at the end of June was $5 million. For a company doing about $5 million of EBITDA on a trailing basis, that's a low amount of leverage. On the right-hand side, if you look at our Investments and our real estate, that totals close to 25, low 20s. So we think our Investments division, it will get converted to cash in the coming years, and this will generate $20 million-$ 30 million of cash, and that's more firepower that we can use to grow revenue, earnings, and EBITDA. Just a few slides on where we're going. We see our revenue from our current businesses growing more than 10% a year. We think that's going to get us to EBITDA of $40 million by 2030. We're actively looking for acquisitions, and as I mentioned, we've signed a deal with a company called Harte Hanks, and that would be the fourth microcap getting added to our structure. We just filed the S-4 on that on Monday, and you can look at the financials there. They project about $150 million in revenue, $7.5 million of EBITDA. We think we can take $10 million out of their cost structure. So once we get that completed, we think it'll add $15 million of EBITDA, and we're doing that deal without issuing one share of stock. What is our playing ground? If we look at publicly traded companies in the U.S., and this is kind of a random cutoff, $30 million of EBITDA, there's 3,000 publicly traded companies in the U.S. that are less than $30 million of EBITDA. I would argue to you, most of those companies shouldn't be public companies. They need to have an exit. So sell themselves, go private, whatever it is. There's a small percentage of them, 5%-10%, that have a business we might be interested in. They could be targets for Star. In addition, there are, as you all know, millions of private companies. A survey showed a surprising number, 45% of family-owned businesses lack a succession plan. So it means they don't have a child, relative, friend, coworker to turn the business over to. We see this all the time. They're in their 40s, 50s, start a business, don't really think about what the exit plan is. They get into their 60s, they're going to have their whole net worth tied up in this business, and it's hard to find a solution. We could be a home for some of those. So we think we have a rich playing ground. We think we're just getting started in what we can do with this business model. What do these businesses have in common? Why should these businesses be together? There's an elegant division of labor between what the Star Equity people do, which is focus on finance, strategy, capital allocation. It frees up the management teams to run their business. That's a very elegant division of labor. At most microcaps, the management teams have to spend a lot of time going to conferences, meeting with investors, raising capital, dealing with the board, getting the audit done, getting the 10-K out. That's a distraction from running the business, and we think we have a structure to solve that. The businesses that we're invested in that we like are all low maintenance CapEx, asset light businesses. We like ones that are in growing industries where there's some organic growth opportunities in a growing industry. If there's fragmented markets where we can do bolt-on transactions, that's a positive. A must is low obsolescence risk. You're not going to see us do tech, healthcare, things where we don't really have an expertise and can't really have certainty on what the future looks like. The businesses we're in, I've talked about. Building Solutions, Business Services, Energy Services. Businesses we could be in. Logistics is one we're going to be in when we close the Harte Hanks acquisition. Anything that's industrials, manufacturing, materials, we think is kind of in line with our skill set. The third micro cap, I forgot to mention this, is ticker JOB. It's a company called GEE Group. It's a staffing company. It was trading less than cash in the bank, not burning cash. Shareholders very frustrated. We approached them, they ignored us. We crossed 5%, went public, and ultimately they've hired an investment bank, who's here by the way, and they're running a process to sell themselves. We have a stake in the company. We've been public with our bid, and we could end up with that one too, or someone else could come in and buy it. I can tell you, shareholders are very happy that we put it in play. The rest of the slides just go into a little more detail on today's businesses, how we're going to get from point A to point B. If you have any questions on that, we can talk about that offline. Our Hudson business is the biggest business, and this is one that is under-earning right now, and earnings are depressed by $3 million-$4 million because of the Investments we make. We see this business going back to $20 million of EBITDA in the coming years, and we've hit that level before. Ultimately, this business could have value to a strategic in the industry or to a PE firm. One of our peers acquired another peer for 11x EBITDA. That was earlier this year. This business, when it's running well, can trade at high multiples in the private marketplace. Happy to take any questions in the time we have left. Our website is starequity.com. We have the presentation on the website and has our contact information on the website. Go ahead. So you said you have folks operating these businesses. How do you incentivize them, and do you own 100% of these companies? Yeah, so the question is, of the operating companies, do we own 100% of them, and how do we incentivize them? The answer is yes, we own 100% of the companies here. The exception to that is Catalyst MedTech. So we merged that with a business that was owned by the PE firm. So we rolled an equity stake and have a board seat, but we're a minority player there. The PE firm is a well-known PE firm. They will monetize it at some point. But all the other businesses, we own 100% of. So, the management teams are incentivized, not surprisingly, for EBITDA. That's target number one. And then target number two is we will have some sort of a growth goal. They have an incentive to grow their business. We monitor any CapEx decision, any investment decision, and then we will also put a plan in place. One of our businesses in particular, and this is all public, the Hudson business. If we do ever do a transaction, like with a strategic or with a PE firm, there's a MIP in place, a management incentive plan, where if it's above a certain level, they will get a carry, and it's exactly what you would see if it was owned by a PE firm. So we wanted them to have the feeling of being PE-owned, and that was one way we were able to recruit them, and we recruited them from the company that's ranked number one, which is exactly what a PE firm would do. Go out and find the young guys at the best company in the sector, recruit them to your company, and replicate that success. Sir. I know you haven't bought them yet, but with Harte Hanks, obviously the problem has been revenues going down, not up. What are your thoughts on whether you can stabilize or grow those revenues, or are you just planning to monetize the revenues as is? Yeah, it's a great question, which is on Harte Hanks. Revenues have declined. I would say some of that is sector related. Out of COVID, anything that was Business Services oriented, outsourcing oriented, had phenomenal growth. So they had decent growth, 2021, 2022, and kind of peaked in 2022 and had declines since then. Some of that has been industry, but I do think some of it's been self-inflicted. I think they've under-invested in some of their businesses, and some of their businesses might have some AI risk. We've been public with this, the business we think has the most long-term upside potential is the fulfillment logistics business. So that's one we think is a keeper. We want to invest and grow that business. The other two businesses, we're going to do what we've done at Hudson, which is get a good management team in place, invest and grow. But if it's got more strategic value to somebody else than it does to us, we're open-minded to a transaction. I would say that's true for anything in our portfolio. But if you look at the most recent quarter, their revenues have stabilized. If you look at their projections that were filed in the S-4, they do show some modest growth going forward. But the real key to that transaction is the reduction in the corporate and unallocated costs. We think that number is $10 million. So for a company, and this acquisition is less than $40 million, that's going to be a significant driver of the value creation going forward. We have a track record of doing that. Great question. Any last quick question? I think we're out of time. Okay. I'm available for one-on-ones. I'm here today and tomorrow. Also feel free to reach out and contact me, and would love to have you as a shareholder, but also love for you to bring us ideas for us to look at for acquisition targets. Thank you.