Qualitas Limited (QAL) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Qualitas Limited Half Year 2024 Results Briefing. [Operator Instructions]. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Andrew Schwartz, Group Managing Director and Co-Founder. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Qualitas First Half Financial Year 2024 Results Presentation. I'm Andrew Schwartz, Group Managing Director, Co-Founder of Qualitas. Presenting with me today is Kathleen Yeung, Global Head of Corporate Development; and Philip Dowman, our Chief Financial Officer. Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lines that I'm presenting from today, the Wurundjeri people of the cooler nation. But I'd also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lines on which those joining virtually are on. We pay our respects to Elders, past and present. I will commence our presentation with the first half highlights and then provide an update of our Funds Management business. Kathleen will present an update on our ESG activity, and Philip will present our financial summary for this period. I'll then conclude the formal part of today's call with some comments on the outlook of the full year, after which we will welcome the opportunity to take any questions. Starting on Slide #4. We are pleased to report that we ended the first 6 months with great execution and tailwinds on many fronts. All funds management, key earnings and operational metrics increased significantly compared with first half '23. A few points to highlight. Global investors are increasing their allocation of private credit due to a permanent shift in the global banking sector. They are focused on quality managers with established platforms and a sound track record in the asset class. Over the first 6 months, we drove substantial growth in key reoccurring revenues, including funds management revenue and principal income. Pleasingly, we've been able to utilize balance sheet capital for underwriting and co-investment to maximize growth. In Australia, we are at an inflection point where demand for housing and alternative financing is significantly outpacing supply. This is making commercial real estate or CRE private credit, particularly in the residential sector, highly sought after by global investors. Qualitas is well positioned to capitalize on the opportunities presented given our scale, brand and 15-year track record. We remain uncompromisingly disciplined in our deployment as we value the trust investors have placed in us. In the next section, I'll outline some of the macro trends and tailwinds we have experienced. I'm now moving to Slide #6. It is important to note that the secular trends driving the need for alternative credit have existed for a long time. The first wave started post the GFC is traditional financing sources dried up. It was during this period that alternative finances, including Qualitas, were founded to fill the gap between the demand for credit and the lack of supply. The rise of credit is not dependent on interest rates, and we expect growth to accelerate due to permanent regulatory changes in the banking system. The two charts shown here support this. On the left, global growth in private credit assets under management is predicted to almost double to USD 2.8 trillion in 2028. Then, on the right, we can see that the average fund size grew over the last 12 months, while the number of new funds launched declined by 40%. Increasingly, capital being raised and deployed is in the hands of a few large long-tenured fund managers and consolidation across the industry is accelerating. In our view, the Australian market will continue to provide strong growth over the medium term, underpinned by the resilience of the multi-dwelling residential sector in the long-term residential undersupply, which I will discuss in more detail shortly. Alongside our investors, we have one recognized the sector tailwinds and have positioned our portfolios to take advantage of the continuing dislocation in liquidity. Our first half results reflect this, with private credit now representing 80% of our 8.1 billion funds under management. Turning to Slide 7. On the deployment side, Private Credit continues to fill, avoiding CRE financing in Australia, as the regulators prefer less debt capital to be sourced from the traditional banking system. Although financiers like Qualitas are the beneficiaries of this permanent shift in policy. Notwithstanding this, the banking system continues to play a vital role. Over the last 18 months, our private credit fee earnings farm grew at a compound average growth rate of 56%. As shown on the slide, this compares to a 5% CAGR in exposure to CRE by traditional financiers, the ADIA. Our deployment is to focus on the residential sector, driven by the acute demand for liquidity. We expect this will soon be amplified by the finance needed to build sufficient apartment stocks to meet the pressing demand for housing. Let's consider the statistics. According to research from CBRE, in order to just maintain the current record low vacancy rate, we need 100,000 apartments in the next 4 years with 75,000 apartments per annum. Assuming the current medium unit value of $638,000 and an LVR of 60%, the gross financing demand for these apartments is estimated at $115 billion, which represents a 54% increase on the size of the current exposure by traditional financiers to the residential sector. The real financing shortfall is likely to be much greater than this as the government looks to alleviate pressure in the housing market, and the demand will be across all types of CRE loans, both income and total return credit and across the entire real estate cycle, including land, construction and residual stock loans. Private credit will play a pivotal role in this cycle as developers seek greater speed and certainty of execution with maximized IRR. It is clear this market demand offers significant potential for Qualitas to scale and grow in the future. Now, to Slide 8, where I will discuss the long-term tailwinds that we believe are driving the resilience of the residential sector. There is unprecedented demand arise primarily from record levels of migration and a record low vacancy rates, the latter at just 0.8% in December 2023. It has been further compounded by the subdued building activity in recent years due to rising construction costs and a slower growth in apartment values. As previously noted, an additional 75,000 apartments per year are needed in Australia over the next 4 years. Already a significant shortfall is developing with only 60,000 apartments expected to be completed this year. We also anticipate buyers will increasingly shift their preference to apartments, driven by the relative discounting apartment values compared to detached housing and a deteriorating affordability, potentially leading to a new reality of the great Australian dreams. Positively, we have recently observed a shift with construction costs starting to stabilize and off-the-plan apartment sale prices increasing. We believe these trends will boost confidence in development feasibility and directly lift our development pipeline. Turning now to Slide 9. The first half of financial year '24 was exceptionally strong for our funds management platform despite the challenging environment for fundraising across the industry. Net capital commitments increased by $2.1 billion in the first half of '24, a historic level of fundraising over the 6-month period. In our view, this reflects that our consistent performance through the cycles is resonating with [Indiscernible] and it also supports the strengthening of our brand amongst our investors. Our fee earning fund was up 25% on the first half of to $5.6 billion. This growth was underpinned by strong deployment, all in private credit in the first half and, importantly, diversified across a range of credit investments. Let's look at this further. Significant attractive risk-adjusted investment opportunities presented in the residential sector, which represented 85% of total deployment. 55% of total deployment was in construction credit, and we're seeing an increasing number of sponsors starting projects in anticipation of a more favorable development and apartment sales environment, which we softly predicted some 6 months ago. The benefit of construction credit is the pipeline it provides for prospective income credit investments through residual stock loans in the future. Our deployment pipeline continues to be strong. As of the 31st of January 2024, we have $590 million of investment committee approved investments and $1 billion in mandated investment opportunities. Plus with $2.1 billion of dry powder at the end of the first year, we are well equipped to capitalize on the opportunity set. The pool of theoretical embedded future performance fees for the period of 7 years from December 2023 to December 2030, is estimated at approximately $75 million, a net $5 million reduction from the $80 million disclosed at FY '23. This estimate is based on deployed capital only. The quantum of unrecognized future performance fees attributed to the private credit funds has increased over the last 18 months, driven by 100% deployment in private credit. This is offset by a reduction in the estimated pool of unrecognized future performance fees from our equity funds. This revised estimate considers our view of current and future market conditions, especially equity valuations and cap rates, which can potentially cause delays in the realization of assets and the value at which we can realize these assets. It's imperative that I highlight that the total pool of theoretical embedded future performance fees is subjective and it's based upon assumptions that, by very nature, are uncertain. Turning to Slide 10. We saw significant double-digit growth across many of our key financial metrics, demonstrating the resilience and the strong trajectory of our business despite the more challenging macro environment. Our two primary reoccurring earnings streams, funds management revenue and principal income grew 25% and 31%, respectively. Combined with increasing efficiency gains, our funds management EBITDA margin, excluding performance fees, reached 46%, up circa 3% on first half '23. Strategic utilization of the balance sheet has been a key focus for our team. Our underwriting positions, maximize invested pump and earn attractive returns while preserving flexibility for the balance sheet to be deployed into co-investments in the future to drive FUM growth. Over the 6 months, a total of $380 million was deployed in underwriting, up 16% on the first half of '23. An annualized weighted average return of 9.75% was delivered in line with returns from our co-investments in private credit strategies. We retained a cash balance of $201 million as at 31 December 2023, making us well positioned to pursue growth opportunities. Slide 11 shows our growth in Funds Management. At the end of first half '24, our total fund was $8.1 billion, up 41% of first half '23, and representing a CAGR of 38% since our inception in 2008. New capital came from diverse investor channels with existing institutional investors committee a total of $2 billion of scale flagship funds and retail wholesale investor channels, providing a total of $113 million, increasing FUM in our ASX listed flagship fund QRI and the Qualitas Senior Debt Fund. Our weighted average co-investment in recent mandates is 2.5%, significantly below the 5% to 10% estimated at the IPO. This provides us with meaningful increased co-investment capacity and greater [Indiscernible] we show our deployment activity, which includes closed investments, investment committee approved and mandated investment [Indiscernible] $3.4 billion. This represents a 12% increase on total employment in FY '23. Our team remains active in the market, building further pipeline and deploy [Indiscernible] is sitting at $2.1 billion [Indiscernible] '24 was skewed to December 2020, 3 quarter and the elevated investment activity continued into January 2024. FY '24 year-to-date transaction. As of 31 January 2024 totaled $2.34 billion, exceeding the total pipeline of $2.3 billion disclosed in October 2023, so slightly ahead of our most recent estimate. 77% of IC approved and mandated investments as at 31 January, is in construction credit as the sector currently presents attractive opportunities for the future income credit investments. We have significant dry powder in income credit. This allows us to pivot as opportunities emerge. A key benefit of having an established funds management platform with a respective brand and reputation is the high conversion of identified and mandated opportunities to close investments. And, with reduced competition in the larger end of the market, borrowers are increasingly seeking financed from firms with a well-established track record and local investment committee. Our deep relationships with the sponsors also helps us execute investments faster than new entrants. Slide 14 provides an overview of our funds management platform. Our investment platform is set up for long-term success with the ability to reverse the capital stack. In the current economic environment, our view is that the platform is well positioned, with 80% of our fund allocated in private credit. We continue to invest in our platform, increasing distribution and deployment capabilities to support our growth over the medium term. Increasingly, the breadth of our product range is also important. To that end, capital raising is currently underway for the BTR Equity Fund III and the Qualitas Tactical credit fund, which focuses on opportunistic credit investments. We're also speaking with global and domestic investors about our recently launched low-carbon debt funds. Slide 15 provides a bridge from invested FUM to Fee-Earning FUM and committed FUM. Fee-Earning FUM represents FUM that we have deployed, of which some might not yet be drawn. We experienced strong growth in Fee-Earning FUM over the first half '24, up 25% of first half '23 to $5.6 billion. This growth was mainly driven by deployment in construction credit. Given the progressive draw nature of the construction facilities, the total facility is Fee Earning on day one, but the fees are on a small proportion of the full base management fees. As the facility is drawn over time, this converts into investor fund, where we own full base management fees. We have $890 million of Fee Earning FUM from deployed in construction credit that was undrawn as at the 31st of December 2023, and the base management fees related to this $890 million will increase as the loans are drawn over time. We entered the second half of FY '24 in an enviable position with $2.1 billion of dry powder, representing Circa 50% of our investor FUM. This dry powder is predominantly in CRE private credit and will underpin our future earnings growth in an attractive deployment environment, delivering accretive margins. The quality of our credit portfolio remains strong with no impairments as of today. We attribute this to our disciplined investment approach, unwavering focus on quality and our allocation to the best-performing sectors. Currently, 75% of our invested fund is in residential and 10% in industrial. We are meaningfully underweight in the office sector with approximately 7% of invested fund allocated to office. Additionally, with 94% of credit invested FUM in senior credit, we have very significant buffer for any downside. Moving to Slide 16, which provides a breakdown of our diversifying sources of capital across different investor channels and geography. As mentioned earlier, global investors continue to see the Australian CRE sector as a safe haven amid elevated market volatility. Investment track record is key in a manager selection. Notably, institutional investor commitments in Qualitas funds, predominantly in private credit and build-to-rent equity grew by 52% since first half '23. And with our flagship ASX list of Qualitas Real Estate Income Fund, QRI, entering the ASX 300 and the ASX 300 A-REIT indices. The investor universe has significantly broadened attracting both active and passive listed equities managers. Our growth in [indiscernible] come from both existing institutional investors recommitting and crossing over into new strategies, plus new investors recognizing a strong investment performance and leadership in managing alternative CRE investments in Australia. As shown in the middle chart, 66% of our existing institutional investors have 5 or more commitments, and the next chart highlights our growing international investor base, which now represents 62% of FUM, up from 51% in the first half of '23. Moving to Slide 17. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about our business plan for Arch Finance, a wholly owned entity of Qualitas. We are leveraging the commercial mortgage broker relationships of Arch Finance to expand Arch's origination focus from its current sub-$6 million loan size to sub-$20 million. Change follows the identification of a market gap that presents compelling investment opportunities with the same market tailwinds of those supporting the Qualitas growth. We are currently seeking diversified funding sources, targeting a lower cost of capital using Qualitas distribution capabilities and targeting operational synergies. Arch will continue to benefit from the Qualitas trusted brand and reputation amongst investors and sponsors. I will now pass to Kathleen to provide an update of our ESG activity for the period.

Thanks, Andrew, and good morning. Over the past 6 months, we've further integrated our equity vision and commitment into our business across several initiatives, and this slide provides key activity highlights for the half year. On the environment, we launched a quality like carbon debt fund. And as Andrew mentioned earlier, we're currently raising capital for that fund. The fund focuses on the decarbonization of the residential building sector by offering sponsors pathways to achieve significantly lower emissions on projects. Our carbon-neutral status has been reaffirmed at the corporate level by time of active with our emissions intensity reduced through a focus on reducing waste to energy and travel emissions firm-wide. On the social front, we've expanded our chartable initiatives through forming a new partnership with Batyr, an organization that's focused on helping improve the mental health of young Australians. And we hosted a firm-wide education session ahead of the Voice of Parliament referendum. As a firm, we continue to support diversity and focused on delivering real impact. We're committed to embedding ESG considerations into our investment decisions and continue to roll out our ESG rating tool as part of our investment due diligence process with 28% of our total fee earning fund being rated by the tool as at 31 December'23. Looking forward, our focus is to continue to work with our borrowers and partners to improve ESG outcomes through raising awareness and education. I'll now pass to Philip to speak further about our financial results.

Thanks, Kathleen, and good morning. I am pleased to report another half year of high-quality earnings as our platform builds scale through continued growth in funds under management and deployment. Growth in FUM has resulted in net funds management contribution, up 25% to $10.8 million compared with $8.6 million achieved in the comparable period first half '23. The contribution from net performance fees was also higher at $2.1 million compared with $1.5 million in first half '23. Our performance fees are payable at the end of their fund life or at set intervals. And as such, the actual performance fees are not earned evenly over time. All performance fees this half were recognized through continued outperformance of our credit fund relative to their mandate hurdles. Also contributing to our strong first half earnings was an increased contribution from principal income as we continue to put our IPO funds to work through co-investments and underwrites to support fund transactions. The other segment of our business is Arch Finance, our direct lending business. Arch Finance's contribution has declined period-on-period from $2.5 million to $1 million this half. The main driver of this reduced contribution was a fall in total loans from $355 million at December '22 to $281 million at end of December '23, reducing the net interest margin income against a relative cost base. Strategic changes to the Arch business, as Andrew outlined earlier, are currently focused on lowering the cost of capital and reducing the overhead costs required to operate this business. Our corporate costs were flat period-on-period at $4.1 million, showing overhead cost discipline as the business scales. Overall, our group normalized EBITDA was $19.4 million, which was up 21% compared with $16 million achieved first half $23 million. It is important to note that the $1.5 million decline in contribution from Arch Finance, underscores the strength of the Funds Management segment contribution in this half year. When looking at core underlying contribution, excluding the less uniform contribution from performance fees, first half '24 normalized EBITDA was up 19% at $17.3 million from $14.5 million achieved in the prior corresponding period. Statutory NPAT was $12.6 million for the period, up 17% on first half '23. An interim fully freight dividend of $2.256 per share has been declared and will be paid on 28th March, up 12.5% on the FY '23 interim dividend of $0.02 per share. This reflects the strong underlying results reported today. I will now review our segment operating performance in more detail. Turning to our Funds Management segment. It has delivered another strong period of consistent revenue growth this half, with funds management EBITDA up a strong 37% to $18.4 million. Total funds management revenue was up 25% to $25.9 million, with strong growth in transaction fees following a strong half of deployment, albeit skewed towards the December quarter. As a result, base management fees were up 14% on prior comparable period, while transaction fees were up 57%, reflecting the deployment mix. Core employee costs were also up 25% compared to the first half '23, predominantly a reflection of additional resources in the investment and capital teams recruited late in second half FY '23, as noted in our full year FY '23 results presentation. As a result of the strong growth in revenue, our funds management operating margin has remained stable at 42% this half compared to first half '23, notwithstanding the investment made in resources to support continued growth. Our approach to performance fee recognition remains prudent with the performance fee revenue reflecting credit funds with a more stable profile of outperformance against their respective hurdles. As Andrew has already mentioned, our estimated pool of theoretical embedded future performance fees for the period of 7 years through to December 2030 is estimated at approximately $75 million. The quantum of unrecognized future performance fees attributed to the private credit funds has increased over the last period, driven by 100% deployment in private credit. This growth has, however, been offset by a reduction in the estimated pool of unrecognized future performance fees from our equity funds. The total pool of theoretical embedded future performance fees is subjective and by its very nature is based on future events, which remain uncertain. Strong growth in incumbent on principal investments comprising co-investments and underwriting of deployment pipeline for our income credit funds, in particular, has been a strong contributor to the higher funds management contribution. With corporate expenses also held flat compared to first half '23, we have been able to further expand our funds management EBITDA margins, both including and excluding performance fees by 4% and 3%, respectively, to 48% and 46%. Management continues to focus on achieving margin expansion as our deployment drives higher invested FUM and recurring revenue streams, including from the strategic use of our strong balance sheet. Turning to the next slide. We highlight the principal income this half has been more permanent capital invested by co-investments with income from co-investments held on balance sheet, earning $3.1 million, up 149% from $1.3 million in first half '23. This half, the volume of underwriting was also strong, but of shorter average duration as capital from external investors allowed our hands to take down our underwrites faster than in the previous period. Of the $380 million of underwrites put in place throughout the year of the period, $377 million was recycled within the 6 months, benefiting our funds through being fully invested. The Arch Finance contribution, as noted, was down materially on the prior corresponding period due to the decline in the loan book. Turning now to the operating performance. Our average invested fund has grown a strong 32% on prior corresponding period. As we grow our FUM and top line revenue, this has been at a lower base management fee as a percentage of invested fund, reflecting the institutional nature of the FUM, the FUM growth we have experienced. This has in turn allowed for efficient and effective deployment of that capital into larger transactions, which is reflected in our expanding net operating margins. For this latest half, our deployment was skewed to the December quarter, and over the period has also been weighted towards construction loans, which has a lagged effect on recognition of base management fees, as Andrew explained earlier. A key highlight is the higher contribution from transaction fees, which was supported by our underwriting flexibility to earn a higher share of loaner range of fees in this half. Overall, our operating performance is in line with our expectations for a steady improvement in net operating margins as we scale our funds management platform. Turning now to the balance sheet. There has been a significant change in the composition of the balance sheet if we compare December '23 December '22, namely, the material increase in investments to $105 million, which represents drawn co-investments and the resulting higher recurring income derived from the balance sheet. This was one of the two key drivers of the IPO to provide co-investment flexibility to support our FUM growth as well as to provide underwriting flexibility. The most recent half has been a stronger churn in underwriting with virtually no loans receivable remaining on balance sheet as at 31 December. The change in mix between co-investments and underwriting flexibility is balanced by virtually unchanged cash and cash equivalents balance of $200 million. The continued rotation of cash into co-investments and/or the volume of underwriting outstanding at any point in time will continue to support growth in our principal income. The current cash balance means the business remains well positioned to take advantage of opportunities that may arise in both our credit and equity investment streams and provides the business with the flexibility to support fund growth through co-investment and fund underwriting and bridging activities. We remain focused on the continued strategic deployment of these proceeds in an orderly way. I will now hand back to Andrew.

Thanks, Philip. To wrap up, our business is well positioned to capitalize on the promising CRE private credit market outlook. Strong deployment momentum combined with our dry powder is anticipated to support positive funds management fee growth in future periods. Our investment performance in brain continues to be our point of differentiation with institutional investments driving FUM growth and operational efficiency gains. Our people are the most valued asset. We are proud and grateful for the hard work and dedication our employees put in. The investment we've made in new investment and distribution capabilities over the past year is expected to contribute more meaningfully in future periods. Finally, we remain positive in our outlook for FY '24. We continue to be on track with our previously stated guidance of $37 million to $41 million net profit before tax. To those on the call and online, thank you again for listening to our results presentation, and we're now very happy to take any questions. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from David Pobucky with Macquarie.

Just the first one, I mean, just over $2 billion of new commitments raised in the first half was a great outcome. But total invested FUM was only up about $300 million since June. So, if you could please just talk to deployment and what's rolled off there. Was there some deployment slippage into the second half? Maybe if you can just walk us through that in the context of the guidance reiteration, please?

Hi, David, thanks for the question. I think what's important to look at is our Fee Earning FUM as the key measurement. And, as I said in my presentation, we've had a lot of new capital allocations, particularly into construction credit. And as you know, with construction credit, that draws up slowly over time. So, whilst we earn modest base management fees and other fees at the commencement of those actual loans, really have come through over future periods with a substantial ramping up of those construction loans as they draw down progressively month by month. So, I think probably the better metric to look at is fee earning FUM, which was totaling $5.6 billion at the end of the period, which is up substantially on previous period. Philip, I'm not talking that one as well, do you want to add to that as well?

Well, Andrew, exactly, but it's really the construction credit pass-through to invested fund, which is much more lag than as it shows through in the earnings FUM.

Just a second one on competition in the space, please. I mean, there seems to be an increasing amount of new entrants in the space. So, I just wanted to get a feel around how that's playing through what you're seeing. How is it playing through the deal flow that you can capture, et cetera?

Yes. I mean, I'll start, David, by saying I never fear competition. I think what it does is it just proves up the market opportunity and the depth of the opportunity. It's exactly why other people do come into the market. But you really do need to bifurcate the market in terms of where we're seeing competition and where we're not. And I would actually describe the period that we've just been through is having less competition in the core markets that Qualitas operates in. Having said that, the competition that does exist certainly is formidable competition and from our point of view, provides liquidity into the market. So, I would describe it as particularly at the top end of the market, which is where Qualitas focuses on large loan sizes, very significant projects and borrowers. I would say we've had less competition over the last 6-month period. But that doesn't mean because there's fewer players at the larger end, we've got a market to ourselves. It certainly continues to be a competitive market. So, I think net-net, I would describe it as relatively no change.

And just the last one for me in terms of the level of co-invest. You spoke to 2.5% in the new flagship funds being below the estimated 5% to 10%. How should we think about that level of co-investor on a go-forward basis?

Yes. Look, I think that in our IPO documents going back 2 years, we estimated that we were having co-investment pieces of between 5% and 10%. So, we felt that our FUM could grow by Circa $6 billion potentially slightly more than that with the IPO capital that we raised at the time. The reality is proving to be that we're much more efficient than that. We've been able to keep our co-investment amounts down, which means operationally, greater operational leverage by way of greater far relative to the amount of co-investment capital we need to put in. So, I think the 2.5% to 5% is indicative of where we're trying to land on our co-investment pieces. It generally also depends on particular fee arrangements and the attractiveness of the mandate in respect of our co-investment as well. But I think that we're demonstrating that we can get significantly greater operational leverage by keeping that co-investment down, which I think is in the interest of the shareholders.

The next question comes from Liam Schofield with Morgan Financial.

Just two quick questions. Just on the principal income. It was up a fair bit. I just want to understand, is that what you can sort of expect stable state? So, should we just be looking at that balance sheet item and then applying a return on that? And then secondly, just the timing of deployment, you started at constrained revenue, and I know you sort of touched on this. What was the sort of the exit run rate as you left Q2? Does that sort of point to some acceleration that we can expect to hit through Q3 and Q4?

Okay. Thanks for those questions, Liam. On principal income, I think that we continue to be in a transitionary phase at the current point of time. So, if you go back to -- the company in the first 12 months after our IPO, we were starting to go through the journey of investing our capital into the co-investment pieces. But you should be expecting that as we continue to grow our FUM, we're also continuing to deploy more into those co-investment capital position. So, I think we continue to be in a transitionary phase. And we're not trying to give a guidance or outlook statement. I'd like to think that we can continue to improve our principal income as more and more capital is getting invested into underlying funds themselves. So, I think you should take that as we're on a journey in respect of greater deployment of that capital and greater returns accordingly. In regards to your second question, which is deployment, if I've understood your question correctly, Qualitas generally finds its second half to outperform its first half, that's a general comment. The reason for that is that, in the second half, we always get the benefit of investments that we deployed into the first half. So, we get the works being done in the first half. The costs were incurred, but the revenue builds upon itself into the second half, including fresh deployment, including investment opportunities that I'd still expect that we will identify and close between now and 30 June. So, generally, we do experience greater performance in the second half than we do in the first half.

Maybe just one final one, if I could. Just more broadly, you sort of pointed to the long-term thematics and the positive outlook there. But as I look across listed single-family developers, the headlines of builder insolvency, how do you sort of reconcile those two? It feels like the immediate market in front of us for the next 6 months is weak at best despite the longer run positive things.

Yes. It's a good question, Liam, and I'll continue to think this calendar year, we'll have difficulties among builder's contractors generally. I think the issues of experience by way of program disruptions through the COVID period and then later with raw material price increases and more recently with labor shortages and trade shortages amongst contractors will continue as a theme through 2024. But this is what Qualitas does. So, our expertise is looking through the various contractors to those where the projects that we're prepared to support because we think the quality of the contractor is superior and can take on the obligations that they've agreed to take on. And I think that our deep track record in the sector. I do and I know I've been on public record saying this previously that I think notwithstanding the will be continuing themes of 2024. I think we're through the worst of the COVID in 2023 price increases. I think Qualitas has demonstrated its ability to get micro on contractors, cash flows, projects, contingencies, bonding lines, QS estimates to really be able to make a proper judgment call on which projects we're going on back and which ones were not. I think, Liam, the other thing that bear in mind is we're not the financier to the contractors, right? We're a financer to developers who have projects and third-party arrangements with contractors and where the debt, right? So, what that means is our projects and our loans can withstand some element of downside in the event and hopefully, it doesn't happen in the event of some sort of build of failure should our developer borrowers we have to ensure that type of scenario. And we're not first dollar at risk capital in the event that happens. But probably the point I want to more highlight to you is that, Qualitas track record has shown that it can really select the projects with the right size, right builders, right metrics, right locations, design features and all the right buffers that we need to make sure our investors enjoy excellent returns and take advantage of the market that we're experiencing at the moment.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Olivier Coulon with E&P Financial Group.

So, a couple from me. Transaction fee mix. So, when you talked about that, was that predominantly by product or the client that was deploying during the period?

Pacified products rather than clients and also reflective of the underwriting positions that we had where there is transaction fees that are differential quantum.

So, was there a bit of a skew to construction and then the particular facilities that were actually being put in place? Is that what drives?

Yes. That's correct.

And I guess can we extrapolate that into the second half? Or is there a view that changes fairly materially?

Look, there will be some volatility around our transaction fees, you've seen that through previous periods. However, it is correlated to the total quantum of our deployment. So, as long as that deployment stays up, then we'd expect our transaction fees to be not materially different period-on-period.

So, you've given the financial year-to-date pipeline and deployments, obviously, nicely up on the full year number, last year. I can't find that same metric in the presentation last year. Would you mind telling us what it was as at in January, that number if we compare like-for-like? And then I guess the second part question on that, have a multiple goes at this. Would you be disappointed if your full year deployments kind of didn't match the 30% top growth in origination teams that you've seen year-on-year considering that I would think you probably are also still seeing a bit of ticket size growth?

Okay. Olivier, just on the first question, I think maybe that's a question we need to come back to. I don't know that I've got a schedule right in front of me that can just immediately answer that question. So, it will be, I think, in some of our previous materials, we'd be happy to offline and come back to you on that, if that's okay. And just on your second question. Look, the best way I can describe it is Qualitas has very significant momentum on all fronts. So, whether that's from my point of view, looking at the deployment pipeline and what we're experiencing in terms of potential opportunity, what I see, and I've talked about this in previous presentations is, in my personal view is that we've been on the start of a fresh cycle now, residential cycle for some 6 months. The numbers that you're seeing really were through what I would describe as a low period in residential construction and financing because for a lot of developers, it didn't really make sense in terms of increasing cost base to develop against really what was flat revenues being apartment prices in particular. And I think what we're now seeing is a different dynamic where costs are starting to moderate. Revenues are being forced to go up. You're seeing that in terms of medium house price rise. You're seeing it in terms of rental rate increases on residential property. And so, project feasibilities are coming back alive again. And I think that as a result of that, where my expectation, and it's a personal view, is that we will be able to take advantage of what is a fresh market cycle that we're entering into at this point in time. So, I'm not looking at these deployment numbers feeling that we're having these one-off events, and that's why they were occurring. And the other thing to bear in mind is that our deployment for last year actually included the well-publicized AURA transaction in North Sydney, which was really skewed our numbers because it was in excess of a $600 million financing in respect of one transaction. So, when you look at our numbers for this half year, you've really got to bear that in mind that we didn't have that very large one-off transaction. This is real proper growth coming through in a market that I think was inferior to the market that we're now heading into. And from everything I can see within the business, we continue to have that really strong deployment. And as I said in my more formal part of the presentation, we continue to have very significant capital inquiry inbound mandates. We've got very significant dry powder. So, we're not looking at our deployment pipeline and saying, how are we actually going to get it funded. We're in a very fortunate position to have $2.1 billion of dry powder, and we have very substantial discussions going on in respect of other investors at the present point in time, which may or may not ultimately crystallize. But certainly, there's no leading up in the interest that we're receiving as a trusted credit provider in the Australian market. I hope that answers your question.

Yes. Maybe two more, if you've got time. So, the pivot to that higher dollar value. So, is it going to be funded by your current kind of nonrecourse but on balance sheet technically facility? Or are you going to be funding that with first money from different sources? And then second part of that question is, you have kind of gone up the ticket size, and you rightly pointed out that you're now playing in a rarified field that there's probably only one or two competitors that really be going head to head. We've the confidence that you can compete against the family office type market where they're all playing in that $20 million top dollar ticket size? Is it just because you have that reputation and it's going to transfer to Arch?

Yes. So, just answering those two questions, the Arch, we have a lot of committed pockets of capital. From our point of view, we would look to do this through our funds. I mean that's how we think about all of our investments unless it's an underwriting position for our funds. But either way, the ultimate destination is to be funded out of our third-party capital. And in terms of the market segment, when we look at Qualitas, as you can see through our numbers, our average check size is $77 million. It's fair to say from the Qualitas point of view in income credit, which is what Arch is focused on. For us, we're really operating in a $30 million, $40 million and above check size, often much larger than that. And Arch was operating in a sub-$6 million check size. So, when we stood back from it and looked at what is the difference, leaving aside check size, what is the difference between Arch and quality. The main difference is, Qualitas is a direct to borrower investment manager, whereas Arch really works through brokers. And there's no formula that intermediated market. And there's no reason why we can't more broadly take advantage of the broker introduced intermediated market. What they're really looking for is certainty of capital, speed of decision-making, proper decision-making doesn't mean we're lowering any standards, but the speed at which you can respond and create that sort of certainty. And we think that we should be relying more heavily on Arch for that broker channel as part of the wider Qualitas group. And we are seeing some early signs of success with that expanded ram.

Maybe just two more for me. So, I think you called the cycle really well so far, by the way. But the timing around when you think is the right time to start going up the risk-reward curve with clients. When are you putting a lot of legwork into that? And then the second one for Phil, I know that you called out a reduction in the quantum of performance fee pool that was related to equity funds. Is it possible to give us a rough kind of metric around how much is still in equity, how much is credit at the pool level?

I'll give Philip some thinking time on the performance fee question. Just in terms of your first question, which is moving up the risk curve, it's fair to say some of our clients are looking and do mandate qualities for more tactical credit, and that happens at an institutional level. So, they are looking to take advantage of the current market dynamics and any potential for dislocation. We are raising a fund at the moment, known as the Qualitas Tactical Credit Fund, which is really looking at smaller investors that Circa $2 million to $20 million investor as opposed to an institutional investor who also really wants to take advantage of the tactical opportunities that we're seeing. Now, by that I mean, areas such as debt recaps, debt buyouts, debt restructures, preferred equity into well risk-mitigated development-based transactions where we can really bring to the four our strong ability to understand risk matrices within project finance and really look to backfill some of those projects. And I think we're entering to one of those periods of time where that particular fund will be very exciting for us. So, we are literally raising now for that particular fund amongst our LP investors.

And in terms of performance fee, on pool's question, look, I think it's reasonable to expect that the proportion of the pool related to our equity funds is moderating over time as our deployment in the credit increases. And look, but it's not a material movement at this early stage. It will accelerate over the next couple of years where credit becomes a larger proportion of the pool.

Is any potential for a fraction that is related to those 2 and a half, 1/2, 1/2, 2/3, 1/3?

Look, the pool is very, as we've said in the presentation, let's say, theoretical and also projecting out 7 years. So, I think we just stick with $75 million as our best guess at this point.

There are no further questions at this time. I will now hand the call back over to Mr. Schwartz for closing remarks.

Thank you, and I'd like to take the opportunity to formally thank the Qualitas staff for their commitment and dedication to achieving what I consider to be very solid results. And I appreciate everyone's time on the call today. Please feel free to reach out to anybody in our IR team for any further information we can provide. And this concludes the call. I wish everyone a good day. Thank you.

That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.