Regal Partners Global Investments Limited (6L20.F) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Okay. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. I begin today by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, and pay my respects to elders as present and emerging. I'm David Jones. I'm the Chairman of VG1. Thanks for joining our 2022 AGM. The Company Secretary has advised me that we have a quorum, so I'll declare the meeting open. The notice of meeting, which was sent to shareholders on the 21st of October, will be taken as read. I am chairing today's meeting from Dexus Place in Sydney. With me in the room are my fellow Directors, Lawrence Myers and Adelaide McDonald. Noel Whittaker sadly has had a mishap, and on Monday, he broke his ankle, so he's in a hospital, and we do wish him a speedy recovery. I've heard of people avoiding AGMs, but that pretty much takes the cake. But we have sent Noel a care package, and we wish him a speedy recovery. Also present are Ian Cameron and Belinda Hannover, our Company Secretaries; Brendan O'Connor, the CEO of Regal Partners, which is the manager of VG1 and representatives of our share registry Board room. Our auditors, Pitcher Partners are represented by Scott Whiddett. We are pleased to be conducting today's meeting in a hybrid format, meaning that people can participate in person, online or over the phone. This will provide plenty of opportunities for shareholders to ask questions during the meeting. Please refer to the meeting materials distributed to shareholders for information on how to participate, and I'll run through the key points shortly. As shown here, given the portfolio manager's webinar was held a few weeks ago on the 20th of October, today's meeting will be focused on the key items in the notice of meeting. I will firstly give a short introductory address. We will then move to the resolutions where I'll take questions during each resolution. Following this, there will be an opportunity to ask general questions, and we will then collect the votes. We've gone for different colors to VG8. For those of you in the room who are registered for the day, you'll receive 1 of 3 colored cards. Blue cards were given to shareholders who have not submitted proxy forms prior to this meeting and proxy holders. Blue cardholders can, therefore, vote on the resolutions being put forward. You're also entitled to ask questions when prompted throughout the course of the meeting. Red cards were given to shareholders who have submitted proxy forms prior to the meeting and who, therefore, cannot cast votes again during this meeting. You're welcome to ask questions when we reach the relevant part of the meeting. White cards were given to non-shareholder guests who cannot vote or ask questions during the meeting. You can complete your voting at any time during the meeting, just make sure that you give your card to one of our Boardroom representatives before we close voting at the end of the meeting. In terms of asking questions in the room, when we reach the relevant sections in the meeting, we will ask people with questions, who have a blue or red card, to make their way to a microphone and show their card before asking their questions. Depending on time and the number of questions, we may need to limit each shareholder to two questions or comments per item of business. For those of you who have logged into the webcast, with you user name and password, you'll have the opportunities to submit questions online, as well as vote on the resolutions. If you have already prepared a question, please submit it now, and we will aim to answer it at the appropriate stage. If your question relates to a specific resolution or the financial report, please state the resolution number or financial report at the start of the question. All other questions will be considered during the section for general questions. If we receive multiple questions on the same topic, we may group them together. Again, depending on the time of the number of questions where I also need to limit each shareholder to two questions or comments per item of business. With regards to online voting, to give you ample time to vote, we are going to open the polls now. It means you can submit your online votes at any time between now and when we close the polls at the end of the meeting. If you change your mind, about any vote, you can also override your original vote between now and when the polls closed. For those of you who have logged into the webcast as a guest, you'll be able to view our webcast but not submit questions or vote. As shareholders are joined over the phone, if you've provided your pass code to the call center and been verified, you will be able to ask questions. Please note that the process for registering your questions is very different to the webcast. For those on the phones, please do not try to register for any questions or comments yet. We will only open the phone lines when we reach each item of business. So that when we arrive at the first item, we will ask if you want to register for a question on that topic. [Operator Instructions] Once we have finished that item of business, we will move on the next item of business and repeat the process. Please do not register to ask a question an item of business before we reach that item. Again, so we can give shareholders a reasonable opportunity to ask their questions, once we have answered the shareholders' question, we'll move to the next person in the phone queue. If you have an additional question or comment on that same item of business, [Operator Instructions]. It may be simpler to just use the webcast for the sound as well that you will not be to vote over the phone. Now with all those scintillating procedural matters handled, I'll deliver my formal address. So on behalf of the VG1 Board, I would like to welcome all shareholders to today's meeting. We thank you for your support of VG1. Regarding today's format, I hope you have all had the opportunity to hear the portfolio update that Robert Luciano and Marco Anselmi provided to shareholders a few weeks ago. This provided a comprehensive discussion of key stock holdings, earnings drivers and the outlook for VG1. A link to this session is available on the VG1 website. Given this, today's meeting will be focused on the formal business as set out in the Notice of Meeting. To ensure ample time for shareholder questions on the resolutions, I will keep these opening remarks relatively short. As many of you will be aware, global equity markets experienced a challenging year to June '22, especially the final 6 months. The company's portfolio was not immune, and the return of the investment portfolio in FY '22 has been disappointing, Though positive contributions from the short book did provide some protection. Commentary about fund performance was included in the Annual Report and in the investor letter as well as discussed in the recent webinar. For FY '22, we declared an interim dividend of $0.045 per share and a final dividend of a further $0.045 per share. Combining these equates to a yield of over 6% based on the company's share price as at 30 June '22. These dividends were made possible due to VG1's profit reserves, which reflect past profits that have been set aside for dividends. These reserves were $221 million as at 30 June '22. And after adjusting for the dividend paid in September, they equate to over $0.55 per share remaining available for future dividends. With regard to the Board's activity since the last AGM. We've been closely monitoring VG1's portfolio performance and discount to net tangible assets. Late last year, we began a more in-depth review of any steps that could be taken to address these aspects. Shortly after the review began, it became known that VGI Partners, VG1's manager was in preliminary merger discussions with Regal Funds Management. This took shape over the following months with the merger completing on the third of June this year. The new combined entity was renamed Regal Partners Limited and represents the union of 2 well-established investment management businesses, creating a market-leading manager of alternative investment strategies. In our view, this merger has a number of potential benefits for VG1 shareholders. Firstly, on the investment side. Whilst VGI Partners' investment team continues to manage VG1's portfolio, VGI Partners now has the ability to draw on Regal Funds Management specialist sector and regional expertise, including their analyst team in Singapore. Further, the structure of the merger has enabled VGI Partners' Chief Investment Officer, Robert Luciano, to materially reduce his operational commitments imaging the business. Lead portfolio management responsibilities for VGI's Asian portfolio, VGA, has also recently been transitioned to Regal Funds management, allowing Robert to focus solely on VGI's global strategy, including VG1. Robert has also left the VGI Partners' Board on the completion of the merger with Regal and resigned from the VG1 and VGA Boards in mid-June, freeing up his time further. On the operational side, the VG1 Board met with key people from Regal prior to the merger to discuss potential benefits of the proposed transaction for VG1 shareholders. These meetings highlighted a number of areas where Regal could assist. In particular, it became clear that Regal's distribution and marketing team could materially increase the resources available to service VG1's existing shareholders and advisers. The Regal team also has deep experience and investor relationships in Australia and offshore, which can help identify new potential investors. And we saw the team organized an extensive broker road show for VG1 in October, which generated good interest. The Board of VG1 has taken a number of other steps this year to assist shareholders. This is including adjusting the dividend policy from a 4% annual yield target to an absolute amount. Consequently, VG1 announced in August that it intends to continue paying 6 monthly dividends in the future. And subject to Board approval, aims to maintain a dividend of at least $0.045 since every 6 months with attention to grow this over time. The Board intends for these dividends to be franked to the fullest extent possible. Earlier this year, the Board also reaffirmed an intention to continue with VG1's on-market buyback. And VG1 purchased just under 12 million shares for approximately $22 million in FY '22. Since then, the pace of the buyback has increased with over 13 million further shares bought back from the start of the new financial year. In total, around 48 million shares or 12% of the register has been purchased since the buyback was originally launched. This has been accretive for VG1 shareholders as well as increasing liquidity in the market. In summary, we believe that improvements in investment performance, capital management and shareholder engagement are all key to closing the discount. The Regional Partners merger has given the team much greater resources to deliver on portfolio performance and investor relations. While the VG1 Board has listened to shareholder feedback on capital management, leading to the changes to dividends and the buyback program. So in concluding, I would firstly like to thank Robert Luciano for his contribution to this Board. We obviously wish him well with his portfolio management responsibilities for VG1. Thank you also to the employees of Regal Partners for their work during the year as completing the merger required a significant effort on both sides. And finally, we thank the shareholders for their support, and we look forward to keeping you updated in the coming months. So that now concludes my opening remarks. Thank you. We will now turn to the formal business of the meeting. I will take each item and resolution in the order set out in the notice of meeting. Our meeting today involves tabling and reviewing the accounts and 4 resolutions to be decided. In terms of logistics, given it will take a few minutes for people to move to the microphones, when we reach the point for questions, we will start with online questions from the webcast, then questions over the phone, then questions in the room. [Operator Instructions] Please just clearly type at the top, whether it relates to our financial reports or write the number of the resolution or if it is a general question. Noting we will cover general questions after the formal business. As a reminder, for those on the phones, please wait until we reach each item of business before registering for a question on that item. [Operator Instructions] As I mentioned earlier, we will conduct a poll on all resolutions today, combining votes submitted before the meeting with votes that are cast during the meeting, both in the room and online. Since the online polls are already open, if you would like to vote now, please do so alternatively. It is also fine if you refer to only vote after we've discussed each resolution. I'll also allow some time at the end of the meeting for you to finalize your votes. For those voting online, if you make a mistake or change your mind, please just select your preferred voting option, and that will override your original vote. I note that Boardroom are the returning officers for today's meeting and will conduct our poll. Certain votes will be excluded in accordance with the Corporations Act and the ASX listing rules. The proxy votes will be shown after discussion of each individual resolution. I advise the meeting that I will be voting all undirected proxies in favor of all resolutions as indicated in the Notice of Meeting. As the results of the poll will not be available before the meeting closes, they will be released to the ASX and made available on our website later today. Right. So now we can get into it. So turning the first item of formal business, which is the tabling of the financial statements, the Directors' Report and the Auditors' Report for the financial year ending June 30, 2022. The company is required to lay before the meeting the last audited financial statements and reports, which were released to the ASX on the 16th of August 2022 as part of the company's annual report. No resolution on this matter is required. However, I now invite shareholders and their proxies to ask questions on the reports. Questions may also be asked of the auditors in relation to the conduct of the audit, content of the audit report, accounting policies adopted by the company and the independence of the auditor in carrying out the audit. So we'll start with online questions, and I'll ask Rebecca Fesq, the Head of Client Business and Strategic Partnerships at Regal Partners Limited to read out if there are any questions on the webcast or the phone.

Hi, David. There's no questions currently either online or on the phone.

Okay. Great. Okay. Well, thank you. So to the floor. And sir, please.

[indiscernible] from Delta Asset Management. I think we all agreed that the Fund Manager has done a pretty lousy job this year. Can you tell me 2 things: one, contractually, how long are we contracted to this manager, bearing in mind for VG8, that manager was exchanged for a different one; and secondly, if that is possible, would it not be a good plan to merge VG1 with RF1, Regal's, bigger brother, if you like. That way, we get rid of the discount. We get liquidity and hopefully, we get a manager that's the public are much more comfortable to trust and do a good job.

Thanks, Simon. Set of a good questions there. So the management contract is quite clear. This Board has a responsibility to make sure it's comfortable that the manager is performing within the guidelines and seeking to perform as best it can. Through the things I've just outlined, we're quite excited about the potential of this merger to address a number of the factors that can contribute to not only the distractions of the portfolio investment team, but also the capabilities around distribution and the broader operating platform at Regal. So we're quite excited about that and the other capital management initiatives that I've spoken about the dividends and the buyback. So this Board is comfortable and hopeful that we will see an improvement with the current structure now post-merger. As for anything to do with RF1, it's a very different set of strategies, and it's a very different shareholder base. So I think that's a less likely scenario. And I don't know, Brendan, if you wanted to comment at all on that. But it's not really in this Board's contemplation. I don't think the manager's contemplation. I think RF1 is one thing, RF8 is one thing, VG8, RF8. And then VG1, quite different teams. And remember, RF1 is sort of a fund of funds, right? It's a grouping of a series of private products managed by Regal. So what you suggest is not in our contemplation now, but I understand your point. I think we're -- I was going to some other shareholders outside afterwards prior to the meeting. We're pretty excited about this merger. And I know maybe June seems like a long time ago, but not for this sort of thing, but we're really pleased with the breadth of the team on the portfolio management side. We're pleased with -- we have made some additions to the -- or at least the manager has to the VGI Partners Global team and then asking the broader legal functions. So we're hopeful and committed to seeking to whatever we can do at the VG1 to make sure that the manager is performing to their best of its ability. And yes, this year, FY '21, we did plus 25. In FY '22, we did negative 27. It's more volatile than we would like. And it's been a very poor year, this sort of year just gone for sure.

Could I get you to make some sort of a commitment that if we are at this meeting in a year's time, 9 months prior -- forward, let's say, if we haven't got any further forward, i.e, the discount is still in the 20% region, the fund manager is lagging behind his peers, can we do something to as a Board to give us the shareholders an option to do something about it? So I think more drastic than a buyback as it's having an effect -- it only has effect on the net value to my -- you won't close the discount this way. But can we get some sort of commitment from me to say, we got to do something else.

Simon, what I'd say is this. We are super committed to seeking to do everything that we can. And what we've done in the last year or at least what the manager has done, to be more precise, is substantial. It's a substantial change. And as I said, it is early days, but we're really excited about how it's going so far. But we are constantly monitoring it, but we also want to give it time. And so I'm -- you did give it a little out saying vague. I really don't want to be precise or put times on it, but you have our commitment, we are focused on it. And this is disappointing that the persisting -- the persistent discount is a disappointment. And the performance in the last 12 months has been really, really disappointing also, for sure. And we're all shareholders, and we're not delighted either. But thank you for your questions and for coming. Anything else in the room?

Hi, David.

Hi, Doug.

Unfortunately, the nightmare continues. We warned you in March 2021, but you failed to take the right action. You keep on asking for more time, but how much time do you want, David? You've got a Harvard MBA, shareholders deserve better from you. You've had another year of huge losses for shareholders. $13 million of fees to Brendan and Phil at Regal Partners. David, you're a smart guy. You understand your fiduciary duty to look after the shareholders. Let's start with your letter attached to the annual report. Totally feeble whitewash. What a huge conflict you have, Chair of VGI and also a Director of the manager. We called out VGI's lawful shareholder value destruction early last year, but you haven't fixed the problem. Your excuse this year, David, in the Chairman's letter is the global equity markets experienced a challenging year. And "the company's portfolio wasn't immune." Wow, what a euphemism. David, you're hiding from the disastrous year you've delivered, and indeed, it's not just last year, it's a disaster for 5 years. 5 years since the IPO. Because you won't, in my opinion, fairly spell out the facts, I'll do it for you. Last year is another horrible year of failure. Operating loss pretax, David, $277 million down the gurgler under your watch. But it's not just a bad '21, '22. The IPO, David, was at $2. Over 5 years ago, September 2017, you had a rights issue of $2.35 but a shocking share price lost down to $1.39. VGI clearly has been the Rob Luciano pending Fund. The Luciano casino wins with huge fees, the IPO investors lose. And Rob Luciano walks away with $150 million of value in Regal Partners, the IPO investors lose heaps. Is that fair? The VGI brand is toxic and poisonous. The credibility after 5 disastrous years is lost. So many fund these analysts have left the sinking VGI ship. We keep on reading about it. Nothing -- certainly not coming from me, but others, about the devastation of the management team. The discount to NTA, David, under your watch means shareholders have deprived of access to $95 million. Current discount is 18%. David, you've represented as Chairman, a targeted and [ enemy ] IPO, a targeted return of 10% to 15% per annum. So misleading. We referred that to ASIC and you have recently dropped that representation. The October report shows NTA growth of 0.3% per annum after 5 years, but that's irrelevant to investors they can only sell at the discounted share price. VGI has delivered a shocking share price loss from $2 to $1.39. Unfortunately, David, you have withdrawn the annualized loss based on the share price result, but clearly, that's a big negative. Also, your monthly report, David, continues to say that you are seeking to avoid permanent loss of capital. Last time I did math, $2 down to $1.39 over 5 years is a horrible loss of capital, but you continue, in my view, to mislead the market. Let's look at the egregious fees, David, that you have paid to the manager. 2022, $13.2 million; 2021, $15.4 million and $26.3 million performance fee; 2020, $15.2 million and a small performance fee. 2019, $2 million and $12.8 million performance fee; 2018, $8.6 million performance fee. David, you've paid Regal Partners $93.6 million and yet the shareholders under your watch have lost money. Brendan and Brian, you are correct when you say the most important issue is investment performance. David, this is about discount. It's about the way full investment performance of the guy who is managing the portfolio. David, your Chairman's letter and today waffles about dividends. Again, in my opinion, very misleading. You talk about the dividend capacity. The tune of VGI's horrible losses, the recent dividend wasn't fully franked. As you would know, it's disadvantageous to many investors to receive partially on non-franked dividends. The total franking shown, which you don't refer to, David, is a very, very low $7 million and the last dividend was only partially franked. The problem with what you're doing, David, to try and a futile manner support the share price, you talk about this dividend. But what that's doing is the NTA declines or goes sideways. What that's doing is that the NTA per share drops, and you're converting capital into partly accessible income, which is really contrary to what most investors want. Look, in reality, VGI has the worst attributes of funds management that gives funding is a bad name. It really is the dunce of the class. It's far worse than -- sorry, VG1, it's far worse than VG8. The misleading representation of 10% to 15%, huge fees to managers, terrible investment results, losses to IPO investors. My question, David, why do you keep punishing investors? Why not just wind it up, convert to unlisted fund or listed ETF, hand back the $1.70 per share? You've had 5 years, David, and you've failed miserably. You keep on asking for more time. Time is up, David. So the question is, why don't you wind up, convert to unlisted fund or listed ETF? Thanks.

Thanks, David. And as you may expect, I disagree with many of your editorial comments through that long speech. As I have outlined in my Chairman's address and in my letters, we're very comfortable with the current approach. We think it is the right approach. Over the last 12 months, this merger is a substantial change in the operating approach, and we are committed to seeing this through and making this work. Thank you.

David, I have a question online.

Sure.

Thank you. So the question is how performance fees of the manager are calculated? What are the high and low watermarks, and how does the Board ensure it is correctly computed?

Yes. Thank you. However, that is online. The -- so all of the fees are audited and checked before they're paid on a semiannual basis. That's right. So check it all and manage it all. And how they're levied is they are off a high watermark. So the prior point where they were levied and because the performance has been poor in recent times, we are materially below the holder mark. So there is a long way of performance and there's portfolio growth needed before the performance fees would kick in again. But it is a very straightforward formula, yes.

And the performance fees, they are all [indiscernible]audited.

Yes. So they're all calculated by an external administrator, signed off by the auditors and then levied twice a year.

No further questions online or on the phone.

David.

Thanks, David. Look, there's a little bit of duplication with the previous meeting, but this is a separate meeting for a separate company. So I make no apologies, a bit of duplication. There are a couple of differences also. You are Chairman of this meeting, and Lawrence was Chairman of the previous one. Big difference with you, David, is you're also on the Board of the manager, Regal Partners. Monumental conflict given the fees payable across the Regal Partners. I remind you, David, of your notorious letter of 16 March 2021, "We are in vigorous agreement with you that it's unacceptable for LICs to trade at a substantial discount for a sustained period." Your Chairman's letter waffles on, David, that the conflicted manager had engaged external advisers to review options to remove the discount. But the main action is pretty feeble, a buyback, which is nowhere near sufficient to fix the problem, moving deck chairs on the Titanic. It is concerning for a guy of your background to sit there with your conflict of interest. But also for the other VGI directors to aggregate the review of the options to remove the discount to the highly conflicted Regal Partners, who, of course, want to continue reaping the huge fees. My question, David, to you is why have you failed to fix shocking investment performance of VGI and the discount that you represented in your 2021 written letter that you would fix? In the context of that, will you resign and apologize to the shareholders for the huge pain that you have caused?

Thanks, David. Again, as you'd expect, I refute a lot of the characterizations there. I will not resign. I am disappointed in the performance, as I've said many times, even in this meeting. Our view is that LICs structures attractive for many in investor types, giving them access to otherwise unavailable wholesale product, and Regal and some of the other managers that we've discussed in the previous meeting have shown that. We have not aggregated our responsibilities at all. We did a thorough review, as I said many times, including in the prior meeting to a question from you. We have made substantial changes. We are excited about it, and we are looking forward to seeing some improved performance and improvement in the discount However, we expect they may take time, and we are committed to it, but also patient. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Malcolm?

Thanks, David. Sorry interrupt your texting Lawrence, but these questions do address you as well as Adelaide. David, I'm not going to repeat all the numbers there. Horrible, and they've been horrible since inception with a couple of years of uptick. What really scares me is the size of the discount and the losses and the value destruction that Luciano has caused a VG1 relative to the performance that Phil King has done as portfolio manner since he took over in late June. That's actually horrendous. Down 20% versus up 11% or thereabouts. I just can't see how you can continue with the charade of having Luciano, as a portfolio manager now that he's an employee of Regal Partners Limited. I want to know specifically whether you had a discussion with Regal Partners Limited and its principal Phil King to replace Luciano as portfolio manager. And if not, why not?

Okay. Thanks, Malcolm. As you would imagine, any discussions about any matters like that are not matters for this meeting or to be aired publicly? Thank you.

I just can't see why you can't be open and transparent about this issue.

Okay. Well, you and I see this differently. Do you have any other questions?

And if Luciano is here at...

No, sorry.

I'll go ahead. I do have another statement, question, yes. The infamous letter you wrote, David, to the other David and me on the 16th of March 2021, a bit over 8 months ago was 5 pages. It was an elaborate response to a couple of meetings that we had, which unfortunately didn't actually get anywhere. You made a dozen-or-so representations that I mean I'm just going to highlight a couple of them because David touched on one. It's unacceptable for LICs to trade at a substantial discount for a sustained period. Clearly, 5 years is a sustained period. You've also said you established the LICs structures when we're focused on making them shareholder friendly. Well, that's hardly been the result of the investors in VG1. Despite the current share price trading, a discount to NTA, both underlying investment strategies to VG1 and VG8 were delivering on their objectives. Well, that didn't really work out either, did it? We are of a strong view that a substantial sustained discount to NTA is not acceptable. We agree on something at last. Then you went on to say, over the last 121 months, I think that should have been 12 months for VGI. And since listing for VGA, our LICs traded at a discount to NTA, that is absolutely correct. Then you'll say that VGI Partners is working with the independent directors of VG1 and VG8 to explore options to address the discount to NTA. Well, that really hasn't worked out either. Many investors see great benefits in our current LIC structure. I don't think they do, David, any longer because the discount gap is so large, it's been so long, sustained for so long and continues when there are clearly other viable opportunities for investors to participate in the leadership and portfolio management of Luciano or whoever it may be. If Luciano walks the plank, and I just don't buy the fact that you've got to have an ETF to access management. It's not exclusive anymore. It's -- the world is flat again. You go on to say, we agree it's unacceptable for VG8 partners, LIC to trade at large discounts to NTA. We're focused on closure of the discounts as anyone. I just can't see that at all. We're working with our advisers to explore options to address the discount to NTA. You might have taken advice, but it might have been from the manager. Again, these are just passing the buck on the practical question of what you're going to do. You're right. Fancy letters, David, and they're very good, but they don't do anything to bring about structural change. We've been at this for some 18 months because we saw the light coming over the hill. And it's incredibly disappointing that you've actually done zero apart from a buyback, which has been a half a** sort of buyback as well as your only structural solution to the size of the discount. I think you saw walk the plank and do a Cranbrook and resign. But I do want us to undertake to propose this issue and discuss it at each Board meeting and respond to us before this AGM next year. Will you do that?

Can you repeat the question?

The whole thing, David?

Please.

Will you undertake to propose this issue?

Which issue?

This issue.

Because you sort of highlighted about 17 issues.

It's really simple.

Thank you for getting out my wonderful letter.

I didn't.

Well, you did a fair bit of it. So what issue?

The issue that you'll consider converted to an unlisted fund or initiate a larger buyback or move to an ETF or [ wind ] VG1, and you'll consider these issues at each Board meeting and you'll report back this meeting next year.

The Board's job is to consider these matters continuously, and the Board will continue to do its job. Thank you, Malcolm. Okay. Nothing else? Okay. So that's the financial statement. I'll get back to the run sheet. So we're going to go to the Rem Report. Under the Corps Act, listed companies are required to include as part of their Directors' Report a Remuneration Report. The Remuneration Report for the financial year ended 30 June 2020 is included in the company's 2022 Annual Report. The Corporations Act requires companies to put to shareholders a nonbinding vote to enable shareholders to voice their opinion on matters included in the Remuneration Report. Given the vote is advisory only, it does not bind the Board or the company. However, the Board will take the outcome of the vote into account when considering future remuneration decisions. At this point, it is worth noting that Regal Partners, the manager, pays the bulk of VG1's operating costs, including the cost of this AGM. And just to highlight that, in last financial year, that was $940,000. This is a central plank of Regal Partners' philosophy of alignment. As a result, VG1 only bears the cost of its Non-executive Directors plus the Directors and Officers' insurance. The Board recommends that shareholders vote in favor of adopting the 2022 Remuneration Report. I now move this resolution. Are there any questions on the rem report? Phones, online, Rebecca?

No questions online or on the phone.

Okay. David? Thanks, David. Look, of the directors, key management personnel covered by the rem report. The remuneration, I think, from memory, is $60,000 or $70,000 for attending 4 Board meetings. This company has been running for 5 years. I believe the directors have all been foundation directors. My question is very simple. Do the directors who are covered by the rem report, do they feel the pain of the over $200 million loss of shareholder value presided by them? Do they feel the pain? Will they, did they do what a lot of honorable directors did during COVID, say that shareholders are suffering, we will take a haircut on our remuneration. So simple question, do the directors care about the pain they have caused to the shareholders, and did they offer to take a haircut to the remuneration? Thank you.

I'll go first and say we all feel the pain we are shareholders, too. And as I've said before, we're disappointed with the discount and with the recent portfolio performance. And we did not -- we continue to work just as hard as always and, including working through the ramifications of the merger, et cetera, et cetera. So no, we've continued to work hard, and say we did not offer to reduce our fees. Lawrence or Adelaide, do you have anything to add?

Nothing to add. Thanks, David.

None. Thank you.

Thanks, David. Is there any other questions or comments on the rem report? If not, we will go or show the proxy votes on the screen. Open proxies in favor of the chair of the meeting at the time of the meeting will be voted in favor of the resolution adjusting for these votes are. Do I need to read all these out? You can see them all. Count 64 million, 162,000 proxies, 2 million against, or I should read them out. We were told last year, weren't we, Ingrid? You're going to get grumpy. I'm going to read it all out. Adjusting for these, the votes are 64,655,752 in favor; 162,729 other proxy discretion ;and 2,005,261. This equates to 96.8% in favor, 0.2% other proxy discretion; and 3.0% against. For those in the room with blue cards or if you're a shareholder or proxy holder and eligible to vote online, could you please now complete your vote for Resolution 1. Alternately, if you would prefer to wait, please complete your voting at any time between now and the end of the meeting. [Voting]

I'll now move to the second resolution, the reelection of Lawrence Myers as a director. Mr. Myers is retiring by rotation and being eligible is standing for reelection in accordance with Rule 6.7 of the company's constitution. Mr. Myers' details are set out in the explanatory memorandum of Notice of Meeting, and they are highlighted on this slide. In summary, Mr. Myers is the Founder and Managing Director of MVP Advisory Proprietary Limited, a prominent high-end Sydney firm of chartered accountants, which was established in 1998. Mr. Myers is also the CFO of FIFO Investments Proprietary Limited, a family office for the Myers family and a number of other associated families. Mr. Myer's specialist areas of practice include mergers and acquisitions, corporate and business advisory, tax consulting and advisory, succession planning and family office services. Mr. Myers is also a member of the Foundation Board of the Art Gallery of New South Wales. Mr. Myers has been an Independent Director and Chairman of the Audit and Risk Committee of ASX-listed Breville Group Limited since 2013, its Lead Independent Director since August 2014 and its Deputy Chairman since August 2021. Mr. Myers is also the independent Chairman of the VGI Partners Asian Investments Limited and Chair of VG1's Audit and Risk Committee. So the Board with Lawrence -- with Mr. Myers abstaining, supports the reelection of Lawrence Myers as a director. I would now move that Lawrence Myers is real and elected as a director of the company. I'll now move to questions Ms. Fesq.

Nothing online.

Okay. Any questions about this resolution in the room, David?

Yes, just trying to understand the contribution of Lawrence. My understanding is Lawrence, you were a foundation director 5 years ago. So under your watch, there's been a massive destruction of shareholder value. You're, obviously, aware you have a fiduciary duty to each of the VG1 shareholders. In 26th of October, you bought nearly 347,000 shares at $498,000, $1.44 per share. That represents a discount to you from NTA of $100,000. Importantly, Lawrence, I'd like to understand your contribution to the saga of Rob Luciano. My understanding is that he is subject to termination on a 6-month notice period. We had a public expert's report that no doubt you read in regards to the merger of Regal with VGI that publicly stated that Regal was, at least, 3% better performance per annum than VGI. That's the independent expert, which is pretty startling. It's interesting also that since VG8 terminated Luciano 5 months ago, VG8's NTA is up 11% over the same period, VGI's flat 0 gain, so an 11% underperformance. My first question to you, Lawrence, is, why have you left Luciano as CIO of VG1 with such woeful results that is continuing to punish shareholders, without an exit at near NTA? So bad investment results and the discount. But why have you left Luciano there, please?

Thank you, David. As you would appreciate, I'm not a Director of Regal Partners. And so therefore, is Rob's employment by VGI Partners and his management and responsibility is not within my ambit.

Everyone keeps on saying he talked to the legal partners and you're very close and you work collaboratively together. And yet when there's a tricky question, you plead the fifth amendment. But anyway, I understand you plead at the fifth. My second question is, look, you've got an impressive CV, Lawrence. MD of a high-end accounting firm, CEO of family office, sitting in the Board with Sally [indiscernible], I believe, at Breville, certainly she's a managed shareholder, so you've certainly got plenty of ability. Do you wish to -- do you feel shamed, Lawrence? Do you feel guilty? Do you feel a sense of hurt? Do you want to apologize to the many shareholders who have lost a lot of money under your watch on the Board of VG1, in excess of $200 million has gone down the drain while you've been sitting there for the last 5 years? So do you want to apologize, Lawrence?

Again, as we had in the VGI meeting, and I do appreciate that this is a different meeting, all directors of this company are shareholders in the company. And so to echo David's comments, we're all disappointed by the performance of the company. We're all disappointed with the discount to NTA. We've all incurred losses along with the shareholders, and we're doing whatever we can within our ambit to rectify the situation.

Thanks, Lawrence. Malcolm?

Lawrence, we all know you're a clever accountant and we've negotiated in the past on other issues, and you push hard for your clients in those discussions, which is honorable. But you blocked this in an e-mail, some last year after we wanted to reach out to you and have a conversation here. I thought that was just incredibly arrogant thing to do, very ingenuous to all shareholders, not just us as to shareholders, who probably you might regard as informed. It's disappointing to see. And as a director, your shareholders, I know because we've spoken to literally hundreds of them, are very disappointed that you haven't pushed harder for them here at VG8. So I want to know specifically what is your personal position, not the technical rules about whether you're wearing the VG1 director hat or whether you're having side conversations with Brendan or Phil or whatever. But once your persist on Luciano continuing to manage VG1, when the relative performance of VG8 and to Phil King has been just far more effective than turning around the decline, chopping out the rotten and closing the discount gap. It's just not possible to form a reasonable opinion that Luciano is good for the future of VG1 based on past performance. Do you agree?

Sorry, what was the question?

I'll repeat it. What is your personal...

[indiscernible] something sensible.

What is your personal position on Luciano continuing to manage VG1 when the real performance of VG8 under Phil King has been far more effective turning around the decline and closing the discount gap. I'm saying it's just not possible to form a reasonable opinion that Luciano is good for the future of VG1 based on past performance. What is your opinion?

Well, it's quite simple. VG8 and VG1 have very different investment mandates. Their performance is not to be compared. They are different mandates, as you would appreciate, number one. Number two, I can speak for myself. I'm an investor in the VGI wholesale fund, which is exactly the same portfolio as VG1. I've not withdrawn my investment, I don't intend to withdraw my investment.

Okay. Thanks, Lawrence. Okay. Yes, Charlie?

Charlie Kingston. Just a question. On the context of Rob Luciano, a few years back, said that imagine saying to your family at Sunday dinner, "You need to pay me a bonus for losing your money as I lost less money than the ASX 200." It's absurd. Now as has been mentioned, VGI, VG1 has paid over $90 million in fees since the IPO, yet trades at a significant amount below that IPO price, delivering serious losses to investors. Just a question for Lawrence. First question, do you think that is fair? And is it contributing that misaligned fee structure whereby rather [indiscernible]. The manager has been paid a significant fee by performance and management fees, whereas the investors have lost significant amounts of money since IPO, has that structure led or contributed to the chronic discount to NTA?

Thanks, Charlie. Yes. Look, as -- again, as we've said a few times today, we're all disappointed with the performance. There's no question about it. We're all disappointed with the share price performance, and we're all disappointed by the underlying investment portfolio performance. The investment terms, including the fees and the performance fees are very clear. They're set out in the prospectus, and every investor in the company is very familiar with what they are.

Thanks, Lawrence. You didn't answer the question whether or not you think it's fair. But that's okay. And if it contributes to the discount, do you think it does contribute?

Does what contribute? The fee arrangement?

Fee arrangement, yes. No...

Yes. It does I think it's benchmark.

Do you think that contributes?

No, I don't believe it does.

Okay. And then secondly, just based off that, would you consider platinum, multiple fund managers have reduced or altered their fees in the past? Has the Board, including yourself discussed that based on the $90 million that's been paid and the outcomes that shareholders have received in exchange for that? That fee, have you considered or actively discussed altering those fees, which plenty other managers have done.

Yes. Again, it's not in my ambit. I don't work for Regal Partners. It's not within my control to adjust the fee arrangements.

Okay. Thanks, Lawrence. Okay. If there are no further questions, I'll show the proxy votes here. Open proxies in favor of the chair of the meeting at the time of the meeting will be voted in favor of the resolution after adjusting for these. The votes are 74,619,060 in favor; 162,729 other proxy discretion and 4,652,052 against. This equates to 93.9% in favor, 0.2% other proxy discretion; and the 5.9% against. Everyone who is eligible now, please complete your vote on Resolution 2. [Voting]

I will now move to Resolution 3, the reelection of Noel Whittaker AM as a director. And as I said, unfortunately, he is not available to join us. Mr. Whittaker is retiring by rotation and being eligible is standing for reelection in accordance with Rule 6.7 of the company's constitution. Mr. Whittaker's details are set out in the memorandum of the Notice of Meeting, and they are shown here on this slide. In summary, Mr. Whittaker is a pioneer in the field of consumer financial education. He writes weekly columns in many major newspapers, including The Brisbane Sunday Mail, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. For 30 years, Mr. Whittaker as the Director of Whittaker McNaught, one of Australia's leading financial advisory companies with more than $2 billion under management. In 2011, he was made a member of the Order of Australia for service to the community in raising awareness of personal finance. Mr. Whittaker is a charter tax adviser, a member of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Regional Liaison Committee and is currently an adjunct Professor with the Faculty of Business at the Queensland University of Technology. The Board, with Mr. Whittaker abstaining, supports the reelection of Noel Whittaker as a director. I will now move that now be reelected as a director. Now I know it's a bit odd because we can't direct questions to Noel, but they are online, there aren't any online recon. And do you guys have any comments that, I mean, I'll try to answer them for him maybe. David?

Thanks, David. Look, it's a pity Noel isn't here. Look, I respect Noel's achievements over the years. But look, we got to be sensitive about talking about age. But Noel is older than Joe Biden, whether his mental faculties are stronger is unclear because he's not here to communicate with. But apparently, he's 82 years old. In my opinion, it's an indictment on this Board that you are endorsing Noel Whittaker to have another term. He seems to have contributed nothing. We've endeavored to make communication with him. He's been unavailable. He's in a hospital today. I don't know why you can't sit in on a phone call to answer questions. Look, from the research I've done, David, a distinguished career, that's great. But there's a time to start to play golf now. Noel has presided over a debacle, several hundred million dollars of losses. He's now 82 years. Apparently, he's written 22 books, David, according to my research. Interestingly, one of his books is Making Money Made Simple as well as multiple newspaper columns. Look, assessment and I make no apologies, it's a little bit hard without having the ability to ask him questions directly. But I will fire in the question and the comment. In my view, Noel has either been asleep at the wheel for the last 5 years in his role as director or alternatively, he's a hypocrite, because if he's going to run out there and say, I'm going to write a book, Making Money Made Simple, and yet be one of the presiding directors in destroying a lot of shareholder money. Either he hasn't been focusing on his undoubted career, which gives him some credibility in managing money or alternatively, he's a hypocrite writing this book and yet delivering the opposite result for shareholders. So my question to you, David, on behalf of Noel Whittaker, are you asleep at the wheel or just a hypocrite?

So look, for the record, I don't think this Board endorses those ageist's comments. I think they're offensive, and I don't think anyone's age has anything to do their ability to contribute. So I think I'd like the record to note that that's the view of this company, and we stridently disagree with the ageism inherent in your comments, David. Respectfully, I think they're offensive. This Board has formed a view about Noel's contribution, and that's why we've all recommended his reelection. Thank you. Malcolm?

Thanks, David, and best wishes to Noel. I hope he makes a speedy recovery. It's no fun being laid up in a hospital with broken bones. When I Googled Noel, because with Noel, we've tried to make contact with Noel, but he doesn't reply to his e-mail. He doesn't answer any e-mails. It's a common issue with this entire Board, including Lawrence and Adelaide, actually, they don't want to talk to any shareholders, which is extraordinary. I Googled Noel, anyway, and David, you'll get a laugh out of this. The first thing that came up was that this is the quote. "Noel Whittaker is Australia's financial Wizard of Oz," which is truly hilarious. Did you know that?

Carry on.

Because to share with the audience, it's a description that David has used about Luciano in the past publicly and privately, but I think...

Actually just privately, which you then put in the papers, but carry on.

I think it was an open discussion, as you previously told us.

No, it actually wasn't. But carry on.

Let's not dwell on that detail, David.

Okay.

He's done a number of things and written a number of things, but his 20 Commandments of Wealth, I'm not going to go through them, Lawrence. I know you'll find that tedious.

Thank you. Well, let just cut to the chase.

Was number 8, which was always judge in investments on its merits with VG1 and [indiscernible].

Malcolm, I'd really like you to be respectful. Noel isn't here. We are endorsing his appointment. Now could you be respectful and get to the point, please?

I can't support this resolution.

Thank you. Well, then I think you should...

Just sharing that news with the audience.

Thank you. I think you should vote now then.

I'm going to.

Okay. Nothing on the phones. Okay. So I'll show the proxies on the screen for Noel. Open proxies in favor of the chair of the meeting at the time of the meeting, we've voted in favor of the resolution adjusting for these votes are 74,298,700 in favor; 162,729 other proxy discretion; and 4,352,451 against. This equates to 94.3% in favor; 0.2% other proxy discretion; and 5.5% against. Whatever one is now eligible to complete your vote, please do for Resolution 3. [Voting]

I'll now move to Resolution 4, the increase in the Nonexecutive Directors' fee cap. In accordance with ASX Listing Rule 10.17, shareholder approval is required to increase the aggregate amount that may be paid as remuneration to Nonexecutive Directors. Rule 6.5 of the company's constitution provides to the directors other than any managing director or director who is a salary officer, and we don't have any of those, may be paid such remuneration determined from time to time, by the company in general meeting. The current Nonexecutive Directors' fee cap is $225,000 per annum. If Resolution 4 is passed, the fee capital increased by $275,000 per annum to $500,000 per annum. If Resolution 4 is not passed, the fee capital remain at $225,000 per annum. It's important to state that there is no intention to change the salary of any individual director in the current financial year. However, due to a change in the duties of me, at Regal Partners Limited, on the 3rd of June when, I went to a nonexecutive role, I've now become a nonexecutive of VG1 rather than before when I was an executive of the manager. So my role has changed to a nonexecutive status. Given this subject to obtaining shareholder approval at the fee cap at today's AGM, my Director's fees will be included in VG1's Nonexecutive Director fee cap for the financial year-end to June 2023. The proposed increase in the cap is, therefore, to facilitate the number of Nonexecutive Directors changing from 3 to 4 and to potentially assist with the transition to new directors in the future, if the Board considers it is appropriate to do so. We see Resolution 4 is a key step in achieving a broad range of skills, experience and expertise on the Board and attracting and retaining directors of high caliber. Noting the Board's interest in this item, the Board is refraining from making a recommendation to shareholders in relation to the resolution to increase the Nonexecutive Directors' fee cap. And I'll just repeat again, it's not to increase the salary of individual directors. I will now move this resolution to increase the Nonexecutive Directors' fee cap. Are there any questions online, Rebecca?

No questions.

Phone, online. David, sorry, I'm getting you to mixed up.

David, we look very similar. You're getting real David.

You sort of do.

David, could you clarify what your remuneration will be, if this company is going to have to pay it.

It's the same as what the other net in $60,000 -- $70,000.

Okay, fine. Look, my question is, look, as everyone can glean, I think the performance is disgraceful. I think the Board is responsible for a lot of that, notwithstanding the -- trying to draw a line between the Board and Regal Partners. Question is very simple. Has anyone on the Board, David or Lawrence or Adelaide, talked to Regal Partners about doing what Antipodes did announcing a 20%, 25% buyback, whereby if people didn't participate, other people could join in? So in other words, if you do a 25% buyback, [ Brendan ] at NTA and if people don't participate, then the very disturbed shareholders you've got on the register connects it, to the extent of 50% at NTA. Is there anyone on the Board before we vote on this resolution, talk to Brendan about that possibility?

I can confirm, David, that the Board has considered a range of options, as I've said many times in this meeting and in the written correspondence. So many structures have been considered. Yes.

Why wouldn't you see on that [indiscernible] ?

The Board has determined the path that we're on is the best path for the reasons I've outlined multiple times. So is this a third question, I think?

Second one, David.

Second one, okay. I'm pretty sure you've already had 2, carry on.

It's very circular, David. You're stonewalling everyone, as you've done for 20 months since we had meetings. You've come up with an appalling outcome for investors who you are fiduciary duty to keep on stonewalling them. What we know is that Regal Partners, Brendan, your firm, has commissioned supposed experts to advise on options. Now experts very subjective opinion, Brendan. But I assume that, that expert or adviser will come up with a bit of advice that would probably suit Regal Partners. You then told us, David and Lawrence, today that the Board of VGA and VGI conducted a comprehensive review of the report that Brendan and Regal Partners of team on the options to alleviate the acute distress of the shareholders you meant to be acting for. So it's all very circular. You now tell us, David, that you have landed on the amazing strategy of a buyback, an on-market buyback, which you yourself has set in meetings with us of itself is not sufficient to fix the problem. But David, there's no plausible credible explanation why if you were to get Brendan's acquiescence and support to a 20% buyback uncapped. So in other words, if only half the people participated, you doubled your exit at NTA. It's a choice for the shareholders, you owe a fiduciary duty to look after who are suffering. If you were able to agree that with Brendan and Regal Partners, and you're also on that board, David, as we know your conflict. Without any hesitation, it is 100% certain, no one would disagree that is in the interest of the shareholders that you are representing today. So why wouldn't you seek that option?

Thanks, David. Look, I'm -- thanks for the suggestion about conflicts and about duties. I think I can speak for the whole Board. We're well-aware of our duties. This is a VG1 meeting. And when we attend the VG1 meetings, we know who we are acting for. We are acting for VG1 shareholders solely. That's our clear duty and that's what we do. We have not been stonewalling or whatever you like to characterize it as. As I outlined in the VG8 meeting, but I will go through it now because no one's got anything better to do, but this might be the last thing. We conducted the review. We -- the manager merged. It's early days, but we are pleased with what the manager, how the merger is going and thrilled with the depth and breadth and capability of the manager. We genuinely are. I said that to you outside. The structure allows Rob and Marco and the team to focus solely on the global portfolio both for private clients and for VG1. We've recently added a senior hire to that team. We've got broader investor relations capability here. We've ramped up the buyback. We've adjusted the dividend policy. So to say we've just done 1 petty little thing. This Board is well aware of the potential of the merger of the manager. And so far, we're really pleased with how it's going. So that's my response. Thank you. So with that, we will do the votes on this final one, I think, thank you. And for the people on the phone, I'll show the proxy votes on the screen. Open proxies in favor of the chair of the meeting at the time of the meeting we voted in favor of the resolution. Adjusting for these, the votes are 56,770,983, in favor; 162,729, other proxy discretion; and 21,185,181 against. That equates to 72.7% in favor; 0.2% other proxy discretion; and 27.1% against. So everyone is now eligible could please vote for Resolution 4. [Voting]

So that's it for the resolutions now general questions. Rebecca anyone with any general questions? No. Nothing.

No.

Any general questions anywhere. [ Tom ]?

Why [indiscernible] change in is for Regal as well. As for the brand, we don't have the [indiscernible] managers of Regal.

Yes. Look, the change for VGA to really reflecting the portfolio management function that feel is driving with the Regal team for VGA. Rob is still running this portfolio with Marco and the team, as I've just said. Look, it's something I don't think we're close to, but it's something we're not contemplating. But we can absolutely consider it. Simon, is it?

Yes. Again, if we can be a little bit less formal, David, at this stage, last topic. And Brendan, you've been kind enough, both at the merger meeting. 6 months ago to stand up and make some comments, you didn't have to, but appreciate your transparency. Clearly, the flavor of the meeting is that no one supports Rob Luciano. In fact, legally, in my opinion, David, there's a strong legal argument that you could terminate the management agreement anyway, fundamental breach of contract because the entity you appointed 5 years ago as manager has changed so dramatically. You've lost Doug Tynan, you've lost Rob Poiner. I don't know the other people, but there are countless number of people who left in [indiscernible]. If you're prepared to do it, I think the audience here today would be interested in your comments if you're prepared to make them on whether you see Rob being around in 3 months' time or not?

Yes. I think everyone knows who you are, but for people on the phone?

Sure. So Brendan O'Connor, CEO and Managing Director of Regal Partners Limited. Let me start out by saying I'm not going to comment on any individual employee of Regal Partners. Rob Luciano is an employee, and it would be unfair and wrong of me to do so. What I can say is that as manager of both VGA and the lead portfolio manager there is Phil King, and as investment manager of VG1 and the lead portfolio manager there is Rob Luciano. We take our role as investment manager very seriously. We like to put our clients first. We like to invest alongside our clients, and I think that for the most part, we've got a very good track record of delivering great outcomes for our clients. Clearly, as has been a topic of conversation, we have work to do in respect of the performance of VG1, and we'll have more to say about that in due course. No one who's a shareholder of VG1, should be satisfied with that performance. It's performance that we'd like to improve going forward. And as David has been articulating, I think we're recommending suggestions and solutions to the Board that will ultimately improve that in time. It's disappointing that, that hasn't started to have an effect immediately, but I'll take the win while I get it, and it's great to see the impact of some of those changes in respect to VG8. I've got every confidence that ultimately, we'll make a success of VG1, but we're not there yet. Thank you.

Great, Brendan. Thank you. Charlie?

Can I ask a follow-up to that one, please. Phil King, the founder of Regal, once said in relation to Rob Luciano, 1 or 2 disappointing years that returns doesn't diminish his abilities. Now as has been discussed at length. It's been, I think, roughly 5 years since the IPO, which has delivered some nasty losses to shareholders. But just in general, I don't expect you to comment on Rob, the current manager. But in general, your portfolio managers, do you have a defined time period in which you will tolerate underperformance relative to a benchmark, before you will remove them or swap them out with somebody else? I'd imagine ratings agencies, they probably accept 2 to 3 years of underperformance before they change their recommendations. Clients, certainly, maybe 2 or 3 years before they withdraw funds. But when you assess your portfolio managers at Regal Partners and also to the Board, is there a defined period say, 3 years of underperformance, which you'll accept before making changes? I appreciate any comments in regards to that.

I think the simple answer is there's nothing as simple as a defined period of time. But clearly, we assess the performance of all our portfolio managers regularly and certainly, in a formal manner every 12 months. We don't like to tolerate underperformance. And ultimately, we wouldn't have built the business that we have, and I think we've got a track record that demonstrates that, that had we had tolerated, we wouldn't be where we are today. So as I said, whilst we've got further work to do, rest assured, it's a key focus from our perspective. We think we've got a great team, and I think that we've got further work to do here. But I think I've said, rest assured, I think we'll have positive things to say about it in the future.

Correct.

You have a defined time frame, after which?

No. No.

Thanks, Charlie. Thanks, Brandon. All right, everyone. Look, thank you very, very much. I know you'll be disappointed to hear, but I think that concludes our section on general questions. In case you have not completed your voting during the meeting, I'll now give a few months to finalize your voting. [Voting]

As mentioned earlier, Board room, VG1's share registry, that's there. We'll conduct a poll using the voting cards that you submit today in the room, online votes that you submit and the votes that were cast before the meeting. If there's any person in the room who believes they're entitled to vote but is not registered to vote, would you please raise your hand for assistance? As a reminder, for those in the room, the persons entitled to vote on this poll are all shareholders and proxy holders holding blue voting cards. On the reverse side of your blue admission card is your voting paper instructions. Please ensure you print your name where indicated and sign the voting paper. When you are finished filling in your voting card, please provide the Boardroom staff to ensure your votes are counted. The Boardroom staff will also be able to help if you need additional time or other assistance. If you do require any help, please raise your hand. Have all the votes being cast? I think that might be the last one. My gosh, it's exciting. I now declare the poll closed and formally charge border and count the votes. Okay. The results of today's AGM will be released to the market and made available on VG1's website later today. Ladies and gentlemen, as there is no other formal is of the meeting, I declare this AGM of VGI Partners Global Investments Limited closed. I thank you all for attending today. By all means, reach out any time to our Investor Relations team, if you like further information or questions about our company. Thank you.