Ninety One Group

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the 91 interim results presentation for the half year to 30 September 2025. I will highlight the key numbers before moving to the business review. Kim McFarland, our finance director, will then present the financial review. I will then update you on recent developments and conclude before we take questions. Those of you participating through the webcast can submit questions during the presentations via the chat function at the bottom of your screen. Assets under management rose more than 19% over the past year. Flows turned around strongly. We recorded net inflows of 4.3 billion for this half year, resulting in adjusted earnings per share growing by 15%. This net inflow number consists of 2.4 billion of organic inflows and 1.9 billion that came from the Sunlum UK transaction. The dividend per share increased to 6p per share, and operating margins expanded to 32.1%. Staff shareholding grew to 32.7%. The people of 91 are fully aligned with all our other shareholders. I'm delighted to report that our business is growing again in terms of revenues, earnings and assets under management. This is supported by investment returns and a significant turnaround in net inflows. We are sticking to our core strategy and investing in our existing growth drivers while selectively backing new growth initiatives across our ecosystem. Investment performance remains competitive. The Sunlom relationship is delivering. and 91 is poised for further growth. We always show the long-term track record of 91 to remind everyone that we are about growth over time and not growth all the time. The business has been built over many years in a patient and predominantly organic way. Markets have been supportive of late, but we are clear that sustaining growth over time takes focus, rigorous execution, discipline, and belief. We remain committed to our people-centric, capital light, and technology and AI-enabled business model. Market conditions have improved over the reporting period. The panic that followed Liberation Day is now history, and animal spirits are back, supporting overall equity market levels. More interestingly, we are observing a new openness to diversification of institutional portfolios, which includes interest in emerging markets. This interest seems to be driven by the desire to diversify geographically as well as a recovery in relative returns. Given the high concentration levels in indices, we are also witnessing a renewed interest in active strategies. A little over one year ago, I reported to you in a world in which active, long-only and emerging markets across the capital structure were deeply out of favor. Therefore, 91 was experiencing a third consecutive year of hostile business conditions. I'm delighted to report that these conditions have improved substantially over the past year. Despite the strong performance from emerging markets and the rise in financial asset prices generally, we are some way off historic levels of demand at this stage. As mentioned at the end of the previous reporting period, our industry continues to be extremely competitive. Clients are setting high standards and continue to be price sensitive. fee pressure remains a challenge. It goes without saying that 91 is exposed to market levels and how financial assets are priced. A sharp decline in markets will affect revenue generation and new business volumes. More generally, the internet era is being replaced by the AI era. This touches every industry, including our own. At 91, we are embracing this and look forward to reporting progress in more detail in due course. In summary, conditions have improved while competition remains relentless in this industry. Equity markets have done well over the past three years, with headline indices close to doubling. Over the past six months, our clients continued to benefit from strong performance. Emerging markets in general have outperformed developed markets, and the strength in South Africa further contributed to our assets under management and driving these through the thresholds of 150 billion pounds and 200 billion dollars respectively. In fixed income, we have also seen positive returns, even though developed market bonds have had a tough time. Ironically, this is where most of the inflows in our industry have been over the past few years. Emerging market bonds are doing much better and we expect demand to grow in this space. This is an area in which 91 is one of the market leaders. Since our listing, investors showed little interest in emerging markets. We're now seeing a decline in the active outflows in equities and an improvement in the environment for specifically active equities. For the second half year in a row, we're seeing positive active fixed income inflows. But as you can see, we are still well below the long-term demand levels for emerging markets. Judged by recent client engagements, we expect demand to pick up in due course. This assumes a world in which risk assets remain attractive. The outflows that have been with us from 2022 have started to reverse in the second half of the 2025 financial year. And inflows have now accelerated into the first half of the 2026 financial year. In addition, we have added 1.9 billion of Sunlum UK assets with the completion of the acquisition of Sunlum UK. We also benefited from the strongest year since 2020 in terms of market and portfolio growth. We are mindful of the fact that markets do not usually go up in a straight line and we remain vigilant on the cost front. These slides show organic net flows excluding the Sunlump take-on. We had substantial equity inflows largely in our competitive global equity offerings and positive flow in all asset classes except multi-asset. This related to our own performance and general client demand. We have addressed the situation by bringing in new leadership and renewed focus on the multi-asset part of our business. The majority of our client groups were positive for the half year given the pipeline. And given the pipeline, I'm hopeful that UK will show positive results for the full year and that South Africa will return to positive net flows for the second half as well. Investment performance has been solid over the period and we can compete in the areas where we need to compete for net inflows. As always, a few strategies have done outstandingly well while there are also laggards. Overall, we have a competitive offering which has the potential to generate ongoing net inflows and meet the high standards of our clients. I now hand over to Kim McFarland, our finance director, to take you through the financial results. Thanks, Kim.

Thank you, Hendrik. I'm here to present a set of strong financial results for the period ended 30 September 2025. I would like to highlight that our core operating business has again produced a solid outcome. Management fees and adjusted operating expenses both increased by 3%, resulting in the core business recurring results increasing by 2% on the prior period to £82 million. Management fees were at £290.7 million. This is as a result of the increase in average AUM from £126.7 billion to £139.7 billion. alongside a decline in the average management fee rate to 41.5 bps. More on this later, but worth noting that the increased closing AUM positions 91's revenues well for the next six months. Adjusted operating expenses of £208.7 million includes the interest expense on the lease liabilities for our office premises and the full bonus accruals. it does exclude non-operating costs. The business produced an adjusted operating profit of £98.8 million, up 12% from the prior period. This increase is presumably as a result of higher performance fees of £4 million. Other income is negligible and is mainly a number of fair value adjustments on seed investments. There were FX losses as a result of the stronger GBP to USD in the period. So the adjusted operating profit margin increased from 30.5% to 32.1%. And at the finals for 2025, we reported an adjusted operating profit margin of 31.2%. So let me explain further the decline in the average management fee rate. This is calculated as a monthly average and over the six month period has shown a slow decline. However, there was a market fall at the end of H1 2026, which we have analyzed. During the period, daily average AUM upon which the management fees are generated consistently lagged monthly average AUM upon which the average management fee rate is calculated. Due to the manner in which markets moved markedly during the period, And this effectively overstated the average management fee rate decline by an estimate 0.8 bps. Calculating on a daily averaging basis, the actual daily average rate is closer to 42.3 bps, so closer to a fall in one bp over the six-month period, which is higher than our historic guidance. There were further factors that impacted on the fee rate in the period which were A significant AUM increase in lower than average fee rate clients. The Sunlum UK take-on being an example, although this impact was small. However, the take-on of large mandates at lower than average fee rates has and will have material impact on our management fee rate. An AUM decrease for higher than average fee rate clients. the UK OIC being an example, and this would have had an estimate 0.5 BIP negative impact. And at the same time, there were some downward fee adjustments for existing clients who generally compensated with additional assets. 91's profit before tax, after considering the list of non-operating adjustments, adjusted net interest income, the small share scheme, net expense, corporate-related professional fees and now the amortisation of the intangible asset as a result of the UK Sunlamp transaction increased by 10% to £102.2 million. At the interim, the share scheme is generally a net expense. This is largely reflecting the amortisation impact from prior year credits where staff bonuses were allocated to 91 shares. At the year end, we have a better understanding of the share scheme and the allocation of annual staff bonuses to 91 shares. Remember, we fully expense the bonus payments within adjusted operating expenses, irrespective of how settled. IFRS requires the amortisation of bonus-related share awards over four years, which is then included in the share scheme expense. The effective tax rate for the year was 25% down from 26.3% in the prior period. And this was driven by higher earnings in lower tax jurisdictions. And in the prior period, there were a larger number of non-deductible expenses. So the above factors resulted in a profit after tax of 76.7 million pounds, up 11% from the prior period. and our adjusted EPS shows a 15% increase to 8.4p, more than the increase of adjusted operating profit of 12% due to the lower effective tax rate on the adjusted operating profit and a low number of ordinary shares for the calculation of adjusted EPS. So this analysis summarises the absolute movement in adjusted operating profit from H1 2025 to H1 2026. It clearly shows that management fees, performance fees and other income increased. These increases were partially offset by the increase in employee remuneration, but noting business expenses were actually lower by 2.7 million than the prior period. This is the analysis of the movement in adjusted operating expenses. Adjusted operating expenses increased by 3% to 208.7 million pounds. Employee remuneration represented 64% of the total expense base. In the prior period, it was 62%, an increase by £9.5 million to £134.1 million. This was driven by an increase in fixed remuneration consistent with the increase in headcount and annual inflation increases, as well as an increase in variable remuneration in line with increased adjusted operating profit. Over 50% of employee remuneration remains variable, and the resulting compensation ratio was 43.6%, up from 42.9% in the prior period. Business expenses decreased by 3% to £74.6 million. We've again analysed the cost changes, and at a high level we've broken the movement down as follows. Inflation-linked increases of 1.4 million for those costs that are impacted by inflation. FX-linked impact was negative 2 million pounds. And there's been a pickup in technology spend of 1.7 million pounds, with other costs then decreasing by 2.8 million pounds. Technology now is the largest business expense. Previously, it was third-party administration. Looking ahead, we're expecting business expenses to be impacted by inflation, ongoing technology spend, and the move into the new offices in Cape Town planned for January 2026. Post the Sunlum integration in South Africa, there will be a cost impact which will be predominantly headcount driven. So increases to employee remuneration as well as the resulting general operating costs. This is showing the business expenses and total expenses as a percentage of average AUM in basis points over a five and a half year period. The adjusted operating profit margin over the period is also reflected here. Irrespective of the movement in AUM, business expenses have marginally decreased over the period, even noting the continual investment in our core technology system. Total expenses as a percentage of average AUM have in fact declined, aided by the growth in the denominator. The adjusted operating profit margin has remained in the range of 31% to 35%, reflecting ongoing cost management with the underlying AUM growth. 91's qualifying capital was £316.3 million at the end of September 2025. In line with our dividend policy, the Board has proposed an interim dividend of 6p. This is an increase of 11%. After this dividend payment, there'll be an estimated capital surplus of £155.3 million. This will result in a capital coverage of 245%. During the period, we continued with our buybacks, and this resulted in another return of capital of £20.4 million and a reduction of 14.1 million shares. We did, however, issue 13.7 million of PLC shares for the UK Summerland transaction in the period. In line with our capital light model, since listing over five and a half years ago, we have returned close to 60% of our initial market capitalisation to shareholders. So a few updates regarding the Sunlum transaction. All regulatory approvals have now been secured. The UK transaction completed on the 16th of June 2025 with a result of 1.9 billion of AUM onboarded. and 91 PLC issuing 13.7 million shares. It's planned for the SA transaction to be completed by the end of the financial year, which will result in the expected total onboarded AUM of circa 17 billion pounds and revenue in line with what we previously reported. An additional 112 million shares will be issued when the SA transaction closes. Now reviewing the position for H1 2026, the adjusted EPS and operating margin were accretive. There was a slight dilution on the average fee rate, which I mentioned earlier. And also as previously mentioned, we will be weighting the shares issued to Sunlum for the determination of the adjusted EPS for the interim and then for the final 2026 results. For the interims, this looks as follows. So shares in issue excluding Sunlum UK is 882.7 million. Weighting of shares issued for the Sunderland UK is 13.7 million times by 107, that's a day since the transaction in the period, divided by 183, which are the days in the total period, which gives you 8 million shares. So shares in issue for adjusted EPS calculation is 890.7 million. The actual number of shares in issue at SIP end of September, 30 September 2025, was 896.4 million. The intangible asset arising on the balance sheet for the Sunlum transaction will be amortised over 15 years. To note, this is tax deductible in the UK, but not in South Africa. And so, on that final technical point, I will now hand you back to Hendrik.

Thank you, Kim. At 91, we think long term, and our commitment to our strategic pillars do not preclude us from constant improvement and development of our firm. Over the period, we've continued to invest in talent, we've broadened the top leadership team, and devolved accountability throughout our firm. We ensured that our three core opportunities, international public markets, Southern Africa and private markets are adequately resourced to compete effectively as market-facing units, supported by our three pillars of investments, client group and operations. And so, as we go into the second half of the year, we have formed a dedicated international public markets team which can focus on the commercial opportunity for a recovery in demand for active investment management, especially in international and emerging market strategies. We have a focused and strong Southern African team to take a market-leading business to an entirely new level. Finally, we've reinforced our private markets team with fresh talent and additional senior leadership and asked them to accelerate progress in this growth market. We are backing new growth opportunities out of the recently established 91 Foundry. These include in region presence and partnerships in key emerging markets, allowing us to become domestic competitors in certain regions and deepen our investment insight in these fast evolving markets. For example, we opened two offices in the Middle East in the previous reporting period. We have now put additional resources in and we are building an on-the-ground domestic business in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which includes a strong investment presence. In Asia, we're developing an exciting joint venture with a Singapore-based alternative investment firm with deep experience and relationships in the region and in particularly China. This will strengthen our investment capabilities in the region as well as positioning us to compete more effectively for capital flowing out of the region. We have established a digital finance unit with dedicated leadership to provide clients in certain markets with a far better experience than they traditionally have received from asset management firms. We've committed substantial resources to AI-related innovation, which we will update you on further at the end of the year. I must stress that these developments are fully expensed through the cost line and are not consuming significant additional capital. Over the reporting period, we've made meaningful progress on the technology front, which includes a major systems migration. Now that this has been fully completed, significant resources have been freed up for further enhancements and innovation. These are the additional three areas of growth we're pursuing, which we believe will impact the way we run our business in years to come. What we're really trying to do is from strong foundations, build the active investment manager of the future. To become the active manager of the future, AI is key. At 91, we approach AI on three levels, advocate, equip, and use. So this is how we rate ourselves. We see quite high levels of adoption. We see reasonable levels of experimentation given the widely available AI tools to all our staff members, sort of six out of 10. Then our people have embraced it and we are working hard to get our proprietary data organized for the effective deployment of AI across the firm. The proof of the pudding is in the transformational impact of AI. We have much to do on this front. The business is stronger than it was in the previous reporting period. supported by better business conditions and recovering demand. We plan to improve and modernize our business through disciplined investments in and adjacent to our core activities and markets. Emerging markets and the search for diversification are coming back into favor, which supports us. Active investing has a role to play in this world, particularly within emerging markets and in the global equity opportunity set. The strategic clarity and simplicity of our business model enables us to seize the opportunity with pace and strength. In short, we see renewed opportunity for growth. Thank you very much. We can now move on to Q&A. We will take questions in the room first, and then we'll take questions from webcast viewers. And just to remind those of you participating through the webcast that you can submit questions via the chat function at the bottom of your screen. If asking a question online, please state your name and the company. And if you have a problem, I've got my mobile phone. Just call us and we'll respond accordingly. I think Angeliki, you had the hand up right in the beginning.

Yes, thank you for taking my questions. This is Angeliki Baraktari from JP Morgan. So your flows were much stronger than the previous semester, 2.4 billion. You say in your presentation that you feel that active is back. Can you perhaps give us a little bit more color with regards to where you see that strength coming from I think you had APAC, Middle East, and also equities, but if you can just give us a little bit more color on the pipeline that you're seeing for the next six to 12 months, where you see the strength coming from. And that's my first question. And then maybe on the management fee margin outlook, There's a lot of moving parts there. Relative to my expectations, the management fee margin fell more. I think we still have some dilutive impact to come from Sanlam once the further AUM get on boarded on the platform. So how should we think about the run rate, management fee rate for next year perhaps? Thank you.

I think you've asked the... the real questions that we all need answers for. So I can give you color on what we see rather than a prediction, Angeliki. So firstly, if I can go to the flow or the pipeline we see. Firstly, the result is again emphasizing the strength of our diversity. We source capital from the same kind of client but in different regions around the world. They have slightly different perceptions on risk and on willingness to take risk at a point in time, and that's why we've seen equity up weightings from large clients in Asia. That's really where we've seen it. In the rest of the world, particularly North America where we've delivered some positive, we are seeing a significant search activity or investigating activity about how to diversify their portfolios. That floodgate has not yet opened. We expect that given the sense that markets normalize over time and we've come out of a long period of underperformance for the rest of the world relative to the U.S. and we know these things go into 10, 15 year cycles. is a very good paper on our website about dollar cycles and dollar cycles and international investment seem to be highly correlated. You can go and read that. But what we have seen in the last six months, picking up from the previous six months, not the year ago, but the preceding half year, is an intensity or intensification of client engagement and call it pre-search engagement. What of course can change the flow picture is whether we, in this very competitive world, win in the very final stage. I mean, an example, in the last six months, and it really hurts me to say it, but after eliminating all competitors, we came second for a... sort of close to $5 billion mandate, one client that would have made this figure look a lot better. And so we are driven, and I think you should understand it, 91 deals in the upper end of the institutional market. Small numbers of clients make a big difference. The fee on that depends on whether you're already engaging with that client at scale, and therefore the client gets a better deal, and we price persistency as well. So clients that are persistent, and this is not price cutting, but clients that are persistent and have proven themselves to be persistent over time get a better deal than those who rent your capacity. And so sometimes we would not do a deal, which we could do, and great inflows to make all of you happy because we know this client is a capacity renter. And they'll come for three years and then cause a problem for us when they go out again. Whereas others deserve the respect of a value for money deal plus a scale benefit. So it's very, very difficult to predict where we are. I think we still, with our underlying guidance of market fee pressure, is around, and I still think it's around the one where we are as 50% of our growth typically when we're in growth cycles is up weighting from existing clients. 50% is new. If those existing clients are the big ones, your fee goes lower. if they come from general market mutual fund market etc your fee is a bit better but i think over time 91 is is is is moving towards an increasingly institutional so the breakdown in the in the uh uh addendum to the slide pack you know the the appendix where we show institutional versus advisor actually we are we are trending towards a much more institutional business And even in South Africa where we have a strong advisory business, those advisory firms are getting bigger and bigger and behaving more like institutional multi-managers. So I think we're going through that lowering a fee process, but hiring of what increasing of volume. and therefore increase operating margin, but not necessarily on a fee basis. So I think the 1% we guide to is still the underlying fee compression in our industry. We might, as of late, be hit by something a little more or less, but it depends. And it also depends on the growth of the alternatives business because that is at stall. And where I see the real fee pressure in our industry is actually on the alternatives business. I don't think the 2 and 20 models are going to hold because if clients look at their fee budgets, this is where. So what they're currently doing, just an interesting thing in private equity, private credit, et cetera, they pay the full fee, but then they do a deal on the side to co-invest for nothing. So what is the real effective fee of providing those services and your capabilities to a client for free? So I think about, it would be a really interesting piece of work for you to do when you look at that side. So I think that's where the fee pressure is more than in ours, but we are preparing for a world where we have to be at least one basis point more efficient every year. And I can't tell you whether we're gonna be at 40, right now, Kim, I think you've got the answer. We're running at a slightly higher fee level, maybe you can add here for me, than actually the number shown there.

Yeah, well, I kind of explained that in my sort of daily, and I think I did it on the call this morning actually as well, on the sort of daily, monthly... factor, but I think you're sort of, you're asking the question about looking ahead, and Hendrik's right, we are seeing, you know, pressure on the fees, both, you've got the standard one BIP a year that we advise on, but when you're looking at both new mandates, but actually more so existing client mandates that are coming on board at lower rates, and they're giving us the asset to compensate, so hence we're seeing the pickup in the AUM, but they are often negotiating at lower fee rates. So this is why we're definitely seeing more fee pressure.

But for us, the value lies in embedding those relationships for the long term. And if you can do that, you have a higher quality business. But what we're not doing is price cutting to win volume. We're not going out there saying, hey, we're cheap. But this – and I still believe – this market will settle down when nominal interest rates are on the rise again because actually It's hard for a treasurer or someone to sign a check. When he earns it out of interest, it's easier. So I think there is a link which one day will prove statistically, but we can't give you an exact number now. The next step on the pipeline, we're seeing substantial opportunities, again, scale ones. So they won't be fee level enhancing ones. They'll probably be roughly where we are. for the rest of the year that we should convert. What we don't know is where the unexpected redemptions or changes in strategy can happen with a client. And that's the problem when you deal with these large clients. They get a new CIO, they get staff changes, a new strategy comes in, you being seen as okay but not necessarily central to the strategy. So But I'm fairly comfortable that the visibility of the pipeline is better than it's been in recent reporting periods.

Good morning. Jonas Dolan here from Deutsche Bank. Just one follow-up. What's your name?

Jonas. Sorry, I haven't had the privilege of meeting you, Jonas.

No problem. Yeah, just one follow-up on the fee margin. I was just wondering if that guidance now includes the Sanlam or if that's still on kind of the legacy assets on that one basis point.

Sanlam is lower because it's a $20 billion deal. So it's lower, and it's largely fixed income assets.

Yes, but on a group level, you expect one basis point.

Yeah, on an organic basis.

Yeah.

So there's an organic basis, and then there's the Sunlump transaction. And what I'm saying, the one basis point is the market pressure.

It's not Sunlump.

If we were to ex-Sunlump, or if we were to get a big upweighting from a sovereign wealth fund where we already have a premium deal because they've got billions and billions with us, it's probably going to be below that fee level. If we win 500 million mandate chunks, it'll be at or around or above that fee level. You see, so that's why I'm saying the market, the institutional market pressure is roughly 100 basis points per year. Sorry, one basis point per year, excuse me. One basis point per year, but the For us, Sanom is a separate transaction, and then obviously hugely accretive from a profitability point of view, and it depends then what kind of flow we get.

Great, thank you. And then just on the tax rate as well, I think you mentioned... I don't understand tax. 25%. 25%, correct. Being a reasonable number to go forward. And just wondering how to kind of square that circle. I mean, you have a higher tax rate in South Africa and that amortization part not being tax deductible as well.

But we have tax in many other jurisdictions as well. So it's linking off the two of it. And you're right, when I'm looking at it, I'm looking for the next six months, and the South African impact is effectively going to be in the results for a couple of months next year. I think looking ahead with the non-deductibility of the amortisation piece, it will tick up a bit.

Okay. Thank you. Piers, you'll come back. You were listening. In new uniform.

Yes, indeed. Yeah, it's Piers Brown from Investec now.

Very good.

So very happy about that. I might be greedy and actually go for three questions. Go for it. So the first one, yeah, just back onto the fee rate. Conversation, so I guess we look at this from the perspective of the operating margin. I mean, you've printed 32%, which looks very good for the first half. If I take out the performance fees, which I know is a slightly dubious calculation, but it looks like you're maybe sub 30%. But the question would be just on the fee rate outlook, do you think 30% is still a level you can protect?

I think you have to compensate higher average assets under management. That compensates a bit because remember the markets had a run close to the end. There was liberation day down then up. So your average AUM doesn't reflect your actual AUM. And you've got to look at whether sterling is strong or weak. which then deflates a big cost space. So I'm more comfortable than you, but you are right. The core revenues have not, you know, grown as much as they should have. So we don't run to a target, actually. and therefore it's not something we monitor daily. But I'm not, at this stage, uncomfortable that we're going to come back to you with a 25% operating margin. Put it that way.

I think that's absolutely right, and I think you've also got to recognise the fact that we're taking on the Sunlum assets, as I said, next year, at a low cost.

And I will remind everybody, we've bought... I know we call the $1.9 billion acquired growth, but we've bought back those shares already. So if you think about it, it's just a mandate win. Now, the big one is going to take a bit longer, but if we can do that, if we have the cash flows, then you know what? It's actually akin to an organic transaction.

Okay. The second one is just on the composition of flows and sort of relating this into Sanlam, but I mean, you've had 1.3 billion of Africa outflows offset by very strong inflows in Asia-Pac. Is there anything In the Africa performance, which was maybe impacted by clients reallocating in advance of Sanlam?

No, it's not Sanlam. South Africa is actually a very competitive market. And it's very transparent. When you know exactly what each competitor is doing and your cousin or your kid works at the competitor, you literally know what goes on. And so we had some performance pressure in one or two strategies, which didn't get, you know, the market goes quickly, moves quickly against you. We've had the back end of the so-called two-pot system, which means money was released out of the pension system, where if you're a large provider, you get to suffer. That is now gone. So that structural bit has left. And then, of course, there was the back end of the internationalization of the SA equity or SA investment market because the exchange controls were relaxed for international opportunities opened up for retirement funds. The Minister gave a big, a few years, two years ago, a big, it was a big change in the, what they call Regulation 28. and that means they could invest more so there was a structural flow abroad typically to new competitors rather than to someone already has a high wallet share with a client because it just makes sense for those clients and actually international passive was a big winner there where we don't compete so I think those two forces are over I think on our investment side we We intend to be very competitive and we have recovered quite a lot in terms of competitiveness. So I think on all three factors, we're stronger in the second half than the first, but it is one of those markets where if you have a big share and you're not absolutely on top of it, the competitors come after you and we've got some very good competitors in that market.

Okay, perfect. And just maybe a last one on capital. So 245% capital coverage ratio. I think you've sort of indicated 200 in the past is where you'd like to be. Correct. Doesn't feel like there's an awful lot of need for seed capital with some of the new initiatives. So, you know, the obvious question is would you move, look to move closer to the 200% ratio?

We will continue, as you noted, we've continued with buybacks in the actual period. We will continue to look for opportunities to use the additional seed capital for buybacks when we're comfortable with the price. And obviously in agreement with the board.

If pricing is reasonable, we think reducing the denominator is always better than just paying out the cash. But we must look at where the market goes and who knows, there may be opportunities.

Thanks.

Any other questions? Investing definitely had value for money. You'll get your dividend. And thank you. Varunni, is there online questions?

Yes, there are a few. First one is from Brian Thomas at Laurium Capital. Are you able to comment on the buyback program that was suspended during the half? Are there any metrics that you take into account in determining when you buy back stock that we should be mindful of?

before we answer that there's kim just reminds me there is one thing in the africa side there was a a one single client uh you know sort of and you know many clients pay out and eventually uh either but reallocated away from us as well so you should sort of half the impact of that number and that's why i'm quite confident that it can turn around sorry on the on the buyback yes we carefully We carefully look at value and value in the context of the industry, in the context of what we see ahead, because the one downside with buying back is if you overpay for your own stock, And therefore, it's always a consideration and a discussion with the board. It's not an automatic buyback process. But our industry has been so extremely – I actually had the benefit of – Last week in Paris, when I went to watch the rugby, and I have to remind the French listeners, it was a wonderful moment for South Africa in Paris, but in spite of referee against us, we still, but I actually went to watch the rugby with someone who used to be one of the top financial analysts in the market about 25 years ago, 20 years ago. And he's gone to private equity. He hadn't looked at valuations of asset managers. It's a bit like talking to someone who fell asleep 25 years ago because he was completely boggled by the relative valuation of asset managers against other financial firms, particularly wealth today, because in his time it was exactly the opposite. We were the 20 multiple shops and the others were single-digit. So I think broads, and that reminded me again, that these cash flows, quality cash flows are still, in my opinion, or at least in our opinion, fairly cheap, which is why we have also been acquiring stock slowly and as a management team, because we think the market is not appreciating the quality of the cash flows we generate. And so even though they may not grow as much, organically there there could be and there has been a re-rating of late now if the re-rating is too much we will obviously step away but our industry is still structurally very cheap compared to other cash flows of similar quality uh i mean just close your eyes 30 plus operating margins is That's tech. Okay, what do you pay for tech? Ballantyre last week I looked at 185 PE multiple. So, you know, it's very different. And it's in that context that we think rather than in short one month, one week, one quarter valuation cycles. But there is a proper process which Kim can talk to you about when she reports it again. You want to add something, Kim?

No, that's absolutely fine. Any other questions? Yes. Next question, Marie Winkler from Laurium again. Congratulations on returning to net inflows for the business. Headcount increased by 8%, which seems high. What should we expect going forward?

Well done you, by the way. You're one of those guys stealing business. We will have to come take it back. That is one of the big questions. Can we get to a real efficiency for our business? That's about the digitization and the technology investment. But we should also remember that there was some preparation for, although we're not taking on many people from Sunlum, there's a significant preparation for taking on a book of that size. And then there's also the improvement of our communication with end clients, which we had to invest in to make sure it's there. And again, technology over time will make that a lot easier. It was really important, and we've had challenges with South Africa being on the grey list. We've had real challenges on dealing with our international funds into South Africa, and our service capability had to just be much higher. much sharper, much better equipped to deal with it. And then we've also been building the private markets business, which is actually much more human intensive than certain public markets investment businesses. And that's about the reasons. I don't know, Kim, are there any other ones that you... I think that's right.

I think they were a pick-up in a lot of op staff on the IP platform in South Africa, likewise on the Sunlum. A lot of them are actually long-term contractors at this stage because we see it as a temporary thing. So I think the sort of more permanent headcount growth has been on the private markets and within the actual business. So I think the question is, what are we thinking about it looking forward? I'm not seeing an 8%. I wouldn't be looking at an 8% increase in headcount going forward, I think would be my answer.

And I think with a better use of technology, we could run the same quality service leaner That includes client acquisition, client service, investment processes. But it's very important to do these things very slowly over time. I'm not as bold as the big banks that say that they will run. I mean, two of the big bank CEOs in global bank CEOs confirmed to me that they'll double their business over the next five years with the same staff levels. That has to be seen, whether that's going to realize, but those are ambitious goals. I think we should have similar goals, but it's early stage saying it because the promise and the lure of technology is always there and then the delivery is slightly behind. Those of us who have worked in the markets a long time have realized that, but definitely don't budget for an 8% staff increase, Murray. That's not going to happen.

Next question from Jamie Gomez, Lauriam Capital. Can you please explain the expected total onboarded AUM from Sanlam remaining the same as what it was this time last year, circa 17 billion pounds? Has the book experienced some outflows given the strong market performance over the last 12 months?

The book is roughly the same number. There might be a little benefit ran to sterling exchange. So it might be a little more in sterling. But remember, it's a very fixed income heavy book. There are also, there could be a few wins associated as well, but we first got to deliver them. So we're very comfortable that the numbers will reflect what we told the market at least.

Yeah, correct. Next question from Hubert Lam. Can you give us an update on the alternatives business and new initiatives, including private credit? And he has a second question, which is how should we think about further investments you need to make in AI and tech and what that means for your cost base?

Hubert, nice to get a question from you. I know you have another meeting, so you're not here in person. I would say my simple answer is private markets are hard. And I'm so glad we didn't buy an overpriced boutique to grow, which then doesn't grow, okay, because the top guys dominate. They've got such a stranglehold. And so that's my one point. I think we found niches which we can live in and defend and grow. And what we have actually done is put some of our, to make sure they get the full support of the firm, put some of our top leadership very close to the private markets guys and say support them to get through. And we build it around and particularly around our emerging markets positioning. Now what we know is the emerging markets haven't had huge flows as such. We think there will be appetite and there will be appetite coming. We, in modest net inflow, have been consistently in that space, but we are building through our cost line, and it's fully reflected in our cost line, we are building capability to be fully competitive in our various areas and I think our focus is private credit and private credit and transition credit and that is very clear and we have built a market name and position there. So we would expect accelerating flows to follow, But those businesses will take a while to truly impact on the bigger 91 bottom line. If you model us, model us largely as a long-only business, long-only active business, because that's still very dominant in terms of revenues and flows. but private market is costly to build it's high fee but costly whereas public markets could be done very efficiently with slightly lower fee and that's the sort of trade-off between the businesses but we do see that merger and and so the partnership we announced and the joint venture we announced with with the Singapore-based, which we are about to announce because we'll probably sign in the next few days. And that's why we haven't been long on detail, because, you know, anything still has things have to be until they're fully signed. You don't want to talk too much. But there we have we talking to a business which which does long, short and crossover between public and private. Now, I think these universes are getting closer and one just has to. Make sure you understand what happens the other side of the liquidity fence rather than just staying in the curated. Even if you want to be a very good long-only business, stay in the highly curated screen-based long-only part of life. You've actually got to understand what entrepreneurs are doing and what's happening in the ever-longer pre-IPO pipeline. Because we do know a lot more happens on that side of the fence now from venture right through to growth. And I think that's important for us. But as these things merge, who knows what product constructs will look like? Who knows what client appetite will look like? Clients today are still very organized. boxes between their so-called alternatives units which is now quite frankly mainstream and active long only which is becoming increasingly alternative and passive so they've got their different boxes but as they start looking at the total portfolio approach who knows how they are going to buy and that's what we need to be prepared for

And I think the question on uptick in technology spend or AI spend, which was Hubert's other one, I think Hendrik mentioned the fact that our big technology replatforming exercise did complete earlier this year. So those costs are now, and the ongoing costs of that are actually largely built into our figures. AI has largely been a part of our operating cost line. So again, how you should think about it is really a continuation of what our cost base is right now.

And we absorb in what is available or what can be bought. We don't go to bleeding edge development. The big thing is getting your data organized. And I mean, it's been with that data story has been with me ever since I've been in this firm. Everyone said we had to organize our data better, but you can get so much more value if you are properly digitized. As digital business models are showing, it is not trivial and that easy. But as a mid-sized business, if we can't get it right, nobody can get it right. But we're spending resource and effort on it to make sure we can extract maximum value given the enhancements of the available tools. And they are genuinely moving very fast. And I think five years from now, we will be in an entirely different world. And we need to be ready for it. Any other questions, Varee?

Yes, a couple. We have a couple of questions on buybacks. The first one from James Slabbitt from Standard Bank. There was a slide on the existing capital stack in the business. Would it be aggressive to model for annual buybacks far in excess of earnings remaining after the payout of dividends? I think you've touched on that. So... by modelling for buybacks in excess of earnings? And then whilst we're on buybacks, a question from Keenan Chunu from Investec. Is there a preference between 91 Limited or PLCs when considering buybacks?

So we look at both the PLC and the Limited lines as far as buybacks are concerned. In fact, We look at even PLCs on the JSC line when we look at buybacks. So we look at all three because there sometimes is a variation in price. So we look at all three, effectively three lines, although there's obviously two shares to answer that question. As far as buybacks exceeding earnings, we look at buybacks from a capital position. So it comes back to the question I was asked earlier about peers. You aim for a 200% capital position. We're in excess of that. So I'm rather looking at my capital position, understanding Yes, is there any seed? Is there any regulatory requirements? As you mentioned, there's not an awful lot of that at the moment, but we take that into consideration and at the same time then look at opportunities for buyback based on surplus capital that we're holding on the balance sheet.

Yes, but what we don't do is this is a highly operationally leveraged business. It will only be an extreme that we will leverage the business. You remember, this is what sticks out to asset managers. They go on leverage and then they get to fall in assets under management. They get outflows and the debt stays the same and the equity gets wiped out. So we will be very, very careful to ever go beyond what we can do out of our ongoing earnings or surplus capital. Other industries, people get very brave. I think, yeah, this is probably one of the reasons why we haven't bought the firm from the market yet. Okay, because you don't leverage these businesses.

No. Another question from James Labbert. For clarity on the one basis point fee margin compression, would you apply that to the current fee rate, so the H1 2026 or the FY25, so the year end?

I think we've already done this year. We've already done it. I mean, we doubled it. So we think we could have a, and we're not 100% sure, but we could have a far lower decline in the second half, just given what's happened in flow dynamics, excluding the Sinelam. And it's really a gut feel here. But that 100 basis points feels like the underlying trend in the market, not necessarily ours. And James, I wish we can't even forecast it for our board where we're going to be. You've got a very hard job at doing that. I don't know whether Kim can give you any more wisdom except to say the trend is not up.

Well, I think you're right. I think you're going to look at the most recent fee rate. And if it's in the half year, so you're taking half or 0.5 based on the most recent fee rate. But then you have to take into consideration, as we mentioned, the Sunlum assets coming on board, which will have a further impact. And should we take on any large new mandates in the period, if we see large flows, there's likely to be further fee erosion. Hopefully not, but there's likelihood.

You see, especially when you do the relationship deals with a large insurance company or something like that, and they are genuinely sensitive because it hits their profit, but they can give you assurance about... Commitment, timing, i.e. embedded value or present value of the deal. That's different from when you get in the normal distributed pension market. OCIOs, many of them are multi-managers are different because you're not going to compete on price there at all. So it depends where the flow comes from. What we haven't seen, and I think that's the bit you should understand, we haven't seen the sort of... I've hinted that there are opportunities to grow, but the good times aren't back yet. When you get into the good times and clients want to deploy fast and they just want to get the money out there, then price sensitivity tends to take a backseat. At the moment, they have lots of time to deploy. They're thinking multi-year. They're not chasing markets. I think if you get out severe underperformance or you get you know, and I don't think we're going to see it immediately, but if you get a big correction in the dollar, then that changes life. And that's the positive for us. But, you know, I don't want you to model that.

Last question from Herman Van Veltzer. Do new clients favor fixed fees or do they tend to opt for performance fees?

Herman, nice to hear from you again. Another old campaigner. I wish clients wanted to give more performance fees because the way you could resolve this constant fee bickering is say, come on, pay us afterwards, pay us properly. But interestingly, clients have typically been burnt by performance fees because they end up paying more. And so they're reluctant to do that. And they're also reluctant to go to the, I mean, in mutual funds where it's quite prevalent in South Africa, it's not actually encouraged in the rest of the world. ETFs are very difficult. You can't really do, it's difficult to do. whereas institutional owners don't want to go and pay the big check and ask their board to pay a large check to a manager unless it's in the alternatives bucket. Now, again, if those buckets fade and different kind of people contract with us, We could possibly push more performance fees. We think it's a way to align well, although buy side analysts or sell side analysts would say it's lower quality of earnings, but I think we could make more profit. They're very happy to do that when they buy. you know, Millennium or Citadel. But for some reason, there is a reluctance in our space because that's just what it is. So we would be quite open because we know over time 80% of our offerings beat the benchmark. So it's in our favor, but it's not the reality today. So I wouldn't model for much bigger performance fee component in our business. I'd roughly keep it similar, noting that in period of good performance, we will earn more performance fees. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, and I'll see you after the second half, and I hope the positive hints have realized, but it's up to the market. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, guys.