Partners Group Holding AG

Welcome, everyone, to our annual results presentation. My name is Dave Layton. I'm the CEO of Partners Group. I'm joined by Joris, our CFO. We'll start by giving a brief presentation. We'll then hold a Q&A on the financials-related questions, and then we'll move on to our Capital Markets Day, and we hope most of you can join us for that. Starting on page two, our platform had a very robust 2025. We generated 1.7 billion Swiss francs of management fees, quite a stable management fee margin at 1.24%. We had 12% growth in management fees on a constant currency basis and we had I think a very diversified group of assets that generated those management fees. We also saw $819 million in performance fees. That's about 32% of revenues and that was driven by strong exit activity and value creation. There's no change in performance fee guidance from what we had talked about on our last call in January. We also generated 1.6 billion Swiss francs in EBITDA. That's 19% growth year over year and quite a stable margin at 63%. You saw a lot of continued discipline on the cost management side of things from our leadership team. We also generated 1.26 billion in profit. That's up 12% year over year. And we proposed a dividend of 46 Swiss francs per share. We've delivered on our 2025 objectives in terms of new investment activity. This has been an environment where you see many firms challenged to put new capital to work. But this is a year where we saw a 26% improvement in new investment activity. 65% of that was from direct investments. We also had an increase of 47% in exit activity and largely achieved what we wanted to achieve when we set out at the start of the year. And if you remember some of the objectives that we talked about in our capital markets today last year from an exit perspective, we largely executed on that. Many of the exits that we had, the vast majority of them were also from pre-2022 vintages. There's a lot of questions about will those pre-2022 vintage companies be able to be exited, and I think we proved in our portfolio that we can drive strong results. And from a fundraising perspective, this was a very strong year. From a fundraising perspective, $26 billion organic fundraise, $30 billion of total new assets, including acquired assets. From an organic perspective, that's an increase of 22% year over year in client demand. And that was led by Bespoke Solutions. Our bespoke solutions, I really do think, differentiate us significantly in this market and have allowed us to continue to drive growth in a differentiated way. You do see that Partners Group has continued to take share, and that taking of share has even accelerated over the last couple of years. We have exceeded our prior peak 2021 fundraising this year, and we're in an industry that continues to operate below peak levels. We also have seen an increase in our investment activity that's significant. The industry has been more flattish. and from a realization perspective, you see significant outperformance in our ability to drive exits in the current market environment. I really do think we are a firm that's built differently and you start to see that differentiation really come through. With regards to those exits, one of the things that's notable here is that we saw a pickup in the value that we were able to exit these companies at versus where they were in the books just six months prior. It's about a 10% improvement in valuation from their marks at six months prior for the 10 largest positions that have most recently been exited. And that's something that I think is notable. And overall, you saw our direct asset realization up about 54% year over year. and essentially all of those exits were pre-2022 vintage companies. Businesses like PCI, businesses like Techim, like Apex Logistics. These are companies where you see meaningful transformation taking place within those platforms from the time that we invested in them. I think really our case studies of partners, groups, value creation efforts at work. Here's a snapshot of the performance fees that we've been able to generate. $819 million in performance fees. Most of that came from our private equity business, where you saw most of the most significant exits take place. But also infrastructure came in for 27% of the mix. Private credit accounted for 13% of our performance fees generated. You also had good diversification across evergreen programs and mandates and traditional programs. So 75% of the performance fees that were generated were generated by our mandates in our traditional programs. One of the things that's notable is that we have one of the most diversified investment programs that's out there. About 350 Live Investment Vehicles Running Right Now. And we had 80 different products that contributed to our performance fee generation in 2025. I think that level of diversification is one of the things that allows us to, I think, navigate the current environment and to continue to generate consistent performance fees is the fact that we don't have all of our eggs in one big fund basket. We have a very diversified set of programs. and that has really helped us. We also see that opportunity to generate performance fees increasing over the last number of years. And many of you who have followed us for a long period of time know that years ago we affected a mixed shift from more indirect investments to more direct investments. And the assets that are in realization right now are the start of a broader trend towards more direct investments that are coming up to harvest and we believe will lead to a meaningful increase in performance fee potential over the coming years. And so we have increased the range of performance fees and performance income that we expect to generate in the coming years. We've increased that from from 20% to 30% where it's been historically to 25% to 40% where we expect it to be in the coming years and believe that we're well on track for that. You see here from a fundraising perspective, we are a highly differentiated firm from a new asset raising perspective. Our mandate business is a gem. and you've seen that business emerge from a much smaller segment years ago to today a $69 billion asset base for us. And when we go and see clients, when we sit down with them, We're not selling them a fund alongside other people. We're solving problems that they have and we're building solutions. They're specifically built for that institution. We're managing oftentimes towards their NAV targets as opposed to putting them in traditional drawdown structures. highly differentiated, and you saw 72% of our assets come into those programs. Much of our evergreen business, or sorry, much of our mandate business is also evergreen in nature. which means that the asset bases there compound as opposed to tail down over time and I think this is a highly attractive mix. You've seen those bespoke solutions increase from 39% of our assets years ago to 67% of our assets today and there's a lot of continued potential for both the mandate segment as well as the evergreen segment to continue to grow. Now there's a couple of topics that are out there weighing on the industry that I want to address as CEO before moving on to the financials. The first is with regards to the private credit sector. There's been a lot of noise around redemption levels within the private credit space. We're a firm that does have a quite significant amount of evergreen assets. But interestingly, we have grown our evergreen business in a quite differentiated way versus the industry. You have seen a big spike in private credit evergreens the last number of years. The vast majority of our evergreen assets are equity in nature. Private credit evergreens is only 10% of our evergreen business. So we have 33 evergreens today. Only three of them are focused on private credit. Out of those, the vast majority of clients in those segments interestingly are institutional in nature. We have not levered those funds the way that some of our peers have been a little bit less aggressive how we've gone after that market. And so we've had five times more out in more inflows than outflows within our private credit evergreen segment of our business. So some of the noise that's weighing on I think the space is is misdirected at Partners Group. The vast majority of assets that we have in that evergreen business are equity in nature, and there is somewhat of a different dynamic taking place within that business. We actually see improving dynamics from a redemption perspective within some of our large evergreen funds, Q3 to Q4, and then we expect further improvement Q4 into Q1. If you look at the software exposure, software has been a topic that's been weighing on the space for some time. Again, most of our clients that we're sitting down with, we're building custom portfolios for them. And one of the things that they always tell us is that they are overexposed to technology themes within the public market segment of their portfolios. And they're looking for private markets to be a diversifier for them. And so when we sit down with our large clients to construct their portfolios, oftentimes they're telling us that they're looking for exposure to the real economy, not for a doubling up of exposures that they're getting in the public markets. And so as we've constructed these portfolios for our clients, we have done so in a way that deliberately underweights Technology Exposure. And so if you look at our software exposure for our private equity business, 3.8% of our private equity NAV is software direct lead assets. Now, we also purchase portfolios in the secondary market and things like that. And so you will get some exposure that's a little bit more typical to the industry as you're buying portfolios of other managers. But still there, it's only about 9.9% of our private equity exposure or partnership investments with the software asset classification. And then within our private credit portfolio, about 3.3% of our private credit portfolio is direct lending. and then you have about 6.6% of that portfolio that's liquid software. And when you translate that into a percentage of our total AUM, only 1.8% of our assets under management are direct lead software investments and again less than 2% of our overall assets under management are credit related software investments. And so even if you expect complete carnage within the software space, You're talking about basis points of return erosion, assuming that that carnage is spread over multiple years in terms of how it would impact our client portfolios. We think that this risk as it relates to Partners Group is wildly overdone and has weighed on the space kind of equally across all the different players. And you haven't seen, I think, sufficient attention on where the exposures actually lie. And at Partners Group, we have been underweight technology as opposed to doubling down on our clients' exposures. And so with that, I'll hand over to Joris, who will talk more about the financials.

Thank you, Dave. It's a pleasure to be here with all of you and let me walk you through the Financial Partners Group's 2025 financial results. I will start with our assets under management. As you have heard, these are diversified across asset classes and regions. In US dollar, our AUM grew 21% year over year. In average AUM in Swiss franc, this translated to a growth of 8%. Total revenues increased 20%. to 2.56 billion Swiss francs. Performance fees contributed meaningfully, increasing 60% year over year and representing 32% of total revenues in line with our guidance. EBITDA followed revenues, increasing 19% at a margin of 62.8%. Our EBITDA margin remains stable and in line with the five-year average of 63%. We propose a 46 Swiss franc dividend per share. This corresponds to a 10% increase in Swiss franc and a 19% increase if you look at it in US dollars. The proposal reiterates the board's confidence in the strength of our business and the solidity of our balance sheet. Now, let's have a look at our revenues in more detail. We have two sources of revenues. We have management fees and performance fees. I will start with management fees. Management fees represent most of our revenues and are recurring in nature. Management fees grew by 12% at constant currency in 2025 and 7% as reported in line with our average AUM growth in Switzerland.

Other operating income positively contributed to management fee growth in 2025.

A strong driver of other operating income was treasury services rendered to our products. Let me talk about our management fee margin on the next slide. Again, in 2025, our management fee margin was stable at 1.24%. This is well within our historical bandwidth of 1.18% and 1.33% since IPO. Slight variances between years may be driven by the timing of when fees are activated in the investment program or when we realize transactional fees, both being an element of our one-timer fees and how our asset classes mix is influencing our recurring management fee. So we expect this stable development to continue also in 2026. On the next slide, I will discuss our performance fee. 2025 saw strong realizations and value creation throughout the year, bringing performance fees to the 32% of revenues. Private equity was the largest contributor to performance fees, with several exits driving the increase of 45% compared to the previous year's period. Infrastructure contributed 219 million Swiss francs, increasing 82% year-on-year. and performance fees from private credit increased by 112%, a result of our consistent approach on diversified portfolio and low default rates. Performance fees from real estate increased 73%, but were the lowest contributor to performance fees as the industry continues to be in a state of transition. Let me turn to the next slide for our outlook on performance fees. From 2023 to 2025, we generated 1.7 billion Swiss francs in performance fees, highly diversified across asset classes and strategy, representing 26% of our overall revenues. While the majority came from private equity with 56%, we have seen an increasing contribution from infrastructure with 31%. From a strategy perspective, our mandates and traditional programs contributed 64%, while our evergreens contributed 36%. Our performance fees are therefore driven by these two factors. Firstly, evergreens where the asset value is linked directly to performance fees. So with the growing asset base and positive performance, we steadily generate higher performance fees. And secondly, the exits from our portfolio. Today we see a dynamic pipeline of mature assets which we plan to exit over the next three years and beyond, both private equity and infrastructure. So based on this bottom-up analysis of this current exit pipeline, we expect performance, fees and income to account for 25-40% of our revenue going forward. As mentioned in our interim results call and our January business update call, we expect to be in the lower part of the range for 2026 due to the already mentioned pull-forward effect from 2025. So basically we confirm the outlook on performance fees that we've given in the January call. Let's move to operating costs on the next slide. Let me give you more details on the development of our total operating costs. 86% of our operating costs are personnel expenses. As you can see, increase in performance fee revenues also triggered an equal increase of variable performance fee from the personnel expenses. This is because we allocate a fixed proportion of up to 40% to our employees. Regular personnel expenses increased 10% and other operating expenses increased 14%. In 2025, we maintained our strong cost discipline, and these increases were both entirely driven by the EMPIRA acquisition. This resulted in 1.61 billion CHF EBITDA for 2025, an increase of 19% over 2024. Now let's move to the next slide. Profitability remains strong with an EBITDA margin of 63%. Over the last years, our EBITDA margin has been stable at around 63%, and we continue to invest into our future growth at an operating margin of around 60% for newly generated management fees and performance fees, assuming also a stable foreign exchange rate. Now speaking about exchange rates, if we go to the next slide. We are a global business reporting in Swiss francs. However, most of our revenue comes from US dollar and Euro denominated funds. So the strengthening of the Swiss franc created the negative translation effect on our EBITDA margin of approximately half a percent point in margin. If we look on the next slide at our financials balance sheet and liquidity. As mentioned before, our EBITDA in 2025 increased by 19%. As mentioned before, our EBITDA in 2025 increased by 19% to 1.6 billion Swiss francs. Deducting depreciation and amortization, financial results and taxes coming in at 18%, well within our guidance of 18 to 19%, net profit was at 1.26 billion Swiss francs, an increase of 12% compared to 2024. This translates into a return on equity of 55%. And at year end, we held 3.7 billion of Swiss francs of available liquidity. Last Friday, we got our second credit rating confirmed. We have now a Moody's rating for our firm with A3 and a Fitch rating with A-, both with a stable outlook. Investment grade ratings we have received from both agencies underline the financial stability of our firm. With two public ratings, we have increased the flexibility in funding our growth. Let's move to the last slide. The Board proposes a dividend of 46 Swiss Francs representing an increase of 10%. It bases the proposal on the solid development of the business and its confidence in the sustainability of the firm's growth. Following this dividend, Partners Group will have generated a dividend growth of 60% per annum since our IPO and will have paid back 5.8 times the price of its IPO share price in the form of dividends. Now, treasury shares are an important instrument we use for our long-term oriented compensation. We have been buying shares for this reason in the past, as you have seen, and will continue to do so going forward. With our stock trading yesterday and a dividend yield of really attractive 5.7%, this allows us to create immediate value. This brings me to the end of our presentation. to hand over to Dave to quickly sum up the main points.

And my understanding is we had a little bit of a blip in the microphone during the first slide. So let me just kind of go back and recap the key message there. And that is that this was a year where you saw significant outperformance from Partners Group versus the industry, whether that's from a fundraising perspective, whether that's from an investing perspective or from a realization perspective. and all of those factors I think came through to translate to a highly differentiated year for the firm with management fees up 12% year-over-year on a constant currency basis, performance fees at 32% of revenue, a meaningful step up from where they were in the past, EBITDA at 19% growth year-over-year and a very solid dividend that continues That long-term trajectory of dividend growth that you have seen from our firm. And so maybe any other topics that were missed on the phone, AP?

No, I think you've summarized it well. I think we can open up for questions. Given we have the CMD afterwards, please focus your question on the financial part. We'll try to answer a lot of questions on business strategy in the CMD. Let's start with Oliver. Oh, maybe Mate. Sorry, the mic is there. You'll be second.

Yes, good morning. Mate Ramesh from UBS. I have two questions please, just on results. The first one would be on the FX hedging and interest rate expenses last year which amounted to 85 million and there was quite a material negative drop from H1 to H2. If you could talk a little bit about what drove that and what we can expect from that line going forward when it comes to FX and then hedges. That's the first one. The second question would be on the performance fee guidance. You reconfirmed the 25-40% contribution to total revenues, but you also adopted or adopting IFRS 18 and you will include investment income to contribute towards that range. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? Does that mean that in a fact you're slightly downgrading the performance fee guidance or we should be thinking of a like for like increase in the expectations? Thank you.

If you take the first one and I'll take a crack in the second one.

Yes. You have rightly seen, I think, also what we communicated. We have slightly changed our approach of hedging with our ethics. So we have had an ethics impact in the second half of the year. And we will also see continuing going forward a little bit more of either hedges or also interest costs by naturally hedging through pulling out financing.

And IFRS 18 has been a topic that's been in the works for years. And so as we had set our ranges and expectations over the coming years, it took IFRS 18 into account. So this is not a new development. This is a development that's been in the works for a number of years.

Okay, so the second question is from Oliver. Thanks, good morning. Thanks for the presentation. Oliver Crens from Goldman Sachs. Two questions. One, a follow-up on the investment income. I guess elevating it to revenue, you're raising the prominence of this line item. Maybe just would be helpful if you could just level set what the best way to think about the parameters of modelling here. So I think you did 75 million of investment income in FY25. on about a 5% net investment rate return on your balance sheet. So what would a normal year look like for Partners Group and how should we be thinking about that, particularly in the context of this 25% to 40% range? And then the second question, yours appreciated comments on the overall management fee margin being stable outlook from here. If I strip out late fees and look at the recurring Management Fee Margin, I think it was about 1.13 for the second half, so any commentary as to how to think about the moving parts of that into 26 would be helpful. Thank you.

Should I take those? I think if we look at the investment, so the fair value changes on the investment income, I think it's a mandatory change, so we need to bring it to the revenue stream, so that's not the choice that we have. I think as you rightly said, I think it's dependent on the returns that we expect on our investments that we do alongside our clients, so you can take a range of typically what you've seen over the last years in the finance income and I think going up a little bit more than what we've seen last year is a fair assumption as we today in that position where we are. Now if we look at the management fee margin and the recurring management fee margin that you're referring to, I think this is also going to be Thank you very much. Depending on how we can really collect the fundraise, that also, of course, has an impact. So it's a product mix. And then in the products, of course, you also see an impact that we might have from how we close the products. For example, if we see Info4 closing in half year one, that also might have an impact. And then, of course, last year, you've seen M&A also positively contributing with Empira, which shows quite a strong headline for me. Thanks a lot.

Hi, it's Arnaud Joubert from BNP. If I can have another crack at the change in guidance. Understood your answer on performance fees. The other impact on guidance, I think, is if you move up finance income to revenues, of course, that enhances EBITDA margin. I think roughly it would have had 110 basis points positive impact on the EBITDA margin had you done it this year. So, looking forward, your guidance of 60%, I think that's just on new business, so It doesn't really impact EBITDA margin as it is. We should effectively expect a step up in EBITDA margin if I understand well. But new business being written at 60% margin.

I think yes, you correctly assume because on the investment income we will not have variable personnel cost allocated to. So that means of course that this is going to directly impact the overall EBITDA. Now on the management fee EBITDA and also our net result we will see no change of course because it's just cost which have today and income which has been below EBIT now income moving above into the revenues and so this is basically what we're going to expect.

Zero impact on the way we run our business, on the way we raise assets and the way we pay our people. It's just accounting.

and how we also, on the right basis, is continuing to be with the 60% operating margin that we aspire for.

My second question is, without going, I mean, it's Capital Markets Day coming up, but could you talk a bit about the outlook on investments, divestments, given the volatility? I appreciate you've got very little exposure to software, so do things remain the same? Do you have a pretty active pipeline?

Yeah, so... This is the new normal, guys. I mean, last year it was tariffs and everybody expected transaction activity to completely fall off of a cliff. And this year, you know, it's the Middle East, the software concern. I think we live in a complex world and we need to, I think, be prepared to navigate that. I think our firm is a firm that is built to solve client problems through any environment and indeed as the world becomes more complex people get out of their standard allocations to traditional funds and they get into more custom solutions that can help steer towards their portfolios so i think the complexity that you see today uh is something that we're very comfortable operating within You saw, even with all the complexity we saw last year, us able to navigate that very, very well, to make new investments, to divest on a very successful basis, and we're off to a good start already this year. So if I look at our divestment activity that we've already publicly announced, for example, at North, coming in quite a bit ahead of where we had expected to be on that particular divestiture, we're very pleased with that outcome. We also announced some further liquidity on Vishal. Pretty meaningful amount of liquidity coming off of that. So in 2026 so far, we've been able to continue, I think, that solid trajectory of transaction activity that we were able to demonstrate last year as well. I think the segment of the markets that we operate within, a little bit less tech exposed, more traditional assets help us to navigate this environment. also the size of companies that we invest in. I think we have a range of options. Out of the dozens of assets that we have that we believe that we're going to move towards exit over the coming years, we only have three to five of them that have IPO as a likely scenario for exit. The vast majority of them are either strategic, financial. We're developing a pipeline of buyers for those that we cultivate over multiple years. And so we're not surprised in the market when we come. But only it's probably three to five assets where we're dependent on, let's call it IPO windows for us to be able to exit those. The vast majority of companies that we're looking to exit We think we'll have a range of options for those businesses. And so just like we've been able to navigate this year we're quite confident that we'll be able to navigate in 2026 as well.

One question from Hubert.

Hi, it's Hubert Lam from Bank of America. I've got three questions. Firstly, can you give us an update on performance of your evergreen funds, particularly the large three legacy, large evergreen funds that you have? Second question is on potential redemptions. I know you highlighted that the risk is within the private wealth channel, within credit, even though it's pretty small. Do you see any spillover to the institutional side, just given that, you know, If they're concerned about private credit, I would assume that institutions are also taking a possible way of redeeming. And lastly, can you give us any breakdown in terms of your Evergreen AUM, how much of it is from the US, how much is it from the rest of the world? And are you seeing any differences in terms of redemptions from different geographies?

Yeah, so I'll take that. Within our evergreen programs, we'll actually talk about that more this afternoon. And so I'll maybe park the performance topic because we go into quite a bit of detail on that on the coming capital markets day session. But it is safe to say that those products are, I think, navigating this environment in a reasonably attractive way. High single-digit returns for the big evergreen funds, and we've been able to hold on to clients there, I think, in a way that's differentiated versus what you see in some segments. We do indeed have an improving redemption dynamic within our equity funds Q3 to Q4 and then again Q4 into Q1 as opposed to a different dynamic that you see in some other segments of the market. There is indeed a difference in the dynamic in Europe versus the US. We have spent a lot of time this past year developing the European business in particular, and it's somewhat of a different structure in some of these markets versus the US market. In the US market, you tend to have products on the shelf. You have products that line up alongside each other and you're trying to compete for the FA's attention and time. And in the European market, oftentimes they have lower ambitions. They don't want to have 200 products on the shelf. They want a house solution. Oftentimes we co-brand that solution with the institution that we're developing that product in partnership with. and it is the house solution that they're taking to their clients with a very different dynamic. So we believe that that has the potential to be stickier because it's not one of 200 products on a shelf and people moving back and forth between topics. And when people make an allocation to equities or to a comprehensive portfolio solution, they're making a conscious choice to make a long-term investment. Sometimes, you know, within private credit, the way that that's sold is somewhat of a cash replacement sale, right? And you don't have that dynamic when someone's allocating to a diversified multi-asset private markets solution. It's a long-term investment, and I think the differentiation and maybe redemption patterns reflects that. Sorry, roughly how much of your evergreens is Europe versus U.S.? So, I can just say for this year, we had more fundraising in Europe than we did in the U.S. I'd have to go back and we'll give you the breakdown in the afternoon, Hubert, on the overall mix. But this year, it was about, I think, 20% more out of Europe than we had in the U.S. in terms of fundraising.

Hi, it's Nicholas Herman from Citi. A couple of questions from my side as well, please. Just on the performance guide, just for the avoidance of doubt, can I just confirm the performance fees are still expected to comprise at least 25% of revenues and therefore performance income will be a couple of percentage points higher, so at least 27-28%. Is that the right understanding of the new guide?

So when we said that 25-40%, it was with The knowledge that that was going to be combined with performance income. So this is not a new development. This is something that has been in the works to be implemented for, I think, is it four years, Joris? Three years, four years, something like that. So this is not a... incremental guidance. It's just the accounting takes that into account. So this is not a change to what we have previously communicated.

There are two questions I have, one on costs and one on the returns on the scaled evergreens. On costs, I think on the management fee side, costs grew by 11% year-on-year, but that included Impera as well. So am I right that the underlying management fee cost growth was low to mid single digit? Presumably that's not sustainable, so how should we be thinking about cost growth on the management fee side from here? and then the final question I had was you previously said that you expect the scale of Evergreen funds to inch towards the target returns so I guess how should we be thinking about the time frame to get there? Given what's been going on is it fair to say that that inching could be even more inching, maybe a slightly slower process in terms of getting to those target returns or how are you thinking about that please? Thank you.

Maybe give you the first answer. As you rightly listened to, André, I think you see the management cost growth was really driven by the acquisition. So overall, otherwise, it would have been stable. We were really implementing a lot of efficiency measures, and we're also continuing to simplify, to increase with automation, but also deploying AI also on the platform in order to manage also our costs. If we look into 2026 based on also at the constant currency level and going forward with the initiatives that we see, we're going to be able to manage the margin as we've shown it in the past. It's a little bit more growth, but on the other side also more automation, more simplification, more AI, which we try to absorb at constant currency levels, the cost growth on management fee, EBITDA.

And when evergreens are operating at a small scale, you can have a variety of factors that influence the return dynamic, right? You can buy assets and discount, right? And that can accelerate unrealized returns and other things. But as those evergreens scale, the thing Thank you very much. and so we do believe that we've been able to demonstrate a return to a more normal type of realization pattern in 2025 and believe that we can continue to drive that in 2026.

Okay, one last question from Daniel. Just one.

Okay, then difficult to decide. This is Daniel Regge from ZKB. Thanks for having me. One question I would ask is can you maybe talk a little bit more about The vintage is coming into realization now and kind of eventual challenges coming from entry multiples you have seen or maybe other kind of impacts coming from contagion effects you know from the industry which might have a little bit more troubles given having higher software exposures than you have. I mean you said Share of Direct is increasing, but how about returns and multiples?

Yeah, so if you look at the exit pipeline that we have coming up, They will be sold at a market price at today's market price. There's no way getting around that dynamic. One of the things about having as high of a percentage in evergreen structures as we have is we have a very robust process to mark those portfolios to market. We're prepared to sell those businesses at the mark that is reflected in the current market environment. And indeed, as we have done that in 2025, you've actually seen a pickup in the transacted value versus the book value. It was about 10, 11% increase in the largest 10 exits that we had more recently versus where they were in the books six months prior. and so that's the dynamic that we're operating within. Again, I just want to reiterate, even if you believe that software, it will be a complete You know, disaster, right? With the level of exposure that we have, we're talking about an impact on client portfolios at basis points in terms of returns. And if I look at the impact that that topic has had on market caps across the sector, including ours, versus the actual impact that it's likely to have on ours, I think it's way overdone phenomenon. for Partners Group in particular. Again, software as a percentage of our total assets, our direct lead assets where we're in control of those businesses, that's where we differentiate, is a very small percentage of the portfolio. We do have another segment of the portfolio that's diversified, our portfolio investments, and there you see a normal reflection, but there's almost not a scenario I can think of where we don't outperform The broader market based on, you know, the exposures that we have. And so even if it does have a couple of basis points impact on returns, it's almost certainly going to outperform the typical experience that investors have within the broader industry and should continue to drive out performance for partners, group clients. And so We feel fine about the software exposure that we have. Indeed, many of those businesses we think are going to be able to benefit from tailwinds. It's an area that we've been focused on for a long period of time. And so we're quite flabbergasted as a leadership team and how strong the market has latched on to that topic. And we believe that we're really well positioned.

Thank you very much, Dave and Joris. We'll close the Q&A session now. The online questions have been covered by the questions discussed here. For online participants, please connect to separate Capital Markets link. So disconnect from here, connect to the separate link. And we now have a 15 minutes break and start off, continue at 9.30 for the Capital Markets day. Thank you very much. Thank you.