Sofina Stock

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. So today's idea is that we ask our CEO, Harold Boel, to take you through the presentation that we posted online shortly -- briefly, I should say.

And then afterwards, we'll open up for Q&A if there are any analyst questions. [Operator Instructions] So 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 have you again on one of our con calls. And I wanted to walk you through the investor presentation we had prepared and have some time for Q&A. The mission hasn't changed. It is one we shared with you last year when we did the capital raise. And if I look with the benefit of hindsight 1 year down the line, I think many of the things that we had foreseen in the capital raise have come to pass.

And we are, generally speaking, in line where we wanted to be, though indeed, we're only 6 months into the year. And as you all know, investor time is a long time.

But if we look at the highlights of the first half year, variations on the theme. So we're still looking at 5 sectors. R&D has progressed and has grown, and we'll go into the details of where that comes from with both our investment styles covering the 3 most important economic regions of the world, which is the U.S. and North America, Europe and Asia.

Our sustainability commitments stay as strong as ever. And our wide panel relationships, and 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 history. We had last year the time to go into it and to explain how our history defined who we were. 1 year down the line, all these elements 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 have seen happening in the second half of '25 with momentum in the market. So when I mean momentum, I mean transaction intensity is -- it's continues to grow. And but the lessons of '21, '22 have not been lost on to the market.

And the attractiveness of long-term permanent capital is there and is strong and allows us to gain access to competitive situation and sometimes even to create transactions. The one of the things about Sofina's long-term investment thesis is a belief that innovation is a factor of value creation, economic growth.

And I think with everything happening in the digital and the technological world, this is true as ever, and we're capitalizing on that. So for us, we've had an active deal flow, both on the investments and divestment side. And 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 IRRs and multiples, but also higher risks.

And 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 expose and subject to these attacks. And therefore, there is the need for being just as innovative on the defense side.

The investment we had done 1.5 years, 2 years ago in Cyera is in that length. The investment we did in XBOW and in Eye Security are starting to cover the value chain. And what we do when we approach a sector is to look at the whole value chain of a given sector, given thematic in this case and to identify the places where we think the risk rewards are the most interesting. So this is ongoing work, and we're happy with our exposure to this growing theme.

At the other end of the spectrum, I would call our investment in Cerealis, which is an investment with the Portuguese family that owns one of the leading Iberic producers of pasta based on the thesis of best-in-class manufacturing in that segment and therefore, a possibility to gain market share through market consolidation in the Iberian Peninsula and based on the proprietary relationship that we have developed for actually more than 10 years.

This doesn't mean that our teams have not been active on the exit side. The exit environment is more difficult. There is -- because of rising interest rates or interest rates having risen since the low points of the beginning of the decennia, there is less liquidity in the system, and therefore, capital circulation is somewhat more challenging.

That being said, we still exited the remaining position we had in Honasa Consumer. So this was an investment we had done in 2020 for a company that got IPO-ed 1.5 years ago, and we sold our remaining stake this spring. SES that was a historical position, and that was really a very, very small tail end. And Salto Systems, where we announced the recomposition of the shareholdership.

Again, an investment from Vintage 2020, very successful, and we're happy that new shareholders coming on board to continue that story. So even in this -- and that transaction is not yet closed. So we're pending regulatory approvals. We expect it will close in the second half 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. So in the same way we do the top 10 direct investment, we do the top 10 indirect holdings, and we'll zoom on that.

And as I said, increased momentum, we see it in the growth in 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 EUR 11.5 billion. This is after payment of the dividend, so a payout of, I think, EUR 130 million that happened in May and an NAV per share that rises to EUR 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 dollars. 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 press release, what we also see is that when you are not in tech and we have a diversified portfolio, so we are not only in technology and digital, affordability issues in developing economies.

We see it as consumer demand, but we also see it in the health care sector where pricing pressure and reimbursement pressure is getting stronger or means that the portfolio and the perspective of maybe a rekindling of inflation following the war in the Gulf is putting some downward pressures 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 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 EUR 11.5 billion. You will 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 2 main legs of our strategy 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 previous experience.

A rise of NAV per share, a widening of the discount. If you take the share price at the end of June, so 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 è the last time I looked. So that discount has narrowed somewhat, but we're still in the 20s versus, as you know, historical average, which is between 15% and 20%. I'm stating facts, not making comments here.

Our net cash position has moved to a net debt position with a loan-to-value of 1.9%. And remember, when we did the capital raise and the bond issue last year, we said the purpose was to deploy those monies. And we said it should take 3 years, but with all precautions in that's saying it could be faster, it could be slower.

But with a view of having net leverage on the balance sheet to the tune of between 5% and 10%, and 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 to happen because when you -- at these measuring moments, it really, really depends on a transaction has been signed and hasn't closed yet.

You don't have the cash, you still have the asset or vice versa when you are investing. So when you take these pictures at a specific moment at quarter's end, you can have some volatility there. But we are -- I would say, our capital deployment and moving towards this level of LTV. And in other words, accessing 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. Feel free to ask questions, and that information is for you to give you an idea of what inside the portfolio, give you a shape of what the forest looks like.

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

Likewise, for these numbers, if I look then at the value creation in the portfolio, we see that it's -- the value creation stands at 8% with a tailwind of the currency. And a reasonably strong market impact. And 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 is flat for all practical purposes with a very small currency impact. These are mostly the dollar.

The euro is probably the predominant currency in our direct investments. But we see -- and that's -- let's say, I think some more of a qualitative indicator because these numbers from permanently moving portfolio is hard to pinpoint with accounting accuracy. But what we see is that the performance impact, i.e., growth of sales, growth of EBITDA, growth of cash flows and so on and so forth.

This one remains positive, but we've seen on the side of peers and multiple some compression, there's some market impact that has taken it put some pressure on that. The top 10 investments, not many changes, maybe Cognita moving around or 2 and Cognita with activities in the Middle East and with pressure on affordability and in developing countries in Europe but as well also in Asia has had a tougher time to grow. The company is doing well, but the growth is less -- is not as high as it was. And when we do the valuation, that has an immediate impact.

Other companies are doing quite well. And in the top 10, there's no particular flash or worry point. Top 10 of our GPs, that list hasn't changed much. I think Lightspeed might have moved up versus HongShan, the former Sequoia China, but these are -- the differences are small. And 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.

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

So this has been really a constant 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 our everyday improving ability to handle large amounts of unstructured data. We have data coming from a huge variety of sources, but we are able now to handle it in a way that we can share this with you.

And so this is on a look-through basis, the top 10 in the portfolio with plenty of disclaimers and small characters. So that's the limit 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 closing of the books. That's something that has been shared with you as well.

And when for a given GP, we don't have the latest reports, we have to use the one before. The consolidation to get the look-through basis is also based on the detailed information of the GPs. And that is something that comes in the second order. So we have the total value of our position, and we use that to close the account.

But to have to see how this breaks down into the different constituent companies. So in other words, there are different reporting dates. And if everything was pulled equal, the order in there might be different. The total impact on the -- sorry, the total P2 NAV wouldn't change. So that one is stronger the relative orders there.

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

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

We believe, of course, 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, theoretically, the risk return should be better than a new investment because we know the sector, we know the company, we know the people, and so we can move with a higher degree of trust.

But it's -- so it's something we've done and a fair amount of the investments done in the first half of the year are coming from follow-on investments.

Divestments, fewer with a very significant one in Salto, but that one is pending closing. Some distributions from Lenskart that has been IPO-ed last year and Mamaearth and SES I talked about. And then the post-closing event was Salto sale that was closed in July. An add-on investment in scalable where we invested in last year was a sort of consolidation of the cap table and a small capital raise where we took part and in Twin, 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, so etched in and it's a company based in Italy and in Rome, which is not the first thing you think about when you think about tech companies. It's an Italian founding team, a very competitive deal.

And our European long-term supportive shareholder profile enabled us to be in the lead of that transaction together with the funds that we knew. So we will see in the coming years if this is a successful investment, but it was certainly a competitive one and that we're happy to have signed. And as I said, Salto and Salto is pending closing.

Regulatory conditions apply, but I don't see any issue. I think going through the motion should close in the second half of the year. And with that, the usual disclaimers, and I'll be happy to take questions.

Thank you very much, Harold. [Operator Instructions] Maybe I will first go to Michiel Declercq. We will unmute you, and then you can go ahead and ask a question.

Michiel Declercq from KBC Securities. I had 2 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 valuations going down? How are opportunities going a bit around that, please?

And then secondly on the bridge, you -- we saw some good underlying performance of the direct stakes in terms of operational performance, a 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. So that would be interesting. And 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 are seeing? Or let's say, for Anthropic, for example, are we -- is the breakdown that you give or a bit of a lagging indicator? That will be a bit my question. How big the valuation differences on the funds?

Yes. Thank you, Michiel. Excellent questions. So 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.

But what we do see is that 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.

And 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 in when you do that. For people like us, it's really not an issue because it means because we have permanent capital.

And if we feel that -- and actually, it has happened that we have rendezvous clause in one of our portfolio companies that we say that everybody looks around and says, this is a good time to -- this is -- 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 are very comfortable doing that. And that's what I mean. In terms of multiples going down, it's really very, very dependent from sector to sector.

Where -- and we not only use multiples. Multiples is one of the quoting equivalent multiples is one of the stories -- one of the indicators that we use. We -- for cash-generative companies, I really like these calculations to be grounded in a DCF because for all the difficulties and the sensitivities of the DCF to assumptions, you can really break down all the constituents of value creation.

But what we do see -- and then if you ask me, where did we see that multiple compression coming from, I think from some specific cases where with challenges very specific to that company, and I have Cognita in mind here, but also in our software companies where the multiples have recovered from the depth of the SaaSpocalypse you 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 5 years down the line is -- well, they're good today, they could be good tomorrow, but the world in that sector is somewhat more uncertain and it's just in operators' mind a higher discount factor and that weighs on the multiples of the companies, but the companies themselves are growing.

So to give you a little bit of color on 2 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. And there can be a band. It depends from asset to asset.

And then the top 10, I don't have the detail on the width of that band, but there is certainly one. And so you will have different values for different stakes. I would say, in the top 10, but in general, as a rule. And you asked a question about Anthropic. As we all know, there was a big fundraise in Q2 for Anthropic. And -- the extent to which the impact of this fund raise in the NAV is for all the funds that have used that as a valuation basis.

It's in there for all the funds that have reported. But to see the impact on the top 10, it depends then on the funds sending the detailed information. And we have, at the moment, where we publish 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.

And 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 it was -- the capital raise took place was at around [$900 billion] coming from, I think, 200-ish billion of the latest fundraise. So you have 4x on something which because the numbers are just so huge is an important position. I hope that answers your question.

I see Filippe Goossens at Degroof Petercam. We will unmute you, and please go ahead, Filippe.

To perhaps ask 3 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? And at what point in time is too much -- one name too much exposure for you?

The second question is, given the delays in 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.

And 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?

So ByteDance, I think we disclosed that it is our largest exposure in the portfolio. We've spoken about it before, very successful, very, very strong company, very strong management and keeps on the 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?

Well, we are still -- 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. And that is still single-digit percentage of the portfolio. So 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 still have real NAV needle movers. You have to look at the embedded risk.

So the answer is no. It's not uncomfortable. It's something we keep a close eye on. As you know, the greatest uncertainty around ByteDance is the moment of a liquidity event. So in most -- in all likelihood, given the size of the company, that would be a listing. And 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.

And 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. But as an SPV where we are, in fact, LPs of, we have no say and no view into the liquidity generation.

So not the situation you would think it's 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 huge position in -- 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 LPA through the LBE Advisory Council to see if they can get a 1-year extension and a 2-year extension and they find solutions. But that happens, I would say, on a regular basis. But when it happens, it's usually on the residual asset, which is representing single-digit percentages of the total fund.

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

And so 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. And if that were to happen, I can tell you one thing, that GP is not raising another fund. So they tend to find solutions. So yes, it can happen, but it's usually for nonsignificant amounts.

And the second one is the VC versus growth exposure. I wonder if this is something that we disclose. Yes, we disclose it here. You have the Sofina Private Fund strategy split on Page 7 of the presentation, Filippe, I think...

Yes. Okay.

That should answer your question.

Great. Really appreciate that very much, Harold. Just maybe a small add-on to your answer on the usual 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 the secondaries funds. We were investors with Lexington, for instance, and Ardian has always had also a very good secondary practice. The truth is across time, we've consolidated our relationships on the venture and growth side because those are the ones that generate the synergistic effects with our direct investment portfolio.

So 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.

I see Jon Perez raised his hand. So Jon, we will unmute you, and you can go ahead and ask your question. Kepler Cheuvreux.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Jon, here from Kepler Cheuvreux. Just a quick one for me. First, congrats on the results. Just a question. So if we look at the performance by portfolio. So the 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? Yes, if you could share some color on that.

Yes. With a portfolio of 90 companies, it's difficult to get a really scientific answer across. I would say it was broad with some strong contributors and some strong detractors or proportions guarded here. The detractors, I think I spoke about. Cognita would have been one and our software businesses in terms of multiple compressions.

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 have a higher fair market value on that, but no significant trend. So I would say -- if I were to say something, I'd say the contributor basis could be broader based than the detractors where that was a little more concentrated.

I see [Joren van Aken]. Please go ahead, Joren.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Hi Joren.

I've got 2 related questions basically. So in the report, you highlight that Sofina growth basically focuses on Europe and Asia, and it does not mention the U.S. So the first question would be, why don't you consider co-investments in the U.S.? And 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 has 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. So my question is basically, by excluding the U.S. co-investments, aren't you missing out on these attractive deals or co-investments?

Well, we'll have to have a beer one day down the line to see if these are attractive deals. Jury is still out. A investors trail is only done on these [indiscernible] remember that. But your question is a very good one. It's one we ask ourselves often. First, 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 [Crossbow] has -- like XBOW 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. So if they happen to be based in the U.S., yes, 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 health care. If you look at the way health care happens, Twin nowadays is a U.S. operating company, but it was an investment we sourced in India. Because the U.S. market is so deep and so -- so I would say, simple "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.

And 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. And whenever we have access to those companies, we will gladly support them and invest. To be -- to go to the next step and to be systematically investor in the U.S. on the Sofina Growth side.

And there is a case because it's a place of deep innovation where there's lots of entrepreneurs and some very attractive transactions. But it is also an incredibly competitive space. The reason why we -- and we see it from all the funds we 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.

And investment is competitive, whichever way you look at it. So 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, Sequoia of this world means you need to have for yourself a notion, we have the right to win to do that.

And I have a high regard for Sofina, I have a 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. So that is the answer.

And furthermore, from a risk management perspective, as we explained last year, we like to keep our investment pace balanced between the 3 regions. And in other words, if I were to do have the -- 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 a balance of investment pace between the 3 regions, for every direct I did more, I would have to do some indirect less in terms of commitment.

And again, I don't see myself committing to fewer -- to having a smaller commitment to Sequoia or to Lightspeed or Andreessen in order for us to be competing with them. And that is the reason why we don't do that. I hope this answers your question.

Yes, 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 to Clement for his confirmation because it's a post-closing event. Clement, can you confirm?

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

Okay. We'll get back to you. Clement, are you there? We will get back to you, Joren, on that one.

He is there, so go ahead, Clement. We will unmute you now.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Sorry for the technical issues. So yes, yes, it is valued as of this June.

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

[Jacquet] from [inaudible]. I think Filippe asked already a good question. But no. I do not think so.

Okay. Great. I think that is all we have time for. I see one, two more requests so [Robrecht Ops], go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. Perfect. I'm Robrecht, I'm a private investor already now for, I think, 1.5 years in Sofina. And I was wondering since you now have published the top 10 companies that are your indirect investments. So I know 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 -- that hasn't occurred yet or that will come in the future that you will take advantage of [inaudible].

Yes, thanks. Yes, 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 traded company.

And I see another question from Joren.

Great. Two more then. In the top 10, I did see that Cambridge Associates basically went up from #6 to #2. So just wondering if there was anything special. I couldn't really find a round or something. And 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 companies would be? Or could it still be under NDA even if it's public?

Okay. The first question is -- the first question is not cheeky at all. I think improved performance and probably a combination of performance and multiples. But indeed, there was no round at Cambridge. It's just the company is performing well as it has since we've invested.

So nothing special to report there. And on [HSG], to answer your question, we would have -- it's a hypothetical case. So I don't like to speculate. And Point 1.

Point 2, I don't have the LPA under my eyes and I can't answer, but 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, Harold, and thank you, everybody, for joining this webcast. You -- as I said, you find all the information and all the reports that we went through on our website. And with that, we'll end the webcast here. Thank you for joining, and we'll see you again in 6 months with the full year results. Thank you, Harold. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you, Dirk. Thank you, everyone.

Good day.