Portman Ridge Finance Corporation

A copy of the release along with an earnings presentation is available on the company's website at www.portmanridge.com in the investor relations section and should be reviewed in conjunction with the company's Form 10-K filed yesterday with the SEC. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded for replay purposes. Please note that today's conference call may contain forward-looking statements which are not guarantees of future performance or results and involve a number of tweets and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors, including those described in the company's filings with the SEC. Portman Ridge Finance Corporation assumes the obligation to update any such forward-looking statements unless required by law. Speaking on today's call will be Ted Goldthorpe, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director of Portman Ridge Finance Corporation, Brandon Satoran, Chief Financial Officer, and Patrick Schaefer, Chief Investment Officer. With that, I would like to turn the call over to Ted Goldthorpe, Chief Executive Officer of Portman Ridge.

Good morning and welcome to our fourth quarter and full year 2024 earnings call. I'm joined today by our Chief Financial Officer, Brandon Satorin, and our Chief Investment Officer, Patrick Schaefer. Following my opening remarks on the company's performance and activities during the fourth quarter, Patrick will provide commentary on our investment portfolio and our markets, and Brandon will discuss our operating results and financial condition in greater detail. While 2024 had several positive developments for Portman, including the potential for an accretive combination with Logan Ridge, announced just after year-end, the company's financial results were impacted by certain idiosyncratic challenges within our investment portfolio. who will continue to focus on our underperforming credits and remain confident in our ability to derive the best outcome for shareholders, and most importantly, in the credit quality of the portfolio overall. As far as the combination with Logan Ridge is concerned, the next critical step towards completion is the special meeting of shareholders, where investors will be asked to approve the transaction, which will be scheduled once the N14 is declared effective by the SEC. This transformative transaction marks a significant milestone in our long-term growth strategy and underscores our commitment to finding creative ways to continue to grow the company's balance sheet and generate shareholder value. We believe the combination of these two BDCs create a stronger, more competitive combined company with increased scale, significant operational efficiencies, and enhanced trading liquidity. We invite our shareholders to vote for the merger when they receive their proxy card. Both Portman and Logan Board of Directors have unanimously recommended that shareholders vote for the merger. The proposed merger with Logan Ridge is a testament to the strategic actions we have taken to position Portman Ridge for long-term success. In support of this transaction, our external advisor, Sierra Crest, has agreed to waive up to $1.5 million of incentive fees over the next eight quarters following the merger's closing, further aligning interests with our shareholders. During the year, we executed our disciplined capital management strategy for prudent capital and portfolio management initiatives. I'm very pleased with the work we did on the right side of the balance sheet and substantial improvements we made to the company's debt capital structure. This is highlighted by the refinancing of the 2018-2 secured notes and the amendment and extension of our JPMorgan Chase bank credit facility, which we upsized and termed out, which resulted in net spread savings of that we truly benefited fully in fourth quarter of 2024. Complementary to these efforts, we continue to strengthen our portfolio by reducing non-accrual investments from nine as of September 30th, 2024 to six as of December 31st, 2024, improving the overall asset quality. In light of both the benchmark rate environment as well as the general market spread compression, Board of Directors has approved the modification of Portman's dividend policy to introduce regularly quarterly-based distribution and a quarterly supplemental distribution. which will approximate 50% of net investment income in excess of our quarterly base distribution. For the first quarter of 2025, the Board of Directors approved a base distribution of 47 cents per share and a supplemental cash distribution of 7 cents a share. Additionally, during the year, we continue to believe our stock remained undervalued and thus, the company repurchased 202,357 shares of its common stock in the open market under its renewed stock repurchase program for an aggregate cost of approximately $3.8 million, which was accreted to NAV by 7 cents per share, reinforcing our commitment to increasing shareholder value. Looking ahead, we are excited about the opportunities the proposed merger will create. Entering 2025, we anticipate being active in the market and net deployers of capital we anticipate will restore net investment income to more normalized levels. A healthy pipeline, fortified balance sheet, prudent investment strategy, and experienced management team remain confident in our ability to generate strong risk-adjusted returns and drive long-term value for our shareholders. With that, I will turn the call over to Patrick Schaefer, our Chief Investment Officer, for a review of our investment activity. Thanks, Ted.

Turning now to slide five of our presentation and the sensitivity of our earnings to interest rates, as of December 31st, 2024, approximately 90.1% of our debt securities portfolio was floating rate with a spread peg to an interest rate index such as SOFR or prime rate, with substantially all of these being linked to SOFR. As you can see from the chart, SOFR rates have declined in the past two quarters, impacting the current quarter's net investment income. Skipping down to slide 10, Originations for the quarter were higher than last quarter, but were below the current quarter repayment and sales levels, resulting in net repayments and sales of approximately $19.2 million. Of note, approximately $12 million of this was due to the repayment of Critical Nurse on the last day of the year. So it's going to year end. We have successfully deployed the Critical Nurse proceeds through add-on to multiple existing portfolio companies and investment in a new borrower that is expected to close in the near term. Overall, yield on par value of new investments during the quarter was 11.4%, slightly above the yield of the overall portfolio at 11.3% on par value. Our investment portfolio at year-end remained highly diversified. We ended the fourth quarter with a debt investment portfolio, when excluding our investments in COO funds, equities, and joint ventures, spread across 26 different industries, with an average par balance of $2.5 million. Turning to slide 11, in aggregate, we had six investments on non-accrual status at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024, representing 1.7% and 3.4% of the company's investment portfolio at fair value and cost, respectively. This compares to nine investments on non-accrual status as of September 30, 2024, representing 1.6% and 4.5% of the company's investment portfolio at fair value and cost, respectively. In slide 12, excluding our non-accrual investments, we have an aggregate debt investment portfolio of $320.7 million at failed value, which represents a blended price of 90.7% of par value and is 90.2% comprised of first lien loans at par value. Assuming a par recovery, our December 31, 2024 fair values reflect a potential of $16.4 million of incremental NAB value, or a 16.4% increase to NAB. When applying an illustrative 10% default rate and 70% recovery rate, our debt portfolio would generate an incremental $2.36 per share of NAV, or an 11.1% increase as it rotates. Finally, turning to slide 13, to aggregate the three portfolios acquired over the last three years, we have purchased a combined $435 million of investments and have realized approximately 85% of these investments at a combined realized and unrealized mark of 101% of fair value at the time of closing of those respective mergers. As of Q4 2024, we have fully exited the acquired Oak Hill portfolio and are down to a combined $27 million of the acquired HCAP and initial KCAP portfolios. I'll now turn the call over to Brandon to further discuss our financial results for the period.

Thanks, Patrick. Turning to our financial results for the quarter ended December 31st, 2024. For the quarter ended December 31st, 2024, Portman generated $14.4 million of investment income. a 0.8 million decrease as compared to 15.2 million reported for the quarter ended September 30th, 2024. The quarter over quarter decrease was primarily due to lower investment income due to net repayments and sales during the quarter of 19.2 million, as well as decreases in base rates. For the quarter ended December 31st, 2024, total expenses were 8.9 million. a $0.5 million decrease as compared to $9.4 million reported for the quarter ended September 30th, 2024. The quarter over quarter decrease was primarily due to lower average debt outstanding during the quarter, as well as a full quarter's benefit of the 30 basis point reduction and spread on the JPMorgan credit facility, which was effective August 20th, 2024. Accordingly, our net investment income for the fourth quarter of 2024 was $5.5 million or $0.60 per share, a decrease of $0.3 million or $0.03 per share from the prior quarter. Our net asset value as of December 31st, 2024 was $178.5 million, representing a $9.5 million decrease as compared to the prior quarter net asset value of $188 million. On a per share basis, That asset value was $19.41 per share as of December 31, 2024, representing a $0.95 decrease per share as compared to 2036 in the prior quarter. The decline in NAV was driven by a combination of under-earning the distribution in Q4, the wind-down of two of our J&P CLO investments, and mark-to-market declines in a small handful of portfolio companies. As of December 31st, 2024 and September 30th, 2024, our gross leverage ratios were 1.5 times and 1.3 times respectively. For the same periods, our leverage ratio net of cash was 1.4 times and 1.3 times. Specifically, as of December 31st, 2024, we had a total of 267.5 million of borrowings outstanding with a current weighted average contractual interest rate of 6.2%. This compares to the same borrowings outstanding as of the prior quarter, the weighted average contractual interest rate of 6.7%. The company finished the quarter with $40.5 million of available borrowing capacity under the senior secured revolving credit facility. With that, I will turn the call back over to Ted. Thank you, Brandon.

Ahead of questions, I'd like to emphasize how excited we are about the opportunities the proposed merger will create. Additionally, with a robust pipeline, prudent investment strategy, and experienced management team, we believe we are well-positioned to take advantage of the current market environment and will be able to deliver strong returns to our shareholders throughout 2025. Thank you once again to all of our shareholders for your ongoing support. This concludes our prepared remarks, and I'll turn the call over for any questions.

We will now begin the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question during this time, simply press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, press star one again. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. And your first question comes from the line of Chris Nolan with Leidenberg. Chris, please go ahead.

Hi, guys. What was the generator of the realized loss in the quarter, please?

Yeah, it was primarily our former non-accrual investments in Robert Shaw and Pomeroy, as well as the CLOs. Those were the biggest drivers. A company called STG Logistics that was not a non-accrual was also a contributor. However, most of those realized losses were previously reflected in our NAV, about $10 million of the $10.8 million.

And how much did we purchase that NAV in the quarter?

So it was about 40 basis points in the change in NAV per share quarter.

I guess going forward, given the lower base rates and the spread compression, where are you guys thinking in terms of controlling costs? What sort of levers are you thinking about in terms of how to improve returns? And that's it for me. Yes.

Good question. So obviously, you know, a big driver of the Logan Portman merger is cost savings. So obviously, less board fees, less audit fees, less tax, all that kind of stuff. So that's actually a really low-hanging fruit from us. Um, and then number two is obviously as we grow, you're spreading, um, you know, uh, our various back office and financial functions over a larger base, which will lead to lower per share admin costs. So I think, I think with a couple of things we're hoping to do over the next six to nine months, you should see continued, um, uh, cost savings. And the other thing I'd highlight is obviously as part of this Logan Portman merger, we're waiving some incentive fees. So that should obviously help with, uh,

you know, run right on NII. Okay, thank you. And your next question comes from the line of Eric Swick with Lucid Capital Markets.

Eric, please go ahead.

Hi, guys. Good morning. Justin Parkdown for Eric today.

Sounds like the pipeline is healthy. Curious if you could give us any detail on the current mix, new versus add-ons, and if you are seeing any better risk-adjusted return opportunities in any particular industries.

I'll go first, which is, you know, I'd say coming into the year, so post the election, there is a massive wave. Our pipeline increased dramatically for obvious reasons. You know, business-friendly, less concern about antitrust, more feeling that the economy would be on better footing. And then ironically, you know, given what I just said, over the last six weeks, I would say a lot of our deal flow has been put on hold, unsurprisingly. It's very, very hard to buy companies in certain sectors with, you know, with some of the volatility around tariffs. I mean, the good news for us, and I don't want to give you too long of an answer, but the good news for us is many of the sectors that we're focused on just are less directly impacted by this. So, we really have very little in the way of consumer exposure, very little way on the retail exposure. So, we actually feel like we're relatively insulated from some of these potential risks directly. Now, there's obviously indirect impact. But I would say our pipeline has actually picked up this last week and a half. And so, we've gone from, you know, what I would call a mediocre pipeline to a less mediocre pipeline probably over the last 10 days.

Yeah, just to add to that, I'd say as a blanket statement, we would much rather provide incremental opportunities to our existing portfolio companies because they're names that we've been in for a while. We understand the management teams. We understand the financial reporting. There's less surprises. So in general, I think we would always try and skew towards an incremental that you tend to be able to get a little bit stickier opportunities. Pricing there just because there's an ease of use around, you know, a smaller incremental with your existing lenders versus going out and doing a whole new facility. So, again, tend down the margin, get a little better pricing, and feel a lot better about the diligence and sort of the core of the portfolio company you're underwriting. So, again, as I alluded to in a little bit of my comments earlier, At least so far through Q1, most of the investments we've had have been to existing portfolio companies as opposed to new borrowers. Again, just because you tend to be able to feel a lot better about the diligence process and underwriting those names.

Makes sense. Thanks.

And last one for me. Curious how the non-accrual resolutions came to fruition and if you have any line of sight into that.

additional resolution opportunities for the companies that remain on non-accrual today yeah i just did to pick the last one for last one first um again we're kind of like continuously going through you know working closely with those portfolio companies to try and come to resolutions um oftentimes they take sort of twists and turns and and and take a while so just A simple example of that is in the Gitronics Pomeroy non-accruals. Ultimately, there had been a transaction we were working on with the company for probably the better part of a year that finally came to fruition in Q4, where We actually acquired and merged in an additional company to gain scale. And at that time, it made sense to, you know, convert some amount of our debt into reinstated debt that is lowly levered and accruing. And then the residual of our exposure, you know, we took in the form of equity in the pro forma company. So that ultimately just came to fruition in Q4, but that was a year of work behind the scenes to kind of try and have that come to fruition. So on Robert Shaw and STG, both simple examples. Sorry, similar cases, STG, there was a... Sorry, that wasn't a non-recrual. The Robert Shaw was. That one was in a bankruptcy, an immersion bankruptcy in Q4. So, you know, we got some amount of reinstated debt. There was no real NAV impact to that. But it finally kind of, there was a final resolution of that name.

Okay, great. That's all from me today. Thank you.

And your next question comes from the line of Evan Slater with Slater Capital Management. Evan, please go ahead.

Well, guys, they got the name wrong, but that's okay. It's Steve.

I felt like it was pretty good that it was you, Steve. How are you?

Hey, Steve. A couple questions. Can you be a little more elaborative about the dividend policy, how you got there, and how you went – what drove the restructuring of the dividend policy?

Yeah, I'd say, I mean, listen, we've been pretty resistant to make a change in our dividend policy. I would say well over half the BDCs have gone in this direction. And I think there's four or five more that announced this quarter. And so it seems to be where the industry is going. And so this base plus supplemental, with all the volatility and short-term rates and spreads, means that, you know, all of us can pay out our base dividends and then whatever the overage is, is the overage. So, you know, historically, I mean, I've said it publicly, I've been, I historically have not liked special dividends. I would say it's where the industry is going. So in consultation with our board, and when you look across the industry in the comp sheet, I mean, this is kind of becoming the norm across the industry.

Yeah, and to add on to that, we did a pretty extensive sort of benchmarking analysis of where all of the other BDCs who have this kind of policy, where they've set base, how they, to the extent that they guide, how they guide on the supplementals. And so what we endeavored to do was strike a base rate that was on the higher end of the, let's say, the comp set who uses a base plus supplemental. And then generally speaking, not everyone guides to how they think about the supplemental, but those that do guide to somewhere between 50% and 75% of the overage going towards the supplemental rate. So that would be the more elaborate answer of it was a full benchmarking of those that have done it, how they've done it, where those metrics are, and try to ensure, as we have been historically, that, you know, we're on the higher end of sort of our peers in terms of distributions.

Well, how did you arrive at the 47-cent base, given that that's substantially lower than, you know, your quarterly NII for quite a while, you know, going far back.

Yeah, I mean, if you look at all of the BDCs that have a base plus supplemental and you analyze their base, I'll get the numbers a little bit wrong as I'm going off the top of my head, but they're somewhere in like the 8.5%, 9% at the low end to maybe like 10% on the high end. and with the average being a little bit below 9.5%, probably something like 9.3%, 9.4%, give or take. So the number that we arrived to is obviously a whole cent per share, but it works out to about 9.7% as a percentage of NAB, and again, that's on sort of the higher end of the 18, 19 or so BDCs that have this structure. And as I said, on the supplemental, again, what we were able to, again, a lot of folks don't actually give any guidance whatsoever, but those that do specify or give somewhere around 50 to 75 percent of the overage in terms of their supplemental.

Okay. So it was basically a return on NAV as your base?

Correct. Okay.

Let's talk about deployments. You know, the whole industry has had a hard time deploying. You guys seem to – you haven't had a positive deployment in probably almost four quarters. You know, you're never – I don't have to tell you something you don't already know. I mean, it's hard to generate NII if your portfolio shrunk 20% last year. Are you being too tight? And or when, you know, what do you think about net deployments this quarter, recognizing how, you know, how many changes have occurred in the political landscape?

Yeah, it's a fair question. I mean, what I would say is, obviously, we're focused on good deployment versus deployment. And, you know, obviously, spreads have tightened quite dramatically over the last, 12 months. I mean, I think the way we think about it is very simple, which is new capital activity is very muted. If you actually look at where deployment's happening, a lot of it is in refinancings and repricings and not in new deals. And so as I mentioned earlier, Steve, we had a really big pipeline coming into this year. So we're kind of saving some dry powder for some of those deals. And a number of those deals, unsurprisingly to you, have either been put on hold or are moving a little bit slower. So we feel pretty good about our deployment prospects this year. But obviously, this last six weeks has not been great for our deal pipeline.

Again, I just add this small quirk. We are a little bit subject to timing on some of the stuff where Critical Nurse, which was like a $12, $13 million position, we got repaid on the last day of the quarter. So it significantly skews our net deployments. We still would have been slightly under-deployed for the quarter because we have a deal that's been working through the pipeline that is still in the process of closing. But we do occasionally get burned by that from a deploying perspective where a large unexpected thing happens towards the end of the quarter. And candidly, it takes a month, two months for us to be able to find attractive credit quality portfolio companies that also meet a rate of return, you know, necessary to pay out an above market dividend rate, which we've historically been doing and try to endeavor to do. So that's, again, there are some lags around the timing, as I mentioned in my results. We've more than been deployed that $12 million where we sit today. And we'll look to kind of continue. We have a couple more things in the pipeline that hopefully will close in the next two weeks. So some of it is a little bit around timing. But as Ted said, I think we have always tried to be a little bit more prudent on how we deploy capital. And our strategy historically is to... try and focus as much as we can on non-sponsor, founder-backed businesses. Those tend to, you know, have more twists and turns along the way from, you know, term sheet to closing and a little bit more difficult to sort of time, you know, properly as opposed to if we want to just be in, you know, the sponsor deal flow. You know, you can look at a lot of our peers who are in that business and, you know, their returns on assets are probably 9.5% to 10% versus 11.5%. but they have a little bit easier time refilling the funnel because they can just lean into the next L500 deal, which is a little bit more difficult for us to lean into. So, again, long-winded way of saying it's a very valid point, Steve, and we try and do everything we can to minimize that, but there do tend to be some timing impacts here or there.

So what do you view as, you know, with NAV having declined, like Looking at a snapshot at December 31st, what would you have viewed your incremental capacity to be on a net basis? I'm not sure I'm asking the question in the right way.

I know what you're asking. Is your question basically how much dry powder do we have given our leverage facilities? That was the question.

Yeah, I mean, I'll say it in a couple different... I'll give you a couple different... I don't have the exact number off the top of my head, so I can only give you sort of how we think about it. But I would say the obvious thing would be the net deployments of $19 million absolutely can be redeployed. The other thing I would say is... Again, our NAV and the things that move our credit facility and the availability under the credit facility are two different things. As an example, our CILO equity has no impact on our ability to draw under the J.P. Morgan facility because it's all sitting outside of the J.P. Morgan facility. So mark-to-market movements or realized losses in SEAL equities have absolutely zero impact to our J.P. Morgan facility. There's a number of assets that we have that are just generally outside of them. Those don't have any movement. You know, candidly, like the way that... our assets and collateral values in J.P. Morgan is not the same as how we reflect it on our balance sheet. So there's often times where we have something marked at 99 and it might only have 97% credit in the J.P. facility because that's just how they do it. Or we have something marked at 92 and we have a 95% credit for it in J.P. Morgan because that's just how they do it. So they're a little bit, they're not entirely linked in terms of our actual NAV and our borrowing base availability under our facilities.

And do I understand correctly that you unwound, closed out, did something to some of the JMP CLOs?

Yeah, we – in – I think it would have been maybe late October or mid-November – We actually started the process to unwind those vehicles by issuing BWICs. It takes a long time to settle, so we still have the positions on our balance sheet at the end of the year from an SOI perspective, but we have closed out those trades. We have sold and priced the collateral So those should be off our SOI in Q1. And I don't believe they should have any impact to NAV in Q1 in terms of, in terms of, you know, how they get unwound. But yeah, it's just, it tends to take a couple months between when you actually, you know, go and sell the assets and then they all need to get, you know, assigned and cash come in the door and pay down the liabilities and then get the residual. So, you know, Brandon might be able to say whether they actually came in the door as of where we sit today. But it, it, is a little bit of a process. Yeah, Steve.

So if those were outside the credit agreement, does cleaning those up therefore create incremental capacity? Correct.

Yes. You could take those that, let's pick a random number. You could take $5 million and contribute it into the facility, and that would give you probably something in the area of like $8 million or $9 million of investing capacity. Again, so, two, we tend to have some cash on our balance sheet. We could always contribute, you know, some million dollars from our balance sheet into the JP facility, get incremental capacity to invest. So, yes, that would give us incremental investing capacity as we get back the cash.

Okay.

Thanks a lot, guys.

And your next question comes from the line of Paul Johnson with KBW. Paul, please go ahead.

Yeah, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe just, you know, in terms of the watch list, you know, your internal watch list investments this quarter, was there any, I mean, it was pretty flat quarter to quarter, but is there any, you know, internal changes there, any new investments added and the like?

Yes, I'll go first, which is we really haven't had a lot of negative credit surprises over the last 12 months. So the number of the names that we've highlighted this quarter has been challenging, have been challenging for a while, and a lot of them are not inherited positions, but legacy positions that we bought in other vehicles. So I don't think we've seen a lot of negative credit migration. Now, again, with all this stuff going on now, you know, we'll see because of a lot of that's trailing. But generally speaking, our companies are, you know, 80% of our companies are growing. And, you know, we continue to be pretty healthy on a fixed charge coverage ratio.

Yeah, I'd say, again, I'd say there's probably always one or two things that we're watching that aren't, you know, quote unquote, underperforming. You know, the way this is done is based on our rating systems, you know, one through five. So names normally come on at a two, which is like regular way. And if there's things that we're watching, you know, that's a three. And when they start to underperforming, they get moved to a four or a five, which is, you know, we expect a loss. So, yeah, we always have things fluctuate between two and three in terms of, you know, things that are from a financial perspective underperforming, but that's not like, you know, based on a rating system is, hey, they had a down quarter or two. There was some weather. We need to kind of stay a little bit more on top of something. So those names fluctuate a little bit from two to three in a given scenario. time period. As Ted said, over the course of 2024, I'd say it was generally characterized by the stuff that had been struggling has kind of continued to muddle along. And so, again, with the rise of some of this tariff policy. We've been active in doing a deep dive on our portfolio and how they might or might not be impacted. I think in general, the sentiment is it's relatively muted. But having said that, the tariffs change week by week. And sometimes they're inactive, sometimes they're not. And sometimes it changes to goods and services and all that. So it's a really tough you know, tough bullseye to hit in terms of identifying that. So we try and stay on top of it. But again, I would say, you know, we have names that we've kind of continued to be watching.

And as Ted said, I don't know if we have any wild surprises over the course of last year. Thanks for that. And then could you just give us a sense of maybe how much of the portfolio is non-sponsored at this point?

Let us get back to, I know as like a platform, we are probably like close to 50-50 in terms of sponsor, non-sponsor. I would say our BDCs tend to be a little bit more way to sponsor just because I know I gave the previous comments to Steve, but the reality is it's tough to run an entire permanent capital, always need to be invested vehicle based on non-sponsor activity because it is so episodic. So I would say we probably have off the cuff is maybe more 60-40 in terms of our public BDCs because you need to have a little bit more of that flow business to stay invested. But I can follow up if you want a more specific number, Paul, but I'd say our platform as a whole is 50-50 with a little bit more weighting towards sponsor in the BDCs just because of, you know, let's call it working capital management.

Yeah, it would help you and our shareholders to publish every quarter.

We can begin to do that. Yeah, sure. Yeah, thanks.

It would be interesting to kind of see and track that. I mean, when I look at your portfolio, I look kind of at the watch list investments, loans that are marked down. There's a number of investments on there. I mean, how many of those investments, then would you say that you're, I guess, actively involved in the turnaround or the resolution process as a platform, you know, versus, you know, more of like a syndicated type of participation?

Yeah, I, sorry, well, I kind of want to pull up something while you're doing it, but we probably have seven or so names that are like, quote unquote, syndicated, where we have varying levels of potential influence. I'd say for the most part, we have, to the extent that there is something in our portfolio, we are very actively engaged in it. Again, like the list of stuff that we have that is truly like broadly syndicated is pretty small. You know, I think that the Probably the largest one that is below par would be Avanti. land ask, and that is one where we have a decent holding across our platform. But that is a more broadly syndicated loan, and we still have involvement there. But I'd say the vast majority of our portfolio as a whole is either we're one of two, three lenders, we're the same lender, or it is not large enough that you can kind of ignore any of the lenders. So that, again, long-winded way of saying, generally speaking, you know, we're pretty involved in all of our portfolio companies, and that would then translate into the ones that, let's say, would be on your watch list, Paul.

Thank you very much. Yeah, I appreciate that. That's all for me. Thanks. Thank you.

There's no further question at this time. I would like to turn the conference back over to Ted Galtor for closing remarks.

Thank you all for attending our call. And as per always, reach out to us with any questions, which we're happy to discuss. We look forward to speaking to you again in May when we announce our first quarter 2025 results. Thank you very much and have a good weekend.

This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.

Please wait. The conference will begin shortly.