Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the FS KKR Capital Corps' second quarter 2025 earnings conference call. Your lines will be in a listen-only mode during remarks by FSK's management. At the conclusion of the company's remarks, we will begin the question and answer session, at which time I will give you instructions on entering the queue. Please note that this conference is being recorded. At this time, Anna Kleinhen, Head of Investor Relations, will proceed with the introduction. Ms. Kleinhen, you may begin. Thank you. Good morning and welcome

to FSKPR Capital Corp second quarter 2025 earnings conference call. Please note that FSKPR Capital Corp may be referred to as FSK, the fund or the company throughout the call. Today's conference

call is being recorded and an audio replay of the call will be available for 30 days.

Replay information is included in a press release that FSK issued yesterday. In addition, FSK has posted on its website a presentation containing supplemental financial information with respect to its portfolio and financial performance for the quarter ended June 30, 2025. A link to today's webcast and the presentation is available on the investor Relations section of the company's website under Events and Presentations. Please note that this call is the property of FSK. Any unauthorized rebroadcast of this call in any form is strictly prohibited. Today's conference call includes forward-looking statements and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could affect FSK or the economy generally. We ask that you refer to FSK's most recent filings with the SEC for important factors and risks that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from these statements. FSK does not undertake to update its forward-looking statements unless required to do so by law. In addition, this call will include certain non-GAAP financial measures. For such measures, reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures can be found in FSK's second quarter earnings release that was filed with the SEC on August 6, 2025. Non-GAAP information should be considered supplemental in nature and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for the related financial information prepared in accordance with GAAP. In addition, these non-GAAP financial measures may not be the same as similarly named measures reported by other companies. To obtain copies of the company's latest SEC filings, please visit FSK's website. Speaking on today's call will be Michael Foreman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Dan Peterczak, Chief Investment Officer and President, and Stephen Lilly, Chief Financial Officer. Also joining us on the call today are Co-Chief Operating Officers Drew O'Toole and Ryan Wilson.

I'll now turn the call over to Michael. Thank you, Anna, and good morning, everyone. Thank you all for joining us for FSK's second quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. During the second quarter, FSK generated net investment income totaling $0.62 per share and adjusted net investment income totaling $0.60 per share as compared to our public guidance of approximately $0.64 and $0.62 per share, respectively. Our net asset value per share declined 6.2% from $23.37 to $2,193 during the quarter. Our operating results this quarter primarily were attributable to company-specific situations impacting four portfolio companies. Dan will provide significant detail on each company shortly. Our new investment activity has remained strong despite the still somewhat slow M&A environment. During the first half of 2025, the investment team originated $3.4 billion of investments, of which $1.4 billion were originated during the second quarter. We continue to find compelling ABF opportunities, and this segment of our portfolio remains a strong performer while also providing enhanced portfolio diversification. Additionally, we've continued to scale our credit opportunities partners joint venture, which expands our investment funnel and delivers a consistent stream of recurring dividend income on both a quarterly and annual basis. On the right side of the balance sheet, we continue to maintain strong liquidity to support our funding needs, ending the quarter with $3.1 billion of availability across cash, unsettled trades, and undrawn credit facilities. Our 2025 distribution guidance remains in place, and we continue to expect our distributions during the full year will total $2.80 per share comprised of $2.56 per share of base distributions and $0.24 per share of supplemental distributions. Our board has declared a third quarter distribution of $0.70 per share, consisting of our base distribution of $0.64 per share and a supplemental distribution of $0.06 per share. As we previously have stated, our 2025 distribution strategy was designed to provide shareholders with additional distributions from the spillover income that we have accumulated. As we approach our target spillover balance range, we expect our 2026 distribution strategy will be based on key factors, including prevailing interest rates, our overall portfolio yield, the spread environment with respect to new investments, and the weighted average cost of our liability structure. In keeping with our long-held view of providing as much transparency as possible to the market, we plan to provide additional details regarding our 2026 dividend strategy on our third quarter earnings call. And with that, I'll turn the call over to

Dan. Thanks, Michael. I'll keep my macro and industry remarks brief this quarter and instead focused my time discussing as many specifics as we can with regards to the four companies Michael referenced. In recent months, geopolitical tensions, regulatory changes, tariffs, and market volatility have combined to increase uncertainty about the timing of the resurgence of M&A transactions. While transactions have been getting done, global M&A volume is down close to 10% year-over-year. Despite these overall declines, our team evaluated more opportunities in Q2 than in any of the previous eight quarters. This continued increase in deals screened, together with the recent legislative developments, supports our cautious optimism that conditions are aligned for an increase in M&A activity later this year and into next year. During During our first quarter earnings call, we estimated that approximately 8% of our portfolio could have direct exposure to tariffs. Since then, the landscape has continued to evolve with changes to both the country's impacted and specific tariffs. We have remained closely engaged with our portfolio companies and their sponsors, actively updating our analysis to reflect the latest developments. Based on this updated analysis, we estimate that our direct tariff exposure has declined and now falls within the low to mid-single-digit range. The companies which are either affected or potentially will be affected have been proactive in mitigating potential impacts, including exploring alternative supply chain strategies and passing through costs where possible. While our portfolio and the private credit market in general both continue to demonstrate stability, we experienced an increase in non-accruals this quarter due to specific situations with four companies. Three of these companies are larger investments in our portfolio, which accounted for the negative move in our net asset value during the quarter. Comments regarding the four companies are as follows. Our first lien last out positions in Production Resource Group, or PRG, were added to non-accrual, contributing $198 million of costs and $122 million of fair value collectively. PRG is a legacy investment, which was initially restructured in 2020. Industry-wide stress and heightened competition has led to significant pricing erosion, and as such, the company's performance has significantly underperformed expectations in 2025. As a result, we reduced the value of our investment and placed our first lien last-out securities on non-accrual. We are working toward a full restructuring of the business and will provide updates as they become available. Our first lien senior secured positions in 4840 were added to non-accrual during the quarter, contributing $188 million of cost and $91 million of fair value collectively. 4840 is one of the nation's largest wood pallet manufacturers and recyclers. The company has been negatively impacted by post-COVID normalization trends such as inventory de-stocking. While the company has continued to make interest payments, we made the decision to place the investment on non-accrual status as we worked through next steps with the company and the FSK's second out first lien loan to Kleinmeyer-Bernison Services, or KBS, was added to non-accrual, contributing $94 million of cost and $48 million of fair value. KBS is a large provider of janitorial and cleaning services to nationwide retailers and offices. The company completed a consensual restructuring in early 2024, and since then, has successfully focused on new business development, value creation, operational improvements, and cost reductions. The company's performance has stabilized, and we have received indications of interest in purchasing the business from strategic third parties. This process is evolving, and we will update the market as we learn more. Lastly, our first lien and second lien investments in WorldWise were added to non-accrual, contributing $20 million of cost and $11 million of fair value collectively. The company is a pet products provider, which was restructured during the fourth quarter of 2024. In connection with the restructuring, the sponsor contributed $42 million of equity, resulting in a $30 million debt paydown at par across KKR funds. Following the restructuring, the businesses faced headwinds from tariffs and softer consumer demand. We are actively implementing strategic initiatives aimed at stabilizing operations and realizing meaningful cost efficiencies. While each of these situations is unique to the issuer, our workout team remains actively engaged and is working closely with our advisors and management teams to effectuate the best outcomes possible. During the second quarter, two companies were removed from non-accrual status. First, our first lien investment in Bowery Farming that had previously been placed on non-accrual was written off. Second, a legacy investment, JW Aluminum, was amended during the quarter into a perpetual preferred equity position. At the same time, the company's performance has improved in recent periods to the point that earlier this year we received a return of $98 million of capital as the company successfully refinanced and upsized a bond issuance. Turning to our investment activity, during the second quarter, we originated approximately $1.4 billion of new investments. Approximately 72% of our investments were focused on add-on financings to existing portfolio companies and long-term KKR relationships. Our new investments, combined with $1.1 billion of net sales and repayments when factoring in sales to our joint venture, equated to a net portfolio increase of $311 million. dollars. New originations consisted of approximately 83 percent in first lien loans, 5 percent in subordinated debt, and 12 percent in asset-based finance investments. Our new direct lending investment commitments have a weighted average EBITDA of approximately 251 million dollars, 5.8 times leverage through our security, and a weighted average coupon of approximately SOFR plus 520 basis points. We continue to believe in the strength of our investment strategy, which primarily focuses on upper middle market companies with EBITDA in the $50 to $150 million range across a diverse set of industries and sectors. As of June 30th, the weighted average EBITDA of our portfolio company was $252 million, and median EBITDA was $114 million. Our portfolio companies reported weighted average year-over-year EBITDA growth rate of approximately 8% across companies which we have been invested in since April of 2018. Interest coverage levels remain healthy, with the median second quarter coverage at 1.8 times. As of the end of the second quarter, non-accruals represented 5.3% of our portfolio on a cost basis and 3% of our portfolio on a fair value basis. This compares to 3.5% of our portfolio on a cost basis and 2.1% of our portfolio on a fair value basis as of March 31st. We also believe it is helpful to provide the market with information based on the FSK assets originated by KKR Credit. Nonaccruals relating to 91% of our total portfolio, which has been originated by KKR Credit and the FSK Care Advisor were 3.8% on a cost basis and 2% on a fair value basis as of the end of the second quarter. This compares to 2% on a cost basis and 1% on a fair value basis as of the end of the first quarter. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Stephen. Thanks, Dan. As of June 30,

2025, FSK's investment portfolio had a fair value of $13.6 billion, consisting of 218 portfolio companies. At the end of the second quarter, our 10 largest portfolio companies represented approximately 19% of the fair value of our portfolio, compared to 20% as of the end of the first quarter. We remain focused on senior secured investments, as our portfolio consisted of approximately 59% first lien loans and 64% senior secured debt as of June 30. In addition, our joint venture represented approximately 12% of the fair value of our portfolio. As a result, when investors consider our entire portfolio, looking through to the investments in our joint venture, then first lien loans total approximately 68% of our total portfolio and senior secured investments total approximately 73%. of our portfolio as of June 30th. The weighted average yield on accruing debt investments was 10.6% as of June 30, a decrease of 20 basis points compared to 10.8% as of March 31st. As a reminder, the calculation of weighted average yield is adjusted to exclude the accretion associated with the merger of FSKR. Turning to our quarterly operating results, our total investment income was $398 million for the second quarter, which is a decrease of $2 million compared to the first quarter. The quarter-over-quarter change in total income was primarily driven by the decline in interest income as a result of investments that were placed on non-accrual during the quarter, coupled with lower fee income due to a more normalized origination quarter. The primary components of our total investment income during the second quarter were as follows. Total interest income was $298 million, a decrease of $4 million quarter over quarter. Dividend and fee income totaled $100 million, an increase of $2 million quarter over quarter. Our total dividend and fee income during the quarter is summarized as follows. $59 million of dividend income from our joint venture. Other dividends from various portfolio companies totaling approximately $32 million during the quarter, and fee income totaling approximately $9 million during the quarter. Our total expenses were $225 million during the second quarter, which is an increase of $12 million compared to the first quarter. The quarter-over-quarter change in total expenses primarily was driven by an increase in interest expense due to higher leverage utilization during the quarter to grow our joint venture. The primary components of our total expenses were as follows. Our interest expense totaled $125 million, an increase of $12 million quarter-over-quarter. Our weighted average cost of debt was 5.3% as of June 30th. Management fees totaled $53 million, an increase of $1 million quarter-over-quarter. Incentive fees totaled $36 million, a decrease of $3 million quarter-over-quarter. Other expenses totaled $11 million, an increase of $2 million, quarter over quarter. The detailed bridge and our net asset value per share on a quarter over quarter basis is as follows. Our starting net asset value per share was $23.37. GAAP net investment income increased NAV by $0.62 per share, while net realized and unrealized losses decreased our net asset value by $1.36 per share. Our NAV per share was further reduced by the $0.70 per share total quarterly distribution paid during the quarter. But some of these activities results in our June 30, 2025 net asset value per share of $21.93. From a forward-looking guidance perspective, we expect third-quarter 2025 GAAP net investment income to approximate $0.58 per share, and we expect our adjusted net investment income to approximate $0.57 per share. The detailed components of our third-quarter guidance are as follows. A recurring interest income on a GAAP basis is expected to approximate $289 million. We expect recurring dividend income associated with our joint venture to approximate $55 million. We expect fee and other dividend income to approximate $30 million. The decrease quarter over quarter is due to lower ABF dividends projected in the third quarter. From an expense standpoint, we expect our management fees to approximate $51 million. We expect incentive fees to approximate $34 million. We expect our interest expense to approximate $116 million. And we expect other G&A expenses to approximate $10 million. Turning to our capital structure, in June, we closed on a new five-year, $400 million bilateral lending facility with CIBC priced at SOFR plus 175 basis points. thereby further extending our maturity ladder. Additionally, after quarter end, we further enhanced our liquidity and debt maturity profile by closing an amendment to our senior secured revolving credit facility. The amendment provides for, among other things, an increase of total commitments from $4.6 billion to $4.7 billion, an extension of the maturity date to the third quarter of 2030 and a reduction in spread by 10 basis points. As of June 30th, our gross and net debt-to-equity levels were 131% and 120% respectively, as compared to 122% and 114% as of March 31st. Our leverage remains within our target range of 1 to 1.25 times net debt-to-equity. At the end of the second quarter, our available liquidity was $3.1 billion, and approximately 54% of our drawn balance sheet and 42% of our committed balance sheet was comprised of unsecured debt. Our next unsecured debt maturity occurs in the first quarter of 2026 and represents approximately 10% of our committed capital structure. With that, I'll turn the call back to Michael for a few closing comments before we open the line for questions.

Thanks, Stephen. As we look toward the second half of the year, we acknowledge the significant work currently taking place with regard to the four companies Dan mentioned. Since its establishment in 2018, investments originated by FS KKR Advisor consistently have performed meaningfully better than the BDC's industry's long-term average non-accrual rate of 3.7%. We look forward to bringing this quarter's non-accrual rate more in line with this and ultimately below this industry average. We are confident in our team and in our ability to navigate periods of stress, which inevitably occur from time to time. As always, we appreciate your participation on the call today and for your interest in FSK. Operator, we'd like to open the line for questions.

Thank you. At this time, we will conduct the question and answer session. As a reminder to ask your question, you will need to press star 11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question today comes from Aaron Saiganovich with Truth Securities. Your line is open. Hi, thanks. There's been a lot of discussion

about the investing environment picking up in the second half, and folks are quite busy in a typically slow August period. What are you seeing on your end, and what are you thinking about in terms of originations in the second half?

Yeah, and Aaron, it's Dan. Thanks for the question. I think just two things I want to start with. First, clearly this is a bit of a harder quarter for us, right? So we know we have some work to do as we go forward, and I want to make sure it's clean. Before I get to your question, just second, I mean, I did want to acknowledge you have the senseless and tragic events in New York City last week. All the businesses, the people, and the families impacted by these events are in our thoughts and prayers. I think when we get to the investing environment, you know, I think the way you put it, it's well said. I mean, people are busier now, I think, than they've been in some time, you know, just from a pure deal count perspective, we've looked at more deals in Q2 than we have in, I think, the prior eight quarters. A very kind of ugly April on the other side of Liberation Day. So I think that the key data points hold, right? There is significant pressure from LPs to get cash back from their private equity GPs. We continue to hear that. We know there's a lot of dry powder in kind of newer vintage private equity funds that I think is looking to deploy. I think we've probably seen more activity in names that you know where they don't have to talk about tariffs or sort of worry about tariffs but definitely a certain amount of green shoots you know that said I am expecting still bouts of volatility to sort of play through but again busier you know this past quarter than we've been for a long. And then I appreciate all

of the details about the four companies that you have on non-accrual and information around that. Beyond those four companies, in terms of like a watch list, do you have any others that are, you know, bubbling up to the top? Or maybe you could just talk a little bit about the portfolio performance at a portfolio company level for the rest of the...

Yeah, and I'm happy to do that and fair question. You know, I think a couple of things, right? I mean, we, I think we've tried to provide, you know, on not just this call, but prior calls, you know, as much detail as we can on certain names. You know, I think each of the issues in some way was unique to the companies we discussed, although there was, you know, I think clearly with KBS and 4840, a bit of, you know, material amount of over-earning kind of driven by COVID and then companies kind of unlevered on the other side. You know, in terms of watch list, I think probably the simplest thing to point to is kind of the risk ratings that we publish, you know, in kind of the QAR bucket three and four, you've got roughly seven, you know, odd percent of the portfolio. You know, I would note, you know, a couple of those names, which we've talked about on prior, and JWA, which we've seen some positive momentum on each of those names. You know, the other side of that, there are some things that do worry is, right, the higher rate environment is stressful on companies. You know, things like doze or impact to sort of government contracts or government services is kind of, you know, definitely on our mind. And I think, you know, maybe I want to make sure we're cautious and maybe we're a little bit more negative than most on certain things. But, you know, the consumer has performed quite well, right? We've seen that in some of the consumer businesses that we lend to or some of the consumer portfolios that we own in the asset backside, although that's been prominently skewed to kind of higher FICO, but, you know, I think you've got to be a little bit mindful there as we go into the, you know, second half or deeper in the second half of the year and

into 26. Thank you very much. One moment, please. Our next question comes from Finian O'Shea with

Wells Fargo Securities. Your line is open. Hey, everyone. Good morning. We wanted to ask first about the COPJV. Stephen, I think your guide for 3Q of 55, that's a touch lower than what you had guided for this Q, which was 56. I know it came in well above that. But you're guiding it down a little bit despite a bit of a ramp there. So seeing what kind of earning situation and also credit situation, how that has compared to the mothership BDC. And then sort of finally what I'm getting at is, is the JV in a similar place where as we go into 26, you know, and it maybe pays down spillover perhaps, is that going to also be a lower reset payout. Thank you.

Stephen, I'll take the first part of your question and hand the second part over to Dan. The difference in the anticipated dividend from COP for the third quarter versus what we received in the second is really driven by the timing of certain ABF dividends. We received a bit higher dividends in the second quarter and correspondingly we'll have a bit lower dividends in the third. As you certainly know, and others know, dividend payers in the ABF portfolio, it tends to be a little bit lumpy. It's not spread evenly over four quarters of the year. So, you know, kind of somewhat normal and customary there. But, you know, we would expect the JV over time to, because we have expanded it to your point, you know, to be at that sort of mid-50s are even a little better level over time as those investments, you know, season in that

portfolio. Yeah, Ben, good morning. Maybe just to add to those points, you know, and I think you've spent enough time with us on the asset-based finance space that you've got to get that, but just to be clear on those deals, that was more of a timing issue than any type of performance point. You know, we do have a desire to continue to ramp this, but with inside the guise of, you know, probably 50% max that we discussed. You know, the only other point that I probably would note is, and I don't have this at my fingertips, so we can circle back. I do expect that the joint venture has a higher percentage of floating rate debt and fixed rate debt than is in kind of the parent.

That's helpful. Thank you. And next question. So, you know, portfolio conditions today, given this quarter, probably mean that you're below book for a little while. Seeing your view on the buyback and something you could put in place to, you know, potentially take advantage of that at a point where, say, the stock becomes cheap and you become, you know, confident in portfolio stability.

Yeah, I'll take that, Finn. I think, you know, a couple of points there, right? I mean, we have historically been active in buybacks, as you know. You know, I do think we'll have to, you know, balance that with, you know, what we see as the market opportunity and where we are vis-a-vis a target leverage ratio. You know, I think the target leverage ratio is kind of important to us. We're kind of inside our sort of band now. But, you know, my guess is we're probably, you know, very little bit sort of above maybe recent historical average. I think we have to just factor all those pieces together as we plan forward.

Thanks so much.

Have a good day.

The question is from Sean Paul Adams with B. Riley Securities. Your line is open.

Guys, good morning. On the new non-accruals, it seems like they've largely been legacy-troubled assets that have proactive restructuring, however, continue to have further subsequent headwinds. When you're looking over the past troubled assets that have underwent some of that proactive intervention, how many are you currently monitoring for situations like this? You know, out of WorldWise, Keller Meyer and Alacrity, it seemed that there was a significant change in quarter over quarter marks. So just if you could provide any more color on that.

Yeah, no, I'm happy to do that. And I think just for the sake of clarity, you know, you are correct in the sense that, you know, KBS has been, you know, for lack of better word, going on for a period of time. PRG would be the same. You know, PRG had an initial restructuring in 20, but that was in the depth of COVID. You know, it's a business that focuses on, you know, Broadway and sort of entertainment, so obviously revenue went to zero, and quite frankly, it was probably over-levered going into that. But just the KBS 4840 and WorldWise, you know, regular way, sort of KKR origination, what we call something legacy would have been kind of prior advisor that would have been PRG. You know, I think our workout team's done a good job. You know, we've got a strong group of people from, you know, the leadership of that team to the various folks along the, you know, with skill sets of financial kind of modeling slash financial restructuring skills, bankruptcy lawyers, you know, even down to some PE experience to where we have to sort of run these. And I do think in some ways that workout term is probably a little bit of a misnomer, right? That team is getting involved the moment something goes on the watch list. In some ways, some of the most value that gets added from that is kind of at that stage because we can tighten up documents, try to de-risk the position. I think we talked about one of those names on our last call when we had a repayment of a company called 360, which was probably the biggest tariff exposure we had in the entire portfolio. That was gone on for an extended period of time. You know, I think each of these is in a different spot, Sean-Paul. Like, the PRG name has been ongoing for some extent in a period of time. You know, the lender group on KBS is working hard. You know, that initial restructuring is probably only a year old. You know, 4840 is still paying interest, so clear. You know, I think just our expectation is that's where it's sort of trending. So the team is prepared to spend a significant amount of time to try to maximize the outcome, kind of maximize the return account. Got it. Very helpful.

Thank you. The next question is from Robert Dodd with Raymond James. Your line is open.

Hi, guys, and kind of a follow-up to Sean. When we look at these assets that have kind of re-defaulted, if you will, So it does seem to be, from what I'm looking at, it's becoming a bit more common, and not just in your portfolio, right? There are other assets around the space where we've seen the same kind of thing. I mean, is there a theme or anything? I mean, obviously, yes, like you point out, for each individual asset, it's idiosyncratic. But there are increasingly, like, you know, re-defaults rather than new defaults, if you will, where struggling assets have been restructured and then they're continuing to have problems. And the ones that didn't have problems to start with are doing okay. So, I mean, is there a theme or anything that's leading to that? And it kind of ties into the, like, should initial restructurings be more aggressive? Is there a problem? Would you have liked to have been more aggressive, but the lender group didn't want to be? I mean, any thoughts, Seth?

Well, it's an interesting question. I'm not sure there's a theme, Robert. I mean, and to be clear on the names here, I mean, you know, there is another restructuring expected on PRG. You know, KBS is more of a valuation point. And even though the company's stabilized, I think that it's just been sort of delayed. And I think that the churn numbers we've seen there have taken, you know, longer sort of time period to maybe stabilize in a manner that we're sort of happy with or satisfactory to us and the lender group. You know, I do think the one point you said in there is correct, and each of these situations is probably specific, is, you know, are you able to, you know, restructure it? sort of quote-unquote enough. We have seen some names where none of these are either left in the portfolio or would be extremely diminutive amounts. Are you able to get, and it's probably more highly correlated to if there's a larger 1L group in there, get the position to a spot that you feel to go forward is self-sufficient versus maybe the capital structure sort of being too unlevered, or too levered. So I don't think there's any themes. I think each of these are specific. But just to your specific point, the only name that we're talking about actually sort of quote-unquote restructuring again of those four is PRG. The others are just downside versus, you know, kind of biomarkers.

Got it. Understood. Flipping the topic. On the – you mentioned you've seen more deals to review than any time in the last eight quarters. I mean, like, how realistic now, given, you know, we're in August and there's only four months left in the year, is it for any of those to – or to a material number, though, to close this year? I mean, is the optimism, you know, should we be looking more at 26? Is there enough time for the end of this year to actually see a real rebound in activity?

Yeah, I mean, I think from the numbers perspective, I think you're correct, right? Because deals being reviewed now, you know, would go through kind of the regular way investment assessment process for four, six, eight weeks, and they probably take, on average, two months to close. Some things can be faster, some things can have a longer sort of tail. But I think you did see some of that from our reduced fee income that you saw this quarter versus last quarter. I think that is a spot on a go-forward basis that we would expect to see, you know, upside at least from the Q2 number, you know, the only word of cost in there is I think upfront fees and OID on new loans is, you know, decently tighter now than it was a year

ago. Got it. Thank you. And our next question comes from Casey Alexander with Compass Point

Research and Trading. Your line is open. Yeah, good morning. Thank you for taking my questions And, Dan, I echo your sentiments to our friends in Midtown. It's a really difficult situation for a lot of folks, and our heart goes out to them. It looks like it's pretty clear that the company is going to be, you know, to a certain extent restating its dividend philosophy. And at one point in time, the company had what you could describe as a modified variable dividend, you know, based upon earnings. And then you kind of got away from that for a year and a half or two years as you were working on the spillover. Is that what we should think about you going back to, which is, you know, maybe a base and some supplemental that toggles with earnings? or how does the company see reformulating that dividend policy?

Yeah, I mean, Casey, it's a fair question. I think we wanted to, you know, address that, you know, a bit in kind of our prepared remarks in terms of, you know, coming out kind of formally when we're on the call for sort of Q3. And you're correct. I mean, we did kind of lean into that, you know, sort of variable dividend policy point. I think we tried to evolve or maybe thread the needle a little bit differently based upon feedback from maybe the market broader. Because if you do recall, our base used to be 60, then we upped it to 64, then we put the supplemental in place to almost get to that variable sort of point, and then we actually added a special on top for a handful of quarters. You know, I do think, you know, I think we need to kind of acknowledge, and I'm sure, Casey, you get this in reading your reports, you know, spread environment is down, right? You know, the yield on our accruing assets is, you know, down, I think, 140 basis points over the past year. That's picking up, you know, a little bit of the benchmark, but spreads, you know, I think it's more likely than not rates do go down in the near term. I mentioned kind of that fee income point, but maybe with rates coming down, we could see a little bit of spread widening to sort of offset that, but it will not be kind of basis point for basis point in my mind. I think we've been very happy with what we've done on the liability side of our balance Steven mentioned we're 54% on the unsecured side. I think we like our maturity ladder a lot, but where we were able to issue those deals was in a very different rate environment, so we will be looking to refinance there. So I think all of that is going to get put forward in kind of our views.

Now, there's certain offsets there, right?

There could be additional deal volume. We do have kind of more non-income producing assets than we sort of would like. So there's, you know, a couple of letters there, but where I would focus you and kind of folks, I think we're really going to be kind of NII-led here, right? So where we see kind of forward earnings spitting out is where we're going to talk about kind of dividend levels. But, you know, we as well like kind of the point of really, you know, that variability, you know, tying into sort of NII and then trying to make sure everyone's comfortable that there's a steady base, but we'll keep all that in mind for sure.

Okay. Thank you for that. Secondly, to extend on the conversation of the high level of activity that you're seeing, you know, there's not unlimited room in the target range of your leverage ratio. Do you have some line of sight to a level of repayments that will allow you to take on some of this activity? or is, you know, I'm not sure how much capacity there is for the JV. I know you increased your equity commitment to the JV last quarter, but you downstreamed a fair amount of paper to the JV this quarter. How do you manage the inflow unless there's some outflow?

Yeah, and I think maybe there's two points there. I mean, there is room for the JV to grow, even with the assets that, you know, were sort of put down. And I think you'll continue to see that. I think that's been a great partnership, you know, with our partner there. And I think we have, you know, almost $600-plus million of uncalled sort of equity capital there. That's on one side. You know, I think you have a very, very high correlation between, you know, new deal flow and repayments. And, you know, with the syndicated loan market picking up, we've seen some deals being refinanced by sort of that market as well. So I think we do have the levers. That said, you are not incorrect. I mean, you know, operating inside of our target leverage band, you know, is paramount to us. But, you know, I think those two things will help offset that. And, you know, like I said, I think we're happy with the amount of deals we were able to screen, you know, in, you know, this prior sort of quarter. It's not kind of where I think we will be, you know, four quarters from now from, so I'm expecting more. But I think the correlation of repayments with new deal flow will remain high.

Thank you for taking my questions, Dan.

Have a good day, Casey.

Thank you. The next question is from Paul Johnson with KBW. Your line is open.

Yeah, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Just, you know, broadly on activity potentially picking up here, your EBITDA is $114 million. You guys focus on the upper middle market. Obviously, there's a lot of competition in that part of the market. I mean, how much do you expect of any sort of pickup and activity to go into the BSL market versus private credit?

Yeah, it's a good question. You know, I take one step back, you know, my sense is, and what we communicate to kind of our investors kind of broadly is, you know, we are focused on the upper end of the middle We're probably defining that, you know, really in the, you know, 50 to 150 range. You know, we're there on purpose because we've, you know, historically seen better management teams, you know, less customer or supplier concentrations, you know, there's more levers to pull if certain things do go wrong. I think in times of market volatility, we're probably able to lean into larger companies more because the syndicated loan market is shut. I think we have seen a bunch of larger names who prefer to be in the private markets. All that being said, I think we are trying to make sure that our origination funnel is as broad as possible. So in addition to covering the 250 sponsors out there, we've got a dedicated non-sponsor team. we've probably been a little cautious on it but we're prepared to play in certain junior debt deals but the EBITDA of those businesses is higher obviously we've got an active kind of asset-based finance pipeline in here to sort of bring that together and we will go below $50 million I mean I don't think we're going to go below $25 million to be blunt and there's probably a higher bar for that size of the company but we're trying to make sure our origination aperture is as big as it can be. We just haven't seen, at least on our side, that you're getting paid enough to be in the $10, $15, $20 million range. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with those loans, but it's just not where we're spending time.

One on the JV, I mean, you guys dropped quite a few of assets in the JV this quarter. It looked like there might have been a little bit of a fair value loss this quarter right down on the investment. can you just provide maybe a little bit of color on what drove that? Was that just some of the same investments on FSK's balance sheet that are on the JV that were written down? Was there, you know, what are the current non-accrual levels in the JV? Anything that kind of provide color on that?

Yeah, no, and you're correct. I mean, we did kind of drop, you know, sort of assets down in there. I think we've been pretty happy with our inception-to-date performance on the joint venture. You are correct as well. One of the, we'll call it quote-unquote, mark-to-market moves this quarter would have been the JV itself. That would have been more correlated though, more consistent with some of the same names that we talked about. So, you know, the JV has been more regularly used for accessing other parts of the KKR sort of origination funnel than regular way, you know, kind of U.S. direct lending. But some parts of KBS 4840 and WorldWise were in there.

Got it. Thanks again. That's very helpful there. And the last question for me was just, you know, as you guys are evaluating the dividend going forward next year, I was just wondering, you know, what all is, you know, completely on the table here, shareholder protection, you know, dividend downside protection, potentially with the new dividend, any sort of fee waivers, that sort of thing, or is it just fitting the distribution kind of into the future earnings power and sort of prevailing interest rates?

Yeah, I mean, obviously there's a couple of sort of points within there, right? We have, I think, historically been on the wider end of dividends sort of being paid. I think it's important for us to kind of be in line with any sort of market or historical sort of industry averages, you know, obviously we'll kind of think about if we need to adjust the portfolio or otherwise to sort of get there. You know, I think the point that Casey raised in a prior question was an interesting one, right? We've talked about, you know, our given policy now for some time is kind of a base and supplemental concept, the supplemental either being just, you know, being able to be paid in the future or having it in a fixed, you know, actually, you know, payout number. So I think, you know, we're going to have to go through all that as we kind of understand where the rate environment is kind of trending. You know, we did pay out 70 on purpose this year, right? We had this excess spillover number that we wanted to guide down to a more target range. I think going into the year, we probably expected, more rate moves than we've seen thus far and we wanted to give investors consistency for $25 to kind of take something off the table. But as I said, the factors of where we stand vis-a-vis the market and otherwise will factor into how we look at the dividend on a go-forward basis.

That's all for me. Thank you. Thanks, Paul.

Thank you. Our next question is from Melissa Weidel with J.P. Morgan. Your line is open.

Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Most of them have already been asked and answered, but wanted to follow up briefly on the level of spillover income. I might have missed it, but can you give us a refresher memory on where that stands on a per-share basis after this quarter?

Melissa, it's Stephen. Just to refresh, we started the year with rough numbers, about $525 million of spillover. through the year through, reduce that number down to, I'd call it the high 400s. And then with the current quarter dividend that we just announced, we'll reduce it a little more to somewhere and call it the mid 400s. And we'll publish, obviously, intra-year, the team's making estimates because we don't have all the appropriate information tax-wise. And so we'll publish again in the 10K, you know, at the end of the year. But, you know, we're sort of in that somewhat plus or minus the 450 range, I guess I would call it, today. And then when you pro forma for the, you know, dividend that we just announced today, you know, you'd be somewhere, you know, call it below 450, but certainly, you know, well above 400. And when you think about, in today's world, you know, a current dividend, it's about $196 million on a quarterly basis at the full 70 cents. You know, so we're still above that kind of two quarters worth of dividends. And as you know, certainly from covering us a while, our target bears, you know, plus or minus two quarters worth of dividends. So we sort of see ourselves gliding, you know, right down to, you know, kind of that level as we get to the end of it.

Thanks for that update. My other question goes back to sort of the ABS opportunities that you're seeing. And I know that's been an area where you've been investing for a while. I think there was a reference earlier on the call to some of the more consumer-oriented ABS opportunities. I was hoping you could give a quick recap of kind of your allocation across asset classes within ABS and give us an update on historically where you've invested versus the current opportunity. Thanks.

Yeah, I'm happy to take that, Melissa. You know, it has been a space we've spent a lot of time on, right? We've got a large, dedicated 50-person team here. I think we've taken the tact of investing sort of on a multi-asset class sort of global basis. We're playing in a lot of different parts of the market. You know, to answer the consumer's point specifically, you know, So it's roughly kind of two, two and a half percent of the portfolio, you know, diversified in a couple of names. I would say on the consumer side, we have definitely targeted more the higher FICO borrower. I think you've seen that in some of the larger deals that we've done of late. Would have been, you know, Discover or a recent deal with Harley-Davidson, you know, or we're playing in deals that are targeting homeowners who've got a more positive bias too as it relates to credit performance or other forms of secure deals like auto. So, you know, net net pretty small sort of balance diversified under a bunch of names. You know, we have been active in the, you know, resi mortgage space. We've been active in the hard asset space probably, you know, with the main focus on aviation or equipment leasing. That's probably roughly another 2% of the portfolio. We've done historically some more esoteric things like investing in music IP, which was a position inside of FSK, which we did and has since been sort of sold. So, we're trying to create that broad footprint. We're trying to enable the team with that footprint to pivot where they see the best risk-adjusted returns. You know, we're probably at, you know, a little bit more the top end of the range on AVF exposure inside of FSK as we think about, you know, most deals in there would be, you know, under the non-EPC bucket, but we think we, like I said, we've been happy with the diversification and additional return profile that it's

given. Thank you. This does conclude our question and answer session. I would now like to turn it back to Dan Peterczak for closing remarks. I want to thank everyone for taking the

time to join us on the call today. If you do have any follow-up points or questions, please do not hesitate to reach out. Wishing you a good end of the summer. Thank you. Thank you for your

participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program and you may now disconnect.