Platinum Investment Management Limited (PTM) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to today's Annual General Meeting. My name is Guy Strapp, and I am delighted to address you as a Director and the Chair of Platinum Asset Management Limited. I would like to begin today by acknowledging that I'm speaking to you today from the lands of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. I also acknowledge the traditional custodians of the various lands on which each of you joined the meeting from today. I hereby pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging. It's now 10 a.m., Australian Eastern Daylight time, and the appointed time for holding the meeting, and I'm advised that the necessary quorum is present. The notice of meeting dated 11 October 2024 was published on the ASX market announcements' platform and sent to shareholders. So unless there are any objections, I will take the notice as read. There are no objections, so I declare the meeting open. This year, we are again holding our AGM as a hybrid meeting. We hope that in doing so, we have been able to encourage broader participation amongst our shareholders. Please now allow me to introduce your Board of Directors. Firstly, Jeff Peters, our new Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director; and now my fellow nonexecutive directors Anne Loveridge AM, Chair of the Company's Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee; Brigitte Smith, Chair of the company's Nomination and Remuneration Committee; Philip Moffitt and Rachel Grimes AM. We also have present Rita Da Silva, the Ernst & Young partner in charge of auditing and the consolidated group's financial statements. Before I get started, I will hand over to our Company Secretary, Joanne Jefferies, to take you through some of the formalities.

Good morning, everyone. As Guy's mentioned, I'm about to take you through some of the procedural matters for today's meeting. However, before I do this, can you please ensure that your phones are all turned to silent. Thank you. Now in relation to voting, for those shareholders present in the room, you should have received a voting card to enable you to cast your votes. If you have not received your voting card, please, could you see one of the Computershare representatives at the registration desk. For those shareholders joining us online, in the top right corner, you should see 4 icons. You can toggle between these at any time during the meeting. When you select the vote icon at the top of your screen, you will see each of the resolutions that you can cast a vote on. To cast your vote, simply select one of the options. There is no need to hit a submit or enter button as the vote is automatically recorded and you will see a green tick beside each resolution you have voted on. You have the ability to change your vote right up until the time the Chair declares the voting closed. In terms of voting today, all resolutions are being voted on by poll. Voting is open, and shareholders in the room and online can now cast their votes on the resolutions included in the notice of meeting and can do so until the poll is closed. Voting will remain open during the meeting, and the chair will give you a warning when voting is about to close. In terms of asking questions, all shareholders present in the room, online or by phone will have the opportunity to ask questions in respect of the items of business for this meeting. For those shareholders in the room, if you would like to ask a question when we move to question time in relation to the relevant item of business, please raise your hand, and a Platinum representative will bring a microphone over to you. [Operator Instructions] Lastly, this meeting is being recorded, and the recording will be made available on Platinum's website in the following few days. I'll now hand back to Guy to deliver his chair's address. Thank you.

Thanks, Joanne. I'll start by sharing my reflections on the past year. Global equity markets, once again, performed strongly over the last financial year with the MSCI All Cap World Index delivering 19% for the year to 30 June 2024, driven by the magnificent 7 stocks, a group which has distorted relative outcomes in recent years. Platinum's funds, for the most part, delivered reasonable absolute investment performance during this period. However, most of our funds and portfolios lagged the broader market, largely due to the index composition being heavily dominated by mega cap U.S. tech stocks and further exacerbated by a weak Chinese market. The strongest performing fund during the period was the Platinum technology fund, returning 26% for the year ended 30 June 2024. As I previously mentioned, Platinum's investment philosophy and approach delivers a highly differentiated investment portfolio vis à vis the index and Platinum's peers, providing a source of return, which is much less correlated to other equity investments, which investors may hold in their investment portfolios. That said, for a large number of investors, relative investment performance also matters. This, combined with the trend towards lower cost passive ETFs, meant that net outflows continued during the period, putting downward pressure on funds under management. At 30 June 2024, FUM stood at $13 billion. The change in FUM was predominantly driven by net fund outflows of $4.9 billion, which included some large individual outflows from institutions, including $1.2 billion from 1 institutional client. Total fee revenue decreased by 14% to $174 million and no performance fees were earned. Adjusted expenses, excluding noncash accelerated share-based payments expense of $11.4 million and turnaround program costs of $9 million decreased by $9.2 million. The decrease in adjusted expenses was -- which predominantly occurred in the second half of 2024, largely reflects the initial progress on Platinum's target of annualized run rate savings of at least $25 million. This was previously announced to the market. Adjusted earnings before tax -- before interest and tax, which is fee revenue, less adjusted expenses and excluding interest income, other income and the turnaround program implementation costs was down 19% at $82.9 million. With respect to dividends, the Board determined to pay a 2024 final fully franked dividend of $0.04 per share, taking total dividends for the 2024 financial year to $0.10 per share and delivering a yield of 9.6% based on the closing share price as at 30 June 2024. Following our decision last year to separate the CEO and Chief Investment Officer roles, we conducted an extensive global search in late 2023, appointing Jeff Peters as Platinum's new CEO and Managing Director in January of this year. With over 30 years of industry experience, Jeff brings extensive asset management experience, strategic and management consulting skills and a new energy and focus to the business. Jeff has been given an ambitious mandate to renew the organization, embarking on a comprehensive turnaround strategy since the start of this year. The stabilized and reset phases of this strategy are focused on cost control, resetting remuneration, client retention, product rationalization and a deep examination of the investment platform in order to create the conditions necessary to enable the delivery of sustainable financial results in coming periods. With these initial phases of the turnaround largely successfully completed, the company has started to transition to the next phase of the turnaround. Jeff will provide further details on the progress being made after my address. However, as you are no doubt aware, successful turnarounds do not happen overnight. And whilst we are starting to see green shoots, we are only 9 months into what is, essentially, a 3-year plan. Jeff also, has so far, delivered exceptionally well on these initial phases of the turnaround. I'm confident that he will continue to deliver on the next phase of the plan. In mid-September, Platinum announced the receipt of an unsolicited confidential, nonbinding indicative proposal from Regal Partners Limited, under which PTM shareholders would receive 0.74 RPL shares for each PTM share, an implied value of $1.10 based on RPL's closing share price prior to the announcement. The Board rejected Regal's proposal on 26 September 2024, and subsequently announced that we had agreed to initial period of nonexclusive mutual due diligence with Regal to provide an opportunity for improved proposal so that the Regal Board -- so that the Board could assess the absolute and relative value of Regal and the costs and benefits of any combination. This initial period of mutual due diligence is still ongoing, and the board will continue to keep the market updated in accordance with its continuous disclosure obligations. We are also engaged with certain parties who have approached Platinum to explore various forms of transactions, which we will assess as it relates to both commercial logic and the value enhancement opportunity for our shareholders, both on their individual merits, but also relative to our ongoing stand-alone restructure and turnaround strategy. If these discussions progress, we will update investors in due course. Before I move on to remuneration matters, I wanted to touch on the Board's capital management policy. The Board aims to maintain a solid balance sheet, strong dividend payout ratio, sufficient cash to meet new seed for new strategies and to grow FUM and sufficient capital to be able to move on attractive inorganic opportunities as they arise. As part of this, the board has been considering paying shareholders a fully franked special dividend. No decision on this has been made at this stage. As I have already alluded to, Platinum's currently undergoing a significant period of change as we implement a turnaround strategy that aims to reset the business and return it to growth and resetting remuneration has been a key pillar of this strategy. Following the 2023 AGM, where platinum received a first strike against the adoption of the 2023 remuneration report, Board sought further feedback from shareholders and proxy advisers. The changes instituted to our remuneration framework this year have been informed by the feedback that we received from these engagements. As a result, we implemented more financially orientated and quantifiable KPIs for our former executive KMP, resulting in a substantial reduction of their total variable remuneration awards by 59% in aggregate on the previous financial year. We simplified our remuneration framework by ceasing use of a range of remuneration plans, including the long-term incentive plan. We did not make any new long-term incentive awards related to the performance period. We introduced the concept of a single variable remuneration pool determined as a proportion of fee revenue and profit of the '24-'25 financial year. And we align Platinum remuneration cycle to its financial year. The combination of better defined KPIs, lower overall STI outcomes from our former executive KMP and no allocation of LTI demonstrates that the Board has taken clear steps towards aligning remuneration outcomes with the financial performance of the company. Our newly appointed CEO's KPIs for the period to 30 June 2024 were explicitly constructed to align with the turnaround plan. They included measures on cost reduction, reorientation of remuneration and client retention, rationalization of products and enhancement of the investment process. The Board is satisfied the initial goals linked to the turnaround plan have been delivered exceptionally well by Mr. Peters. And consequently, he was assessed at 95% achievement on his STI scorecard for the first 6 months in his role. We acknowledge the concerns of shareholders and we are actively trying to address these through the turnaround. We have taken clear steps and are making progress, but it will take time. I would, therefore, strongly urge shareholders to support the remuneration report as a signal of the significant progress we have made. Lastly, with the appointment of Jeff Peters as our new fully dedicated CEO, we took the opportunity to streamline the Board and enhance its independence in line with corporate governance best practice, having previously received criticism for our higher-than-usual number of executive directors. As such, in February 2024, Andrew Clifford, Liz Norman and Andrew Stannard step down from the Board. As mentioned in the Notice of Meeting, Brigitte Smith having served 2 3-year successive terms will retire from the Board at the close of this meeting. I would like to thank Brigitte on behalf of the Board for her valuable contribution over the past 6 years. In accordance with ordinary Board renewal practices, Rachel Grimes has been appointed to the Board and will be standing for election. We also have James Simpson standing for election to the Board at today's meeting. James is a self-nominated candidate, and the Board is endorsing his election. To conclude, despite the challenges facing the firm, Platinum's brand as an Australian retail provider of active global equity management remains strong. We have a solid dividend payout record driven by profit and franking, and our balance sheet continues to be robust, providing a measure of future flexibility for organic and inorganic growth opportunities. I thank you for your attention and now invite Jeff Peters to provide an update on Platinum's general business.

Thanks, Guy. Good morning, and let me add my welcome to this AGM. I've been here about 10 months at this point. And I thought I would focus my remarks today on the turnaround program we've embarked on here at Platinum. It's early in the process, as Guy said, but we're beginning to see some positive signs coming from our initial efforts. When I got here, I thought -- I got a lot of questions about, "Why have you joined Platinum," often asked that. The answer is that Platinum has enormous potential from our brand to our investment heritage, strong client service, strong operations, excellent financial position. Platinum is a great platform for growth, and it's a lot to build on. That said, the firm does face significant challenges. When I arrived in January of this year, we faced difficult investment performance, both absolute and relative. We faced product positioning issues. We faced industry pressures that affect everyone, including the move to passive and other assets. All of that led to pressure on our financials and difficult share price performance, particularly coming into the new year. So as a result, when I joined, we articulated a turnaround program, which kicked off in earnest in late February and March. I've covered this -- much of this in the past, but I want to reiterate some highlights on it. It consists of 3 phases: an immediate phase to stabilize the business, including reducing costs and revamping remuneration; a second set of reset actions around the key parts of the business; and then a growth phase, which is now underway. Regarding the first phase, the expense reductions are on track. And Guy's mentioned those. The remuneration has also been addressed, and Guy's gone through that as well. So let me spend the majority of my time focusing on the other aspects of the turnaround. The first part of it was a focus on investments. It's important to understand Platinum's philosophy and how we run money. As you heard earlier, we're a benchmark agnostic or unaware firm in terms of our philosophy. We pick stocks without regard to any benchmark, and we always have done this. So our first step in looking at the investment area was to examine how our stock picks for the international strategy are working. To do that, the best proxy for our process is to look at performance against an equal-weighted global index. Said simply, an equal-weighted global index represents the return from investing equal amounts of capital in each stock in the index. This is very different to a market-weight index approach where one would buy more of a particular stock if it made up more of the index. You can see the different percentages of each country under the 2 different approaches. The U.S. dominates the market-weighted global index at historical highs due to the so-called Magnificent 7 Stocks. And the rest of the world makes up much less of that market-weight index and more of the equal-weight index. What we've learned in doing this analysis against the equal-weight index is that we do add value and have historical stock-picking skill and current stock-picking skill. We've outperformed over time, 3% to 4% per annum on average over a very long period, and that's positive news. But our performance versus the market-weighted global index has lagged, and we understand that. A lot of it is due to our investment approach being out of favor, but we also wanted to look deeper and see if there are other opportunities for us to do things better at Platinum. We have taken -- 2 areas to look at there, organization and the way we do investing, and we've taken actions in both areas. The first thing we looked at was our investment team's organization. Our prior team structure had the same people, doing both research and managing money. This led to issues in terms of how people spent their time and a lack of role clarity. Portfolios were also managed as separate parts or sleeves, which added to complexity. To address this, we reorganized the team to separate research and portfolio management roles, and we eliminated these leads. We emerged from this process with a less complex and more clearly defined investment team structure that's now been in place for 6 months and is well embedded. We also took a look at all of our investment processes across all of our funds, ranging from our philosophy, what we believe in terms of how we run the money, all the way through to building portfolios, managing risk, and governance. Based on this work on the right-hand side of the page, you can see several enhancements that we are underway -- that are underway, we're taking now. We've improved our research process, increased tools in portfolio construction and risk management, we've got new disciplines in shorting and cash management, and we've added a governance body on top of the investment team to provide overall support and governance. It's early days in this process; they take time to roll out, but I do believe these enhancements will bear fruit. In fact, I'm pleased to say that we're beginning to see some early signs of improvement. Year-to-date, as you can see, our absolute investment returns are up broadly versus the end of 2023, including in both the international and the Asia funds. Our healthcare and brands funds are performing better as well, and both Asia and healthcare have outperformed relative to their nominated indices over the past 12 months. There is still work to do, but these green shoots are nice to see. The second thing we did is we looked at our product line fundamentally across all of our products and vehicles. And based on this work, we closed several vehicles to remove complexity and cost. Our 2 listed investment companies, I want to call out in particular, Platinum Asia Investment Limited and Platinum Capital Limited, are also undergoing a process to merge with our active ETFs, PICs and PACs. PICs and PACs being open-ended trade close to NAV, and that should benefit our PAI and PMC shareholders in this process. The third element of our reset plan was client engagement and retention. We wanted to engage more actively with our clients to understand their needs better and to gain their feedback. We targeted in-person meetings with over 80% of our advised funds under management and have, to date, met or spoken with 83% of this group. The key takeaways from that are as follows: our brand is still strong, and it's still well regarded. Advisers and researchers with major holdings in our funds understand who we are. They understand our unique philosophy and our role in their portfolios and have urged us not to change it. But they recognize our relative performance is not where they wanted to be or where we want it to be and are demanding better from us, as are we. We continue to engage with our clients and are moving on to a second round of this engagement, focusing on what we're doing to improve, and we're beginning to see the first signs of a slowdown in outflows. Our run rate daily net outflows are down 13% since the first of February this year. Finally, the fourth element of the reset phase has involved upgrading our operational capability by outsourcing our investment support to the middle office, transitioning our back office, which is custody and fund administration, to Northern Trust. We've also replaced some of our legacy IT systems. We're also on track to outsource our unlisted unit registry function by 2026, and the sum total of these actions should allow us to be more scalable and reduce risk, and capture some economies. So our reset phase is on track and beginning to show positive signs. With that, it's now important to develop our next phase, the strategy to grow Platinum again. In terms of growth, as Guy mentioned, I've worked in the industry for about 30 years. And I believe that all successful and growing asset managers share some fundamental elements: strong performance, good client service, top-notch talent, stable financial platform, etc. This is the same whether a firm is here in Australia, in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Platinum has many of these strengths: a strong brand, distinctive investment heritage, very well-regarded client service, and an institutional-grade operating platform. These are the basis on which we're going to grow. But to do that, we need to leverage all of our assets and also diversify our investment product range to better meet our clients' needs. First and foremost, and it bears repeating, we must improve our core business and stabilize our FUM. This is the top priority, and it will remain so. But to buttress that, we will be undertaking 2 efforts to diversify our business, adding new products, which we manage ourselves, which will serve our clients more broadly, and also exploring third-party opportunities to add new products in areas that we don't currently manage. Let me start with the internal options and provide an example. One such example is our Arrow strategy, which is a 4-year-old strategy with $15 million of internally seeded money in it. It manages quantitatively this core and aims to provide a strong absolute return. And you can see from this chart how it's done, 18% per year since inception, outperforming both cash and the equity index, and it's done it with reasonable risk measures. I'm not going to go through all the technical measures on the right, but a key one to focus on is the thing you see called Sharpe ratio, which equals excess return per unit of risk. Any number of 1 over context is considered excellent, and Arrow is at 1.24 since inception. We've also looked at diversifying our product line into asset classes that we aren't active in but which could be of interest to our clients. In general, new asset classes can be built, they can be bought, or they can be accessed from third parties. Building is difficult beyond global equities for Platinum due to our very specific focus, and I've talked about our opportunities to build by Arrow. Buying is addressed by inorganic strategy. It's opportunistic, and we've already spoken of that in Guy's remarks. And while accessing third parties sacrifices some profit for sure, it has the benefits of being quick to market, it has the benefits of having lower fixed costs, and also lower capital requirements as partners aid in the seed process. So for these reasons, we've announced the Platinum Partner Series, which will bring new products to the market, leveraging the Platinum brand and reach, 2 of our biggest strengths. We're focusing on wholly additive asset classes, asset classes where we do not have a presence, working with strong global partners who have distinctive performance and an institutional presence here in Australia, but not a retail one. We're in discussions with several such firms. We'll update the market when we have -- when we're more advanced in finalizing those partnerships, but this will be a very important added source of new revenue over time, enabling us to broaden our ability to better serve investor needs. So to sum up, we've made some good progress since I joined. The initiatives in our turnaround program are on track, and our growth efforts are kicking off, and I'm happy to see green shoots beginning to emerge. Our cost base has been reset to better match our FUM and revenue conditions. We see the beginning performance improvement across our product line, though we acknowledge there's more work to do. We've reengaged with our clients and have seen the first signs of the slowdown in outflows, and our simplified operating model project is on track. This is solid progress. I look forward to providing further positive updates as we advance with Platinum. Thank you very much. And now I'll turn it over to Guy.

Thank you, Jeff. Ladies and gentlemen, that brings us to the formal part of the meeting as outlined in the notice of meeting. As Joanne said earlier, voting on all resolutions will be conducted by way of a poll, and each resolution set out in the notice of meeting, other than the vote on the remuneration report, which is advisory only, is to be considered as an ordinary resolution, and as such, must be approved by a simple majority of votes cast by shareholders. I'll address any questions or comments that have been received under the relevant item of business. I'll take questions firstly from any shareholders who are attending here in person, then from shareholders joining us online and finally, from shareholders using the audio facility. Shareholders' questions received prior to the meeting, which are relevant to the business of the meeting will also be addressed under the relevant item business. The first item of business is to consider and receive the consolidated group's financial report, directors' report and auditor's report for the financial year ended 30 June 2024. There's no vote on this item. These reports are published in the 2024 Annual Report, which was lodged with the ASX on the 11th of October 2024. The purpose of this item is to provide an opportunity for shareholders to ask questions and make comments about these reports. Shareholders will also have the opportunity to ask questions of our auditor, Ernst & Young, relevant to the conduct of the audit and the auditor's report. I'll now invite comments and questions on the financial statements and reports as well as questions regarding the general business of Platinum. I'll start with questions in the room.

Charlie Kingston from K Capital. Just a few questions. Firstly, around the performance of Platinum and their various funds, and I totally appreciate there's been a bit of change. Clearly, Jeff, you're new, so this certainly isn't on you and you are trying to turn it around. But as you just said, the critical thing for any fund manager is investment performance. But just looking at the FY '24 results and the various performances for all your funds, and it is quite startling that [ all ] these single-fund, apart from the Asian fund, is underperforming over 1, 3, 5, and 10-year performance periods. The Asia Fund was positive in the 5-year relative performance, but every single fund has underperformed their index over that period, which does indicate that there is something structurally wrong with either the people that managing the funds or the Platinum strategy, or process. But something's as clearly gone wrong. Again, I know that you've had a lot of departures. I think you said none of them were regrettable, I think was the term. But maybe if you could just give us your thoughts, what has been the key issue that's led to pretty much underperformance in every single Platinum fund. Is it the people? Is it the process? A combination of both? And can you actually turn that around? Because, I mean, recently, I think my perception of Platinum is that we've had a big overweight in China, which has sort of led to part of the underperformance. China's clearly had a monstrous rally of life. So the most recent performance, it hasn't really changed anything over those critical time frames. So I would just like to understand going forward, how can you actually turn it around? Is it the people? Is it the process? I know you are working on all those issues, but if you could delve more deeply into the historic underperformance and, going forward, how can you turn that around, please?

Thanks, Charlie. There's a lot in there, and you've partly answered some of the question with your comments. I might make just a couple of comments. I'm happy for Jeff or others to also chime in. Just briefly, yes, we underperformed on those metrics against the All Cap Index, but we do think of ourselves as an absolute return manager. And so compare ourselves to the market-weight index and, of course, strive to beat cash and avoid large drawdowns and not underperforming when markets have those drawdowns. And of course, we've been in such a bull market that we haven't had those drawdowns frequently. On the portfolio, the overweight in China has not helped on PIF, absolutely correct. We have seen a bounce, although it's been somewhat muted. And as of the most recent couple of weeks, there was a change in President, forthcoming and tariffs and all the things that go with that, China's many need to not only respond with the trillion that was offered last week, topped that up again to convince markets. We've also had that underweight against the Magnificent 7 and the U.S. more generally. And the other macro factor in the portfolio has been some holdings in cash, again, in a period of bull markets. So we've created some headwinds for ourselves. And lot of that is about conviction, and a lot of that is about the philosophy and the process that underpins how we make investment decisions. Yes, we have made some changes, and Jeff alluded to those. And, I mean, Jeff, you might want to comment on that with the introduction of guardrails and some of the things that we're doing to bring the portfolios into a more, if you like, benchmark-aware position, but not in any sense benchmark-tracking sense, to minimize the experience that you're highlighting, if you like.

So first, we do acknowledge the underperformance and are working hard on it. I think the answer to your question comes in everything that Guy said, but to amplify a couple of things. I think it's early days in our changes. Some of them have only been -- the organization was changed 6 months ago. Some of these process enhancements that we're undertaking now are currently being rolled out. I believe they're going to bear fruit and help. And we'll continue to look at all the levers at our disposal until we've improved performance. That includes processes, that includes talent, that includes everything. So we are working very, very hard on performance, and I believe you're going to see the fruits of the changes that we've made to date, again, coming through on that.

Just hope we're not going to jump into the Mag 7 or anything or start chasing that. We'll see. But -- and then the second question, just around the Regal proposal and specifically the capital management group. Noting that you have said that with the initial price of Regal, their proposal of $1.10 was too low, but it's probably close to $1.30, maybe a bit lower. But rough numbers today, given where the stock has traded, higher since the proposal. But for context, you also had a buyback, which was introduced in 2017, which I don't think, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think it was actually deployed until 2023 when you were buying back to -- you even put Platinum as a whole. I'm very sure there's a lot of new faces, but -- the buyback was used at a price up to $1.40 and down to roughly $1.20. It did stop surprisingly when it went a lot lower, which was strange. And we've now indicated that, who knows if it does eventuate, but a bit around a similar level to which we were buying back shares would not be favorable for shareholders. And noting that you have retained a significant amount of cash. I think it's in the strategic bucket for potential M&A and other uses, just I'm sure you're all well aware of some of the recent M&A and funds management with Perpetual, which has been absolutely diabolical for shareholders there and things that they have bought. It clearly has not worked. So there's a lot of risk in M&A, especially when it's a people business. But just given that buyback that you we're using at $1.20 to $1.40, we're trading around the current level. And let's assume that nothing does emerge from potential bids from Regal or other parties. Could you just provide some insight going forward given you have said it's -- the stock is undervalued at the current price. Can we assume that the first priority would be to restart that buyback and be hoovering up stock at the current price? Or do you favor M&A? And how do you avoid some of those pitfalls that we've seen by the likes of Perpetual and others, please?

So a lot on that one as well, probably. Thanks. Yes, we considered Regal's initial NBIO and we looked at it through a couple of lenses. We looked at it from a stand-alone inherent value against a change in control, and we looked at the turnaround strategy that we've talked about today, the overall outlook, potential for future growth and our capital management strategy. So I'll come back to those in a moment. And we also then assessed it on an absolute and relative value considering, of course, the Platinum shareholders would end with Regal shares should that transaction come through. And so we had to look at the benefits and the cost of the combination of the business as well as what that meant for Platinum shareholders in that merged entity. And those were the key considerations that we made in considering whether we thought that the NBI was at an acceptable price point or not. And we thought it not. But we, of course, remain open to considering an improved offer there or other proposals, as I mentioned in my speech. With respect to the buyback, we did use the buyback, I think, to the tune of about 5 million shares. So it was fairly muted. It is 1 way of obviously, returning capital to shareholders. As I mentioned in my comments, the board is giving consideration to -- given the franking credits that we built up on the balance sheet, giving consideration to a special dividend. And for domestic investors, it's probably a more efficient way of capital usage from their point of view in terms of getting a tax effective return rather than simply buying shares. And the Board will consider all of that in due course. At the moment, we have a number of opportunities and matters on the table. And so we'll regroup at some point in time and reconsider all of those capital management usages.

Squeezing in one more quick one. The cost-out story, I know you are taking out some costs. But if we look back again over history, when Platinum floated at $5, it was 2007, I think the cost base of the business was around about $40 million. You had around about $20 billion FUM; today, FUM, I think's, around $12 billion. So a lot lower than at the IPO, but the cost base of the business is around about $110 million. Clearly, profit has been planned over that period, but how much cost can you realistically take out of the business? I think that FUM has gone off a cliff since the heady days of 2007 when you floated along with the share price, but I think it is paper business, so how is that reflecting on culture and people, et cetera? But yes, what is the scope for the cost-out that you can deliver?

Jeff, do you want to take that?

Sure. So we've made commitments to Street, so analyst community for cost reductions. Those commitments are over a period of time, only some of them have been realized, but we're on a good pace to realize the rest. We are constantly looking at our expense base and recognize that there are areas where more efficiencies are possible. We will work to try to get our costs commensurate with where our FUM is and to keep our margins high as they currently are. So that's sort of where we are on cost. But there is more to come on what's been committed, and then we're constantly looking at opportunities to do more.

As always, thank you for your time today and throughout the year. [ Wayne Perry ] is my name, I'm an investor in Managed Funds and a shareholder. Looking at -- we've talked historically about the performance and how it's measured, so the market changes. Yes, Guy's talked about going forward. Certain key events are more or less important in terms of investing going forward. Arguably, the change in U.S. government going forward is one of them. Given that you're an international fund manager predominantly not invested in the U.S. and given the intention or proposed intention of policy changes from the U.S., how are you looking to factor that into your stock selection? Because that's the key to your investment performance.

I'm going to pass that one to Clay or Andrew at the portfolio construction level.

Thank you. So my name is Clay Smolinski. I co-manage one of the -- our international fund. Just on the topic of macro and how that should affect stock selection, and I'll start out by saying macroeconomics in these big picture aspects are important to stock markets. But we really try to not play that game extensively. We try to focus more on the very specifics around companies and what can drive changes in the value of those companies. And why do I say we do that? It's because the macro is so hard to predict. And I'll just give you 1 -- maybe 1 illustration of that. So as we sit here today, the U.S. market has been the best performing stock market globally. It's up about 40%. We look at Japan, we look at Europe, they're both up about 20% over that period. China's down 15%. So if we go back 3 years, November 21, we would have been sitting here, looking at the U.S. market saying, "Let's think about that big picture." We were probably a month off the top of a giant bubble in growth in technology stocks that went on to burst the year after. At that point, interest rates were about to rise substantially. And finally, inflation in that country was also about to really rise considerably. Now I guess the reasonable person at that time may have looked at that macro picture and said, well, that's a very troubling macro picture, and I would have not expected the U.S. market to, one, have gone up 40% from that starting position; and two, to have outperformed all others. And I think that's just an illustration of how difficult it is to, one, predict the macro outcomes and to accurately predict how they will be expressed in stock prices. So we're looking, of course, what a Trump presidency will mean. We can talk about tariffs and how they may affect our Chinese holdings. The one thing I would observe today is the market has extreme confidence in the Trump administration in the sense that they will cut taxes, they will put on additional tariffs. And there'll be a vast amount of deregulation. Now all 3 of those may come to pass. The difficulty for us is actually predicting exactly how they are going to impact stock prices, I would say expectations are there that all of those things will happen. So that's a very long answer to your question around, look, we're just trying to focus more on the individual companies and what we can predict and trying our best to factor in that bigger picture environment in shaping the portfolio.

My name is [ Quinn ], I'm a retail shareholder. Mr. Chairman, just in regards to the presentation Jeff did earlier, so there are 2 growth opportunities. One of them is fairly self-explanatory of new products. The second is to distribute products of other fund managers. Just wondering if you and Jeff can elaborate on the second one. How does that look? Is that like a pinnacle style where you're seeing smaller fund managers? Or is it more like what Magellan's done recently, buying into a large fund manager and distributing their products?

Sure. It's actually a little different than both of those. So in terms of the asset classes that we would be focusing on, firstly, it's very important to understand that it's not things we currently do. So it's entirely additive. In terms of the process to try to seek a manager that would add value to our clients and broaden out our ability to service them, where we focus in is on large leading managers that aren't necessarily small Australian boutiques, aren't necessarily Australian, where we would create a product with them, fund or otherwise. It would be under the Platinum Partner series, likely branded by their name. And we would help them get it into the marketplace using our brand and our reach, and we would split the economics with them as such. So the keys for us would be a large established manager with very distinctive performance and track records in the asset class of interest, someone that's known to Australia and the institutional market and has a desire to get into the retail market. And the retail market is one of the best growth markets in all of asset management when you speak to people around the world. So there are lots of interested parties looking to get into that marketplace and serve Australian investors, and that's where our initial focus will be. By doing it a third-party way, it's very difficult to build those. It takes a very long time. Buying them has all the elements that one needs to assess in an organic, and we've talked about that quite a bit. The fastest way of accessing them is to do it via distribution, comes with trade-offs, but at the same time, we can get very strong products out in the marketplace quickly with very established managers and leverage our brand and do so using other people's capital in part and lowering our fixed costs. I hope that answers your question. If there's nothing else from the room? I'll move to online questions.

Chair, we've received a question from [ Costas Milones ]. "Could you please provide a detailed itemization of the total turnaround implementation cost of $20.4 million in the full year analyst presentation?"

It might have been too subtle in my earlier words. So the turnaround plan has been outlined in some detail and was presented at the analysts meetings. It is on the website for those who want to take a closer look. The key element of that was to reduce ongoing expenses by $25 million per annum. Of course, in reducing expenses comes with associated one-off costs. And in this instance, that included redundancy costs and noncash charges associated with closing down the employee long-term incentive plan. So those costs came to about $20.4 million, but more than -- a little over half of that, I think it was $11.4 million related to noncash accounting charges.

Chair, we've received a question from [ Nick de Felis ] of Starbrook Enterprises Pty Limited. "Glad to see a 13% reduction in the amounts going out. But what does that represent as a percentage of the FUM."

As a percentage of FUM, someone have a calculator. It's a slight decrease in the redemption rate, and it's not where we want to stop. It was -- that comment was made as an indication of progress. And hopefully, we will see more significant decreases.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. [ Stephen Mayne ]. What is our view on crypto as an investment class, particularly given Donald Trump's embraced it as a concept, even potentially committing to a U.S. government crypto reserve fund? Won't this undermine the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency? And how do we currently handle currency risk? Could this change as the Trump crypto policies roll out? And are there any circumstances where we would invest in cryptocurrency? If not, why not?

Clay? Andrew?

Just on the topic of crypto as a direct holding, I don't believe that's within our mandate. We are -- kind of our mandate isn't to invest in equities. Have we researched companies that could be beneficiaries or losers from a wider shift to cryptocurrency? Absolutely, done plenty of research on stocks like Coinbase and MicroStrategy and the like. The broader implications for global currencies, I'm -- is a pretty -- I might just leave that in the interest of time. But I might just leave those comments.

Chair, another question from Mr. [ Stephen Mayne ]. "How long has our external audit firm been in place? When did we last run a competitive tender for the external audit? And when do we next intend to run a competitive tender for the external audit?"

It's coming up for 5 years region, Brigitte?

Yes.

And we ran 10 to 5 years ago and changed the audit firm from PwC to EY at that time as a result of that tender.

Thank you. Chair, we've received a question from Mr. and Mrs. [indiscernible]. Franking in LICs, PMC and PII, what will happen to this in the transition to listed trust funds?

That's all being worked through as part of the process of assuming that transaction goes ahead in the and those listed entities being merged into our QMFs, acquire managed funds. And that's an issue that's discoverable at the current time, but we don't have a solution fully on that.

Chair, I have no further questions through the online platform for this item at this time.

Okay. Thanks, Dean. Do you have any audio questions?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. Thank you all for your questions. We'd be happy, of course, after the event to take any questions outside, people want to continue.

The first resolution that will require a shareholder vote is the election of Rachel Grimes as a director. Rachel, having been appointed to the Board on the 2 September 2024, retires in accordance with the company's constitution. And being eligible, offers herself for election as a director of the company. The Board is confident that Rachel has the capacity and requisite skills, experience and independence to discharge her obligations to Platinum and supports her election. I'll now call upon Rachel to provide a brief statement in support of her election.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Today, I seek your support for election as an Independent Non-Executive Director of Platinum. I joined the Platinum Board in September, as Guy said, and I concurrently serve on the Boards of HUB24, Australian Payments Plus, The Accounting Professional Ethical Standards Board, and I'm a member of the Financial Reporting Council. And I have just been appointed to the yet to be listed DigiCo REIT, which you may have seen yesterday. I will be retiring from the Digital Finance Cooperative Research Center at their AGM in 2 weeks, where I held the position of Deputy Chair and the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee. This portfolio is complementary to me serving on the Platinum Board. I am a chartered accountant by profession and have served the accounting profession as both the President of Chartered Accountants in Australia and internationally as the President of the International Federation of Accountants. I was the CFO of Challenger Financial Group, a listed ASX entity, and was previously the General Manager of Finance at Westpac. I have had a lot of career in mergers and acquisitions at Westpac and was a co-lead on the listing of BT Investment Management and the Westpac/St George merger. At Westpac, I also held the roles of CFO of Technology and led the response to the APRA culture, governance and accountability reviews. My executive and Board experience across the financial services sector gives me a strong understanding of investor expectations. A career in large, complex, highly regulated organizations enables me to appreciate the systems and processes required for strong governance at Platinum. With your support, I'd be honored to work alongside Guy and the platinum Board to support Jeff Peters and the management team to continue to deliver their strategy. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

Thank you, Rachel. The screen behind me shows the proxies received for and against this resolution. In regard to open proxies given to me, I will be voting in favor of this resolution. I'll now take any questions or comments on the election of Rachel and I'll start with questions in the room.

Charlie?

Hopefully, you can sort of bring across some of that HUB24 magic and the DigiCo Homeco. I suppose the manager, HomeCo, has clearly shot the lights out and pretty -- just raise their money, and they've done very well. But suppose in contrast the Platinum distribution, whether it's because it's very hard to sell an underperforming fund, which I totally accept. But I think Platinum has been in outflow since 2019, correct me if I'm wrong, and had a few years of inflow, a year or 2 prior to that, but outflows again to the early 2010s et cetera. But clearly, that's been the key issue with outflows. So it just was a bit concerning, Jeff, your comment hearing about how we're going to distribute other people's products, which sort of almost indicates that you don't have faith Platinum can be turned around or our products so you can sell our products. But I'd just like to hear, Rachel, your thoughts on that critical issue of distribution. I think Challenger had sort of the Fidante business, which maybe was a similar model, but just appreciate your thoughts on that critical issue around distribution. Do you think Platinum and those funds can be turned around back into inflows? Or do we need to simply diversify and start selling other people'? And do we actually have the distribution team to do that, please?

Thank you for the question, Charlie. As I said, I've only been here since September 2, but I have been a long-time observer and fan of Platinum, and I wouldn't have joined the Board if I didn't believe in the turnaround strategy, I think, the platforms that you referred to like HUB24 have changed the dynamics. Everybody as retail investors, and I'm one of them in terms of Platinum, would just automatically come to Platinum and seek out the investment expertise. And I think the world has shifted, and I think that the platforms form a great way of distribution for funds. And I think that Jeff is looking at all different opportunities in terms of distribution. I'll let him talk to the belief, I don't think it's not a matter of faith in platinum, but rather an opportunity to add product, which investors are seeking. So it's not 1 or the other, it's combined to make it a stronger Platinum, and that's what I believe in. So that's why I've joined the Board. Thank you.

Just to add a quick view on that. I don't believe it's an either/or. It's additive. So I have tremendous faith in our ability to sell the Platinum products. As you say, the returns need to be better to make them more salable. But we will be able to sell those and sell them well. That doesn't eliminate our ability to sell other products. I came in a world where I had 80 products to sell worldwide and had a team of people doing it and they did just fine selling multiple things in multiple asset classes, so I think there's a tremendous opportunity. It's not either/or. Your point about needing to build up distribution resource is fair and to do -- and that is in the plan and will be considered once we get things finalized on the third-party side. And once we have things like Arrow ready for distribution as well as the international fund, the Asia fund and the other great sector funds we have.

I'll move on to any questions online, now.

Chair, no questions received through the online platform for this item.

And telephone questions?

Chair, no questions received there.

The second resolution is the election of James Simpson as a Director. This year, we received a nomination for election to the Board from an external candidate, James Simpson. Mr. Simpson's skills and experience were assessed by the Board, having regard to the skills matrix of the Board, and a number of the nonexecutive directors, including myself, met and interviewed, Mr. Simpson prior forming a view to endorse his election. I further confirm that since the date of the notice of meeting, Simpsons background checks have been completed, and no issues have been identified. I'll now call upon James to provide a statement of support for his election.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, fellow shareholders. you can call me, Jim. I also go by Jim. Many people know me by Jim. James is more in my later life. Just by way of background, I started in 1990 with Kerr and Andrew, working at Bankers Trust. And in 1994, we left to set up Platinum Asset Management. And I worked with them both until 2007 when I left. That was after the listing of the company and just before the GFC. Since that time, so it's another 17 years since that time. That's a long time. I've been doing my own thing in investment markets, very much engaged still with a particular emphasis on credit markets just because as an one-man band, you -- it's -- credit is much easier than doing equities, but it's also very complementary, I found. So your question is why am I here? Why have I put myself forward? Well, I think it's pretty self-evident. If you look at the share price when I left, it was $5 and the share price is now $1.17 or so. So it's in a pretty dire situation. I think I could help and what's more, I do have a deep emotional connection to the company. And I feel that I do know all the key players involved still very well, even though I haven't been here for 17 years. I kind of feel like I've never left in a lot of ways. So my skill set is not as a traditional company Board Director, obviously. This would be my first appointment to a public company board. And in that sense, I think the most contribution I can make is -- on that is to do with the investment function and also on the strategy of the company, and particularly the usage of the cash, which is obviously a very important issue for shareholders. So having said all that, I offer myself up for your consideration. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Jim. It must prefer like the -- a formality. The screen behind me shows the proxies received for and against this resolution. In regards to open proxies given to me, I will be voting in favor of this resolution. I'll now take any questions or comments on the election of Jim, and I'll start with questions in the room.

Just a question for Jim. Given you -- yes, I think as you said, you were the founder along with Kerr and Andrew and Co. But I suppose given Kerr is still the biggest shareholder, I believe, it was an article, I think it was 1.5 years ago, not sure what's happened since, but Kerr Neilson says Platinum's CEO, Clifford must go. I think Andrew's no longer the CEO, but still clearly involved in the business. I think you said you still know all the players well, I presume, given you founded the business with those 2 gentlemen, is there -- are you going to be playing a mediator-type role? Is there still issues with sort of our biggest shareholder and another key person in Andrew? And any sort of thoughts on that? Is that hurting the business? Or how are you going to deal with those type of issues going forward, please?

Thank you very much. I talk to both men. I talk to Kerr regularly and I've spoken to Andrew recently. And Kerr is not involved in the business anymore. He's a major shareholder, obviously. It's important. But Andrew is still involved in the business. And obviously, I'm going to have to talk and cooperate with him on matters to turn around the investment function. I know he has some ideas and I guess I have some ideas as well about what could be done. And I have no problem talking and cooperating with either of them because I understand that both of them only really want the best for the company. You can have disagreements as long as they're respectful and we work through them. So I've spoken to both. And I know they care about what happens to the company in the future. But mostly, it's all about the investment performance. When we say company turnaround, we're talking about improving the investment function. That's the primary focus. That's where it should be.

And just second part on investment. Has the process changed since when you founded the business totally except that personally, I'm shocked to see the Mag 7 and how fast some of these growth names keep going. So clearly, Platinum or value managers are going to underperform, but it has been 10 years plus now, so maybe we need to evolve a bit. But has the process changed? Do you think it needs to change? What's going to be your input specific to the investment managers and their process, please?

Okay. So I want to be a little bit careful on commenting on that because I haven't worked in the business for 17 years. I've just been making more observations from outside and having spoken to the people. And to my mind, the investment process is still more or less pure as a driven snow. So it hasn't particularly changed. Now there was a spectrum on which individuals operated within the investment process. And I would say what has happened is that the existing team is stuck very closely to the Platinum philosophy. So the question then becomes what adjustments, if any, are required. And I understand there was an investment committee in the last year, which released a report, which I haven't heard a lot about, and I'd like to know a lot more about that, what that report says before I made any more detailed comments. But I think key word might be flexibility in terms of the investment function. So I guess, sometimes you run the risk of just holding on to something very tightly and maybe the world moves a little bit. Maybe. That's just 1 theory. But I also would think that with something like Platinum, you wouldn't be thinking about radical changes. So it would be at the margin, if you take my meaning.

Now move to the online question -- sorry.

[ Gary West ], a private investor. But interested to hear you say, Guy, that you supported -- you and the Board supported this nomination, so can you elaborate your reasons for that support?

So one of the considerations was looking at the skills matrix. So we conduct a very large table of skills across -- for each director across a range of criteria. And one where we rate kind of medium, I think it was, no due disrespect to Philip and I, but was on investment. So with having had Kerr on the Board and then Andrew, we felt that it would be appropriate to booster our -- we're investment-led organization and to booster our investment skill set. Anything else from the room? Otherwise, online?

Chair, we've received a question from shareholder, Mr. [ Stephen Mayne ]. Could new director, James Simpson and the Chair, comment on the recruitment process that led to his appointment to the Board? Was a headhunter involved, did the full board interview, James and Rachel? And did they interview any other candidates? Did James know any of our directors before engaging with the recruitment process.

I've probably largely covered this. Jim is self-nominated. So there was no search firm involved in that. I think I said that he interviewed with the NEDs, including myself, and as I've just mentioned, in answer to that question, a key element was reviewing his skills against the Board matrix to come to an informed conclusion.

Chair, there are no further questions that have been received through the online platform for this item.

Any telephone...

No questions chair.

So the next resolution is the adoption of the remuneration report for the year ended 30 June 2024. The 2024 remuneration report forms part of the company's annual report and provides disclosures relating to executive and nonexecutive director remuneration. Whilst it should be noted that the resolution is advisory only and nonbinding, the directors take shareholder input on this matter seriously. As I've already mentioned at last year's AGM, the 2023 remuneration report received what is called the first drive, with more than 25% of the votes cast against the adoption of that report. In my Chairman's address earlier, I spoke in detail about the changes we have made to address the concerns raised. Accordingly, the Board recommends shareholders vote for the adoption of the remuneration report. The screen shows the proxies received for and against this resolution. And in regard to open proxies given to me, I will be voting in favor of this resolution. I'll now invite questions on resolution 3, starting with questions in the room.

Let's just, suppose, related to remuneration and the director shareholdings and alignment in that sense. Just looking at the current shareholding held by the directors, please correct me if I'm wrong, if it's changed post the annual report, but -- Anne Loveridge, I think you own 50,000 shares which is, I believe, well below your annual director fees. I think you've been here since 2018. I think it is, sorry, 2016. Brigitte Smith, you own 84,000 shares; Phil Moffitt, 50,000; Guy Strapp, 100,000, but it does seem like it's a lot below where your sort of annual salaries and just being a stock-picking organization, I'm sure, I don't know what the Platinum view is, but I'm sure they do cherish alignment between directors and maybe that's part of the stock-picking process, but it does seem a little bit misaligned, given how long some of you have been on the board and given where the stock is trading, I would have thought the alignment or at least the willingness to purchase shares, I appreciate there's a bit going on with Regal, but it's been a long time for a lot of you, but any broader thoughts on the lack of alignment in terms of the shareholding, please, for directors?

Charlie, I think you'd find that we've all purchased Platinum shares to the equivalent value of at least 1 year's director's remuneration. Of course, the price goes up and down, so we don't ask directors to sell when the price goes up, nor do we ask them to buy more when the price goes down, although free to do so. And of course, you'd answered the last part of it, the -- we've been in a blackout for some period of time right now. But yes, each one is compliant with the policy in terms of at least spending 1 year's of director remuneration on the purchase of shares.

Mr. Chairman. First on these numbers that I've seen finally, and reading the notice of meeting, talks about resolution additionally being put to the meeting if the condition is met. So can you tell us at this stage if resolution 5 going to be put to the meeting?

The intention is to put resolution 5 to the meeting under any circumstances because by the way of poll, we won't know actually until we've counted the votes what the final outcome is. Nothing else from the room. We'd take any questions online.

Chair, we've received a question from shareholder, Mr. [ Stephen Mayne ]. "Did any of the 5 main proxy advisers: ACSI, Ownership Matters, Glass Lewis, ISS and ASA recommend a vote against any of today's resolutions, including this remuneration report item? If so, what reasons did they give? And will you disclose the proxy votes before the debate on each resolution, so shareholders can ask questions about the reasons if there have been any protest votes. Finally, will you disclose the proxy votes to the ASX with the formal addresses at next year's AGM as many other companies now do? And why not follow the lead of ASX, Qantas, Suncorp, Tabcorp and many other companies and voluntarily embrace scheme-like voting disclosure, which also reveals how many shareholders voted for and against each resolution? This will make public retail shareholder sentiment and insight into Australia's chronically low retail shareholder voting rates."

Okay. So the proxies -- one of the questions in there was the disclosure of proxies. Well, they've been disclosed at each resolution. On the proxy advisers for the directors' reelection, they were all in favor. On the rem report, they all voted against except -- or recommended a vote against except CGI, Glass Lewis. And the concerns were misalignment of pay and performance, poor STI disclosures, inadequate KPIs. All voted in favor of the deferred -- the next item coming up, the resolution 4 for the deferred rights for Jeff, except ISS. And on the flip side, should this -- we'll put resolution as discussed, but all voted against the spill resolution.

Mr. Chair, we've received a question from Mr. [ Stephen Mayne ]. The question says, "That's a massive second strike with 51% against. It was disappointing you didn't follow last year's practice and disclosed the proxies earlier with the formal addresses. Corporate voting is not a secret ballot. Did Kerr Nielson help trigger the Board spill vote by voting his stake against the remuneration report? If so, why did he do this at a time when the Board is backing his man, James Simpson's election to the Board today?"

It's pretty simple. We're not required to put proxies up prior to the meeting and absolutely not aware of how Kerr has voted or if indeed, he has voted.

Chair, we've received a question from shareholder, [ Costas Milones ]. "Elizabeth Norman received a short-term incentive cash bonus exceeding $300,000, with 20% attributed to the completion of a new website delivered on time and within budget, and 20% based on KPIs for successfully securing $100.6 million in inflows during this period." I break the follow-on questions up into 3 parts. Firstly, could you please provide a clear demonstration of how this new website generates positive monetary inflows for PTM shareholders? And additionally, how is the effectiveness of the new website measured in terms of value to PTM shareholders?

So Ms. Norman had 20% of her KPIs to rebuild and launch the Platinum website. And given that we're largely retail that's -- this is an important aspect in attracting and retaining clients. The ease of use, access to current information and cross-sell opportunities were all key considerations in this project.

The second part of the question, has the $106 million in inflows being retained by clients? Or has any portion of these inflows been withdrawn? And were any offshore inflows achieved?

Okay. We can confirm that Ms. Norman exceeded the $100 million target for the new SMA solution. And at the time of assessment, there were no redemptions. The SMA solution is an Australian solution, and therefore, it's discrete from outflows offshore. The lack of flows from offshore markets -- excuse me, the lack of flows from offshore markets ultimately led to the closure of the London office in March 2024. And as Ms. Norman did not meet the offshore flow target, this KPI was measured as a 0 outcome and she was ineligible for the 15% of the maximum bonus associated with it.

And the final part of the question is, does management have any concerns that the current KPI framework may not sufficiently drive outcomes that align with the broader interests of PTM shareholders?

The KPI structure for KMPs continues to evolve. We've talked about the turnaround plan today. it's designed to reflect the key priorities of the roles, responsibilities in any year. So Ms. Norman was accountable for the fund ratings with the research houses, which directly impacted flows to platinum, and therefore, the company's profitability. And whilst Ms. Norman will no longer be KMP, all of the management team of Platinum have a proportion of their KPI scorecard aligned to achieving the great turnaround plan financial measures for the business. The underlying logic of the turnaround plan is -- that -- is to achieve the conditions that will lead to the delivery of sustainable financial results in coming periods.

Chair, there are no further questions on the online platform for this item.

And any telephone?

None at all, Chair.

Resolution 4 relates to the grant of deferred rights under the deferred remuneration plan to Jeff Peters in satisfaction of his contractual sign-on arrangements. Vesting of these rights is subject to a 4-year continuous service period. The Board determined that it was necessary to provide Mr. Peters with an initial grant of equity as part of his contractual arrangements in order to be able to attract and retain an international candidate of his caliber and experience, to deliver on the turnaround required. I note that CGI, Glass Lewis, ACSI, Ownership Matters have all voted for this resolution. And the Board, with the exception of Jeff, who has abstained, recommends shareholders vote for this resolution. The screen shows the proxies received for and against this resolution. In regards to the open proxies given to me, I will be voting in favor of the resolution. And I invite questions on the resolution starting with the floor. If no questions, any online, then?

Chair, no questions have been received for this item.

Telephone, the same?

No questions, Chair.

Okay. Thank you for that. Turning to resolution 5. Ladies and gentlemen, as stated in the explanatory notes, and we've partly discussed this in the course of the business in explanatory notes to the Notice of Meeting. Resolution 5, the spill resolution, is a conditional item of business, which is only required to be put to the meeting if the company receives a second strike on its remuneration report with at least 25% of the votes validly cast on resolution 3 being cast against that resolution. The direct votes and proxies received for resolution 3 is shown on the screen show that there was an excess of 25% voted against our remuneration report. Based on these results and the number of votes represented at this meeting today, we are likely to receive a second strike on our 2024 remuneration report. Therefore, resolution 5 is being put to the meeting as a contingent poll. The resolution 5 will only have effect if resolution 3 is not passed, all passes, but by no more than 75% of the votes cast. Conversely, if resolution 3 passes on a majority of more than 75%, this spill resolution will be deemed withdrawn and any votes cast on the spill resolution prior to the withdrawal of the spill resolution will be treated as invalid. A Board spill would be highly destabilizing for the company whilst in the middle of our turnaround plan. The Board, therefore, recommends shareholders vote against resolution 5. I note that the proxy advisers, CGI, Glass Lewis, ISS, ACSI and Ownership Matters have all recommended voting against this resolution. In regard to the open proxies given to me, I will be voting against this resolution also. I'll now invite questions on this resolution starting in the room.

Sorry, just curious what actually happens if the Board is spilt?

I haven't got the procedure in front of me. The directors who would be effectively spilt would be myself and Philip and Anne, so not the -- not those that were being elected to the Board today and not Jeff as Chief Executive. And within 90 days, we would need to hold a special shareholder meeting, and then have a vote, if you like, on those that are putting themselves forward. There'd be the 3 directors in existence. And then the other places to be filled by nominees. It would worry me that we'd be in a period where we're trying to turn the business around and dealing with a large number of inorganic matters, that we would lose focus. And I think that would be very detrimental for shareholders. No other questions in the room? Any questions online?

Chair. We've received a question, just waiting for it to come through. Chair, we've received a question from Mr. [ Stephen Mayne ]. The question is, "Are you saying that Kerr Nielson's stake is in the room and likely to vote for the rem report and against this item?"

Can't comment on how Kerr's going to vote. I can't comment.

Chair, there are no further questions received on the platform for this item.

And for telephone?

No questions, Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the formal business of the meeting. a Computershare representative will now collect the voting cards from the floor. For those voting via the online platform, voting will remain open for a further 2 minutes, following which voting will close. Please ensure that you have cast your votes on all resolutions. The results of the poll will be announced on the Australian Stock Exchange later today and published on Platinum's website. I'll just pause for 2 minutes. [Voting]

I now declare the meeting closed. As I mentioned, the results of the poll will be announced to the ASX later today. On behalf of the Board, I'd like to thank you all for your ongoing support. I invite you to join the Board and the Platinum team for refreshments in the lobby. Thank you.