Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the Sofina half-year results investor call. You've all received the half-year report and the press release and investor presentation yesterday after closing.

Today's idea is that we ask our CEO, Harold Boël, to take you through that presentation that we posted online briefly and then afterwards we'll open up for Q&A if there are any analyst questions. If you do have a question on the webcast, you should raise your hand, and then we can see and unmute you.

For the people in the room, obviously I can just ask you if you have a question. With that, let me hand over to Harold to say a few words about the results and go through the investor presentation.

Thank you. Thank you, Dirk, and welcome everybody, and happy to to have you again on on on one of our of our conf calls.

Wanted to walk you through the investor presentation that we had prepared and and have some time for for Q&A. The our mission hasn't hasn't changed.

It is the one we shared with you last year when we did the capital raise. If I look with the the with benefit of hindsight one year down the line, I I think many of the things that we had foreseen in the capital raise have have have come to pass.

We are in generally speaking, in line where we wanted to be, though indeed we're only six months into the year, and, as you all know, investor time is a is is a long time. If we look at the the highlights of the first half-year, variations on the theme, we're still looking at five sectors.

RNUV has has progressed and has has has grown, and we'll we'll go into the into the details of where that comes from, with both our investment styles covering the three most important economic regions of the world, which is the the U.S. and North America, Europe, and and Asia.

Our sustainability commitments stay as strong as as ever, and our wide panel of relationship, and we'll get over we'll get into those details as well, is on the same footing with 90 portfolio companies, 90 general partners with whom we entertain long-term relationships. If I then I will skip over the the history.

We had last year the time to to go into it and to to explain how the our history defined who we were. One year down the line, all these elements stay stay true and stay at the heart of who we are and therefore what we do.

Now if I look at specifically the first half of the year, what we had seen happening in the second half of of '25 with momentum in in the market, when I mean momentum, I mean transaction intensity is is continues to grow. The lessons of '21-'22 have not been lost onto the market, and the attractiveness of long-term permanent capital is is is there and is is strong and allows us to gain access to competitive situation and and sometimes even to create a transaction.

The one of the things about Sofina's long-term investment thesis is a belief that innovation is a factor of of of value creation and economic growth. I think with everything happening in the digital and the technological world, this is true as as as ever, and we're capitalizing on that.

For us, we've had a an active deal flow both on the investment and and divestment side. You can see a number of a large number of transactions.

These are, for the most part, with the exception of Cerealis, what we call the Sofina Growth investors investment, which means smaller tickets into fast-growing companies with a more, I would say, with a sharper risk-reward profile, higher expectations of of of of IRRs and multiples, but also higher higher risks. To dive right into it, there is the emergence of a common theme in our digital transformation sector is cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity attacks are on the rise, and AI is a strong enabler of these. We all see it in our own organization the extent to which we're exposed and subject to these attacks.

Therefore, there is the need for for being just as innovative on the defend on the defense side. The investment we had done a year and a half, two years ago in [Cyera?]

is in in in that length. The investment we did in in XPO and in Eye Security are starting to cover the value chain.

What what we do when we approach a sector is to look at the whole value chain of a given sector, a given thematic in this case, and to identify the places where where we think the risk-rewards are the most are the most interesting. This is ongoing work, and and and we're happy with our exposure to this growing theme.

At the end at the other end of the spectrum, I would call our investment in Cerealis, which is an investment with a Portuguese family that that owns one of the leading Iberian producers of pasta based on the thesis of, best-in-class manufacturing in in in in their segment, and therefore a possibility to to gain market share through market consolidation in in the Iberian Peninsula, and based on a proprietary relationship that we have developed for actually more than 10 years. This doesn't mean that our teams have not been active at the on the exit side.

The exit environment is, is more difficult. There is because of rising interest rates, or or having interest rates having risen since the low points of the beginning of the of the decennia, there is less liquidity in the system and and and therefore capital circulation is is is is somewhat more challenging.

That being said, we still exited the remaining position we had in Hana Group Consumer, this was an investment we had done in 2020 for a company that got IPO'd a year and a half ago, and we sold our remaining stake this this spring. SES, that was a historical position, and that was really very, very small tail end.

Salto Systems, where we announced the recomposition of the shareholdership, again an investment from vintage 2020, very very successful, and we're we're happy that the new shareholders are coming on board to continue continue that story. Even in this and that that transaction is not yet closed, pending regulatory approvals.

We expect it will close in the second half of of this year. We've also seen some activity within the private equity portfolio, and that has led us to the decision of sharing with you the see-through composition of that portfolio.

In the same way we do the top 10 direct investment, we do the top 10 indirect holdings, and we'll we'll we'll zoom we'll zoom on that. As I said, increased momentum we see it in the growth and VC space with increased deployments and increased commitments.

Funds are being deployed faster, therefore GPs are coming faster to market. All this lands at a portfolio of €11.5 billion.

This is after payment of a dividend, a payout of, I think, €130 million that happened in May, and a an NAV per share that rises to 326. If you double-click on that, you will have seen that value creation is mostly on the fund side, also helped by a reversal of the forex headwinds that we had last year.

Remember very, very strong forex headwind with a rapidly declining dollar. Some of that has been clawed back, and that has an influence on the private funds business, but they've done a good job that piece of the portfolio has done a good job on value creation itself.

A little more muted on the direct investment side, as I commented in the in in the press release. What we also see is that when you are not in tech, and we have a diversified portfolio, we're not only in in in technology and digital, affordability issues in developing economies, we see it as, consumer demand, but we also see it in the healthcare sector where pricing pressure and reimbursement pressure is is getting stronger, all mean that the portfolio and the perspective of, maybe a rekindling of inflation following the the war in in in in in the Gulf is putting some down pressures on on the multiple side.

The underlying growth of the portfolio continues, but we see that the macroeconomic conditions are I wouldn't say they're difficult, but there's not as they're not as easy as they have been in the past. With that, we can then look at what it means in terms of numbers.

I talked about the 11.5. You will see that the you see that the distribution is somewhat more skewed towards the private funds.

We were roughly a 55/45 balance, now it's more like a 50/50. The dollar plays a role.

Roughly speaking, the two the two main legs of our of our strategy are have have equal weight, and this is the way it's been a little more one side or the other for the past years, but this is coherent with with previous experience. A rise of NAV per share.

A widening of the discount if you take the share price at the end of of June, we try to compare the date of the NAV with the date of the share price. In the meantime, the share price has risen, and I think it now stands at 348 the last time I looked.

That discount has narrowed somewhat, but we're still in the 20s versus, as historical average which is between 15% and 20%. I'm stating facts, not making not making comments here.

Our net cash position has moved to a net debt position with a loan-to-value of 1.9%. Remember, when we did the capital raise and the bond issue last year, we said the purpose was to deploy those moneys, and we said, it should take three years, but with with with all precautions in in that saying it could be faster, it could be slower, but with a view of of having net leverage on the balance sheet to the tune of between 5% and 10%.

That was coherent with the strong rating of A- that we had received from Standard & Poor's. At 1.9%, we're on the way there.

I'm making no comments on the way it's going it's going to happen because when you at these measuring moments, it really, really depends on a transaction has been has been signed, and it hasn't closed yet, you don't have the cash, you still have the asset, or vice versa when you are investing. When you take these pictures at a specific moment at at quarter's end, you can have some volatility there.

We are I would say our capital deployment and moving towards this this level of of of LTV, in in other words, accessing those those investment opportunities, all this is going roughly according to what we had in mind when we did the capital raise last year. If I move on, we have a split between geographies and sectors.

I will spare you going into those details. Please feel feel free to ask questions, and that information is for you to give you an idea of what's inside the the portfolio, give you a shape of the of what the forest what the forest looks like.

Key financial indicators, again, the essential ones are the NAV, the NAV per share, but we have we have the detailed numbers. You, of course, have the detailed numbers in our financial half-year report, and our head of finance, Clément, is is on the call, and and if there is a specific question, he'd he'd be happy to to take it.

Likewise for these numbers. If I look then at the value creation in the portfolio, we see that it's the the value creation stands at at at 8% with a with a tailwind of of of of the currency and a and and a reasonably strong market impact.

If we double-click to see where that comes from, we see it comes essentially from the funds business, because the direct business, for the reasons that I've explained, remains has is is for flat for all practical purposes, with a very small currency impact. These are mostly the the dollar the euro is is probably the predominant currency in our direct investments.

We see, and that's a it's a I think it's more of a qualitative indicator because these numbers from, permanently moving portfolio is is is hard to pinpoint with with accounting accuracy, but what we see is that the performance impact, i.e. growth of growth of sales, growth of EBITDA, growth of of of cash flows, and so on and so forth, this one remains positive, but we've seen on the side of of peers and multiple some some compression there, some market impact that has that has taken it put some pressure on on that.

The top 10 investments, not many not many changes, maybe Cognita moving a rung or two, and Cognita with activities in the Middle East and with pressure on on affordability and and in in in developing countries in Europe, but as well also in in Asia, has had a, tougher time to grow. Company is doing well, but the growth is is less is not as high as it as it as it was, and and when we do the valuation, that has an immediate impact.

Other companies are doing are doing quite well, and in the top 10, there's no particular flash or or worry points. Top 10 of our of our GPs, that list doesn't hasn't changed much.

I think Lightspeed might have moved up versus HongShan, the former Sequoia China, but these are the differences are are are small. This list reads also as the people who have, time and time again, identified the winners, identified the what Sequoia likes to call the legendary companies, the epoch-defining companies.

It has happened in this technology cycle as it has happened in the in in the past. I I joined Sofina's board more than 20 years ago, and on my first audit committee, we spoke about the distribution that we were getting from from Google, from the IPO of Google back in 2004.

This has been really a constant in our in our portfolio and one of the pillars of our strategy. To an extent such that we decided, given the importance that it had and given the our our our, everyday improving ability to handle large amounts of unstructured data, we have data coming from, a huge variety of sources, but we're able now to to to to handle it in a way that we can share this this with you.

This is on a look-through basis the top 10 in the in the portfolio, with plenty of disclaimers and small characters. That's, the limits of the exercise.

The difficulty is that this is based on GP reports. We want to, of course, base it on, very strong data.

The GP reports don't all arrive on time for the for closing of the books. That's something that has been shared with you as well.

When for a given GP we don't have the latest report, we have to use the one the one before. The consolidation to get the look-through basis is also based on the detailed information of the GPs.

That is something that comes in a second in in in in a second order. We have the the total value of our position, and we use that to close the accounts, but to have to see how this breaks down into the different constituent companies.

They're, in other words, they're different reporting dates, and if everything was pulled equal, the order in there might be different. The total impact on and the sorry, the total P2 NAV wouldn't change, so that one is is is strong, but the relative orders there.

The point of this is to show and to identify also the companies through which we're invested and to give you a qualitative more than quantitative feel of the relative sizes, one versus the other. A fair amount of caveats, and and I take the opportunity to to give them aloud, but we still think it's useful it's a useful indication.

If I move forward, the detailed investments I think I've talked about, you can see good coverage of the different regions, and increased deal flow coming from coming from Asia. Asia has had a more difficult time in in the in the years '24 and beginning '25, now it's deal flow is picking up again, and and we're happy to to have invested in some some new exciting companies there.

Also a balance between new investments and follow-on. We we believe, of course, when when the company is doing well and when the original thesis is being validated, that putting more money to work in good conditions in existing companies is something where, well, the, theoretically the risk-return should be should be better than a new investment because we know the sector, we know the company, we know the people, and so we can have we can move with a higher degree of trust.

It's so it's something we've we've done, and a fair amount of the investments done in the first half of the year are coming from follow-on follow-on in in investments. Divestments, fewer, with a very significant one in Salto, but that one is pending closing.

Some distributions from Lenskart that has been IPO'd last year, and Mama Earth and SES I talked about. Then the post-closing events was Salto's sale that was closed in July, an an add-on investment in Scalable, where we where we invested in in in last year was a sort of consolidation of the of the cap table and a small capital raise where we we took part, and in in in in Nvision, also one of our digital health companies, and a new investment in Exein, which is our first investment in Italy, if I'm not mistaken, and it's a company specializing in security, digital security on the transistor itself, on the chip itself, etched in, and it's a company based in Italy of in Italy and in Rome of which is not, the first thing you think about when you think about tech companies, but it's an Italian founding team, very competitive deal, and our European long-term supportive shareholder profile enabled us to to be in the lead of that transaction together with with a fund that we that we knew.

We will see in the coming years if this is successful investment, but it was certainly a competitive one, and and that we're happy to to have signed. As I said, Salto and Salto is pending pending closing.

Regulatory conditions apply, but I don't see any issue. I think it's going through the motion.

Should close in the second half of the year. With that, the usual disclaimers, and I'll be happy to take questions.

Thank you very much, Harold. For the people on the call, if you would like to ask a question, it's best to raise your hand and then we will see that, and we will unmute your line, and then you can ask your question.

I think Michiel Declercq at KBC Securities has already done that because he's in my speaker queue. We also have people in the room here.

Give me a sign if you want to ask a question. Maybe I'll first go to Michiel Declercq.

We will unmute you, and then you can go ahead and ask your question.

Yes, hi. Michiel Declercq from KBC Securities.

Thank you for the presentation, Harold. I had two questions.

You mentioned during the call that the exit environment is becoming a bit more difficult due to the rising interest rates. I was wondering, is this impacting your capital allocation policy?

Are you being a bit more cautious now, or do you see valuation calls going down? How are, yeah, opportunities going a bit around that, please?

Then secondly, on the bridge, we saw some good underlying performance of the direct trades in terms of operational performance, bit of multiple pressure. You mentioned there the war that's going on, of course, but can you be a bit more specific in which sectors you saw most of the multiple compression, given that, in general, markets recovered already by the end of June?

That would be interesting. Maybe a final one.

I highly appreciate the increased color on the indirect exposure of your funds. In the footnotes, I also read that it's a bit of an aggregate, and I was just wondering, I assume that maybe several funds use different valuations for several stakes.

Can you be a bit more specific if there is a big difference here that you were seeing, or, let's say, for Anthropic, for example, is the breakdown that you give a bit of a lagging indicator? That would be a bit my question, how big these valuation differences are in the funds.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michiel. Excellent questions.

Yes, it's a trend we see generally that because of rising interest rates, there is less liquidity in the system, so that the number of or the volume, I would say, of natural buyers for assets coming out is smaller. That being said, and I think Salto is a good example, if you have a good asset, you find a good home for it, and so it's not an issue in that sense.

What we do see is that, and not only us, but other operators are being much more mindful of presenting assets at the right moment in the asset's development, where the growth potential and the growth drivers are clear and established, when the company is on a very sound strategic step, and so on and so forth. Whereas in previous years there was such a huge demand for finding a home for that liquidity that basically, at any given moment in time, funds were happy to flip assets over.

Nowadays, one has to be very mindful and very deliberate when and when you do that. Now, for people like us, it's really not an issue because we have permanent capital.

Actually it has happened that we have a run of due flows in one of our portfolio companies that everybody looks around and says, "We have the intention of bringing the asset to market, but there is this and that, this project is not finished yet, that new product or that new service will have a very good year last year which really proves the thesis, you know what, let's wait a year." We're very comfortable doing that.

That's what I mean. In terms of multiples going down, it's really very, very dependent from sector to sector.

We not only use multiples. Quoted equivalent multiples is one of the indicators that we use.

For cash-generative companies, I really like these calculations to be grounded in a DCF because, for all the difficulties and the sensitivities of a DCF to assumptions, you can really break down all the constituents of value creation. What we do see, and if you ask me, where did we see that multiple compression coming from, I think from some specific cases with challenges very specific to that company, and I might have Cognita in mind here, but also in our software companies, where the multiples had recovered from the depth of the SaaSpocalypse, remember that was what people said in Q1, but still are not there where they were last year.

I think the market is a little bit wait-and-see. We have strong conviction that well-managed and well-positioned vertical software companies have a role to play.

The terminal value five years down the line is well, if they're good today, they could be good tomorrow, but the world in that sector is somewhat more uncertain, and there's just in operator's mind a higher discount factor, and that weighs on the multiples of the companies. The companies themselves are growing.

To give you a little bit color on two of these aspects. Now, on the top 10, yes, it is an aggregate, and it's an aggregate of different methodologies, because every fund has its own methodology, and therefore every fund arrives with a different valuation.

There can be a band, it depends from asset to asset. In the top 10, I don't have the detail on the width of that band, but there is certainly one.

You will have different values for different stakes. I would say, in the top 10, but in general, as a rule.

You asked a question about Anthropic. As we all know, there was a big fundraise in Q2 for Anthropic.

For all the funds that have used that as a valuation basis, it's in there for all the funds that have reported. To see the impact on the top 10, it depends then on the funds sending the detailed information.

We have, at the moment where we published the books, far fewer of those. By the end of September, usually we should be at more than 95%, but we have to report right now.

That could mean that if we were to do the picture again on the basis of all the information, the position of Anthropic could change because the value at which the capital raise took place was at around $900 billion, coming from, I think, $200-ish billion of the latest fundraise. You have 4x on something which, because the numbers are just so huge, is an important position.

I hope that answers your question.

It definitely does. Thank you, Harold.

You're welcome, Michiel.

I see Filippe Goossens at Degroof Petercam. Will unmute you, and then please go ahead, Filippe.

Hello, gentlemen. Thank you very much for hosting the call and giving me the opportunity to perhaps ask three questions.

Harold, the first one is on ByteDance. You have exposure, as you mentioned, both through the private equity funds and your direct investments.

Is it fair to assume that this could now be your largest single exposure? At what point in time is one name too much exposure for you?

The second question is given the delays and exits, have you any funds in your portfolios that have reached kind of end of life, in other words, the 10-year period has passed and there's still residual money left that the general partner is not able to monetize? Then the third question, more kind of a breakdown in terms of your private equity funds exposure, can you share us a little bit in terms of what percent of the portfolio is venture capital versus growth?

Thank you so much.

ByteDance, I think we disclosed that it is our largest exposure in the portfolio. We've spoken about it before, a very successful, very, very strong company, very strong management, and keeps on their growth path, committing to AI, and their model is one of the most relevant models in China.

To what extent is too much of a good thing? I think we disclosed that it is higher than 5%, but it does mean not higher than 10%.

We would disclose it if that were the case, so that gives you an order of magnitude. That is still single-digit percentage of the portfolio.

From a concentration point of view, in general, as I said before, we start to get itchy fingers in high teens sort of numbers, because then you really start to have real NAV needle movers, and you have to look at the embedded risk. The answer is no, it's not uncomfortable.

It's something we keep a close eye on. As the greatest uncertainty around ByteDance is the moment of a liquidity event, in all likelihood, given the size of the company, that would be a listing.

I think there's a saying in Dutch about trying to look through coffee. It's difficult, and we don't have a view on that.

Just reminding that ByteDance is an investment, it's a bit of an atypical investment. It is a direct investment, but it is through an SPV with a single asset inside, and that the single asset is that position in ByteDance.

As an SPV where we are in fact LPs of, we have no say and no view into the liquidity generation. Not the situation you would think is so great to have your single largest asset in, but I would call that a very high quality problem, because the reason why it's such a big position in the portfolio is that it has been one of our most successful investments ever.

The second one, delays in exit. I'm going to answer yes, there are funds that have reached the end of life, and then they go through the LP advisory council to see if they can get a one-year extension, then a two-year extension, then they find solutions.

That happens, I would say, on a regular basis. When it happens, it's usually on a residual asset which is representing single-digit percentages of the total fund.

A fund typically depends, venture would have more lines. It can be companies in liquidation, for instance, where those processes take a very, very long time, not such a successful investment, but that has been discounted and worked through the NAV.

The idea of having a fund where you would have, at the 10-year mark, I don't know, still 50% of the invested capital not having been returned, that would be very rare. If that were to happen, I can tell you one thing: that GP is not raising another fund.

They tend to find solutions. Yes, it can happen, but it's usually for non-significant amounts.

The second one is the VC versus growth exposure. Wonder if this is something that we disclose.

Yes, we disclose it here. You have the Sofina Private Funds strategy split on page seven of the presentation, Filippe.

I think

Yeah. Okay.

That should answer your question.

Great. Really appreciate that very much, Harold.

Just maybe a small add-on to your answer on the individual portfolios or the residual values in certain portfolios. Have you at all taken advantage, where need be, of these consolidator funds, in other words, funds that buy up these kind of residual stakes in funds, or that has really not been an opportunity that you had to look at?

We used to have these secondaries funds. We were investors with Lexington, for instance, and Ardian's always had also very good secondary practice.

The truth is, across time, we've consolidated our relationships on the venture and growth sides, because those are the ones that generate the synergistic effects with our direct investment portfolio. The answer is it has happened in the past, and these were good investments in general, but no longer because of strategic alignment within the portfolio.

Great. Thank you so much again, Harold.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome, Philip.

Thank you, Filippe. I see Jon Pérez raised his hand, Yoann, we'll unmute you and you can go ahead and ask your question.

Kepler Cheuvreux.

Hi, hello. Can you hear me?

Yep.

Great. Thank you.

Yes, Yoann here from Kepler Cheuvreux. Just a quick one for me, and first, congratulations on the results.

Just a question. If we look at the performance by portfolio, the Sofina Direct portfolio was broadly flat excluding FX.

I was wondering if you could share a bit of color on the main moving parts behind that flat trend. Was it, for example, that most of the portfolio companies were up, but a few of them were down?

Was it something more even? If you could share some color on that.

Thank you.

With a with a portfolio of 90 companies, it's it's difficult to get to get a really scientific answer across. I would say it was broad, with some some strong contributors and some strong detractors, all all, proportions guarded here.

The detractors, I think I spoke about, so Cognita would have been one, and our software businesses in terms of multiple compressions. The the contributors, broadly speaking, companies here and there showing better cash flow, better EBITDA, stronger growth, which allows us, which allow, when you do the calculation, to to to have a higher fair market value on that, but no significant trend.

I would say the the if I were to say something, I'd say the the contributor basis would be broader based than the detractors where that was a little more concentrated.

Clear. Thank you.

Thank you, Yoann. I see Joren Van Aken.

Please go ahead, Joren.

Can you guys hear me?

Yep, we can hear you. Hi, Joren.

Hi. I've got two related questions basically.

In the report, you highlight that Sofina Growth basically focuses on Europe and Asia and it does not mention the U.S. The first question would be, why don't you consider co-investments in the U.S.?

Then linked to that, my second question is basically we've seen guys like Thrive and Khosla raising SPVs to invest directly into OpenAI. Menlo had an SPV in Anthropic.

You are invested in Thrive and Khosla, which is great, but I guess you're not invested in those SPVs specifically. My question is basically, by excluding the U.S.

co-investments, aren't you missing out on these attractive deals or co-investments? Thank you.

We'll have to have a beer one day down the line to see if these are attractive deals. Jury's still out.

An investor's job is only done when he sells. Remember that.

Your question is a very good one, it's one we ask ourselves often. A little bit of nuance: there are some cases where we do invest in U.S.-based, well, U.S.-based sort of opportunities.

For instance, a company like Exein has offices or at least workers across the whole world. It's based in Seattle and it's run by a Dutch guy.

These digital companies, they're real nomads. If they happen to be based in the U.S., yeah, we will not look through that, and we will do it.

That's one sort of exception. The second sort of exception is in very specific sectors, and I'm thinking in particular about healthcare.

If you look at the way healthcare happens, Twin nowadays is a U.S. operating company, but was an investment resource in India.

Because the U.S. market is so deep and so, I would say, simple, quote-unquote, of access in the sense that you have a single set of payers that open you the door for the whole country, whereas in Europe you have one authority on the safety side of whatever it is you're doing, but the reimbursements have to be negotiated country by country, which means that when somebody comes up with a good idea, wherever they are in the world, be it Europe, be it Asia, the U.S.

is the port of call. These can be companies who could be established in the U.S.

for that reason, but whose roots are very much European or Asian, Twin Health being one of the examples. Whenever we have access to those companies, we will gladly support them and invest.

To go to the next step and to be systematically investor in the U.S. on the Sofina Growth side, and, Joren, there is a case because it's a place of deep innovation, where there's lots of entrepreneurs, and some very attractive transactions.

It is also an incredibly competitive space. We see it from all the funds we're invested with.

The reason why we invested with them, and we see it on a day-to-day basis, is that these guys are probably among the better investors on the planet. Investment is competitive whichever way you look at it.

To develop a practice where we're going to say we are going to be directly investors in the U.S. competing against the Thrive, the Lightspeed, the Sequoias of this world, means you need to have for yourself a notion we have a right to win to do that.

I have high regard for Sofina, I have high regard for the team, and our ability to bring differentiated value to the market, but to an extent to go head-to-head against all these guys, I think there are places where our right to win speaks louder and is stronger. That is the answer.

Furthermore, from a risk management perspective, as we explained last year, we like to keep our investment pace balanced between the three regions. In other words, if Sofina was touched by the grace of God and became the best investor on the planet, it would still mean that in order to keep that balance of investment pace between the three regions, for every direct I did more, I would have to do some indirect less in terms of commitment.

Again, I don't see myself committing to having a smaller commitment to Sequoia or to Lightspeed or Andreessen in order for us to be competing with them. That is the reason why we don't do that.

I hope this answers your question.

That's fair. I won't be fair because I want to squeeze in another question.

In the post-closing, you mentioned that you have done an exit from Salto,

and

I'm just wondering, is the NAV at the 30th of June already reflecting the updated valuation of the exit?

I think the answer is yes, and I'm handing over for Clément for confirmation. Because it's a post-closing event.

Clément, can you confirm?

Clément, if you could raise your hand, we will unmute you.

We'll get back to you. Clément, are you there?

We'll get back to you, Joren, on that. He's

there, go ahead, Clément. We will unmute you now.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Sorry for the technical issues. Yes, it is valued as this in the June figures.

Thank you.

I don't see more hands raised on the webcast. I see maybe here in the room, Geoffrey or Édouard, do you have questions for Harold?

Geoffrey [unclear] from Degroof Petercam. I think Filippe asked already all questions, but no, okay.

That's all. Thanks.

No? Okay.

Great. I think that's all we have time for.

I see one two more requests, Robrecht Apts, go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Hello?

Yes.

Yes, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Perfect. Hello.

I'm Robrecht. I'm a private investor already now for I think one year and a half in Sofina, and since you now have published the top 10 companies that are your indirect investments, I saw that SpaceX was, I think, the first company, and I was wondering, were you able to leverage or get some value from the IPO that has taken place in June, or is that something that hasn't occurred yet, or that will come in the future that you will take advantage of the IPO?

Thank you.

Thanks. The IPO having taken place before the close of the period, the valuation of SpaceX and the funds through which they are, because we don't hold SpaceX directly, is based on the fact of SpaceX being a publicly quoted company.

Okay.

Thank you. I see another question from Joren.

Great. Two more then.

In the top 10, I did see that Cambridge Associates basically went up from number six to number two, just wondering if there was anything special, I couldn't really find a round or something. Then secondly, also a cheeky question, it's on the HSG Alliance D investment, the mysterious HongShan co-investment.

Imagine, hypothetically speaking, if the underlying company would be a listed company in Hong Kong, wouldn't you be allowed to tell us which company it would be, or could it still be under NDA even if it's public?

The first question is not cheeky at all. I think improved performance and probably a combination of performance and multiples, but no indeed there was no rounds, at Cambridge.

It's just the company's performing well, as it has since we've invested. Nothing special to report there.

On HSGD, to answer your question, it's a hypothetical case, I don't like to speculate. Point one, point two, I don't have the LPA under my eyes, and I can't answer.

Usually

there is,

on these confidentiality agreements, there is always the carve-out that if for regulatory reasons you have to disclose information about the asset, then it's allowed.

Thank you.

Okay?

Thank you. Thank you, Harold, and thank you everybody for joining this webcast.

As I said, you find all the information and all the reports that we went through on our website. With that, we'll end the webcast here.

Thank you for joining, and we'll see you again in six months with the full-year results. Thank you, Harold.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you, Dirk. Thank you, everyone.

Good day.