Thank you for your continued patience. Your meeting will begin shortly. Star zero, and a member of our team will be happy to help you. Hello, and welcome, everyone, joining today’s Q1 2026 SLR Investment Corp. earnings call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, you will have the opportunity to ask questions during the question-and-answer session. Please note this call is being recorded. We are standing by if you should need any assistance. It is now my pleasure to turn the meeting over to Michael Gross, Chairman and Co-CEO. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, and good morning. Welcome to SLR Investment Corp.’s earnings call for the quarter ended 03/31/2026. I am joined today by my long-term partner, Bruce Spohler, our Co-Chief Executive Officer, as well as our Chief Financial Officer, Shiraz Kajee, and members of the SLR Investment Corp. Investor Relations team. Shiraz, before we begin, would you please start off by covering the webcast forward-looking statements?

Good morning, everyone. I would like to remind everyone that today’s call and webcast are being recorded. Please note that they are the property of SLR Investment Corp. and that any unauthorized broadcast in any form is strictly prohibited. This conference call is also being webcast from the Events Calendar in the Investors section on our website at slrinvestorancorp.com. Audio replays of this call will be made available later today as disclosed in our May 5 earnings press release. I would also like to call your attention to the customary disclosures in our press release regarding forward-looking statements. Today’s conference call and webcast may include forward-looking statements and projections. These statements are not guarantees of our future performance or financial results and involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Actual results may differ materially as a result of a number of factors, including those described from time to time in our filings with the SEC. We do not undertake to update any forward-looking statements unless required to do so by law. To obtain copies of our latest SEC filings, please visit our website or call us at (212) 993-1670. At this time, I would like to turn the call back over to our Chairman and Co-CEO, Michael Gross.

Thank you, Shiraz, and thank you to everyone for joining our earnings call this morning. Following a year of relative outperformance and strong portfolio credit quality metrics, we are pleased to report a solid start to 2026 for SLR Investment Corp. This is despite the confluence of events in the first quarter that created challenges for our industry. These include rising geopolitical uncertainty and elevated concerns about the disruptive impacts of artificial intelligence on the economy, and to a greater extent the private credit asset class. These dynamics have triggered a speculative and often negative global conversation about the industry unlike anything we have seen in our twenty years of operating SLR Capital Partners and decades of experience managing BDCs designed to match the ownership of illiquid private credit assets with permanent equity. While we expect an elevated focus on private credit and BDCs to persist through 2026, we think it is important to remind investors we have been positioning the portfolio for this moment of recalibration of risk in direct lending for a long time. We believe SLR Investment Corp.’s conservatism and focus on collateral-based specialty finance strategies should enable our portfolio to weather uncertain economic conditions while allowing our origination teams to be opportunistic in an improving investment climate. Additionally, we continue to embark on growth initiatives across our specialty finance investment strategies. We also believe that both institutional and private wealth investors are increasingly recognizing SLR Investment Corp.’s value proposition and place in a portfolio’s allocation of private credit that provides differentiated exposure. For the first quarter of 2026, we reported net investment income, or NII, of $0.33 per share and net income of $0.31 per share. NII was down sequentially primarily due to three factors: first, the lag impact on our floating rate loans from the Fed’s 50 basis points cut in the fourth quarter of 2025; second, a contraction of the comprehensive portfolio as deal activity slowed meaningfully in what is already a seasonally light quarter amid rising economic uncertainty; and lastly, a decline in fee income. As of March 31, the company’s net asset value per share was $18.16, down one-half of 1% sequentially but flat year-over-year. SLR Investment Corp.’s net income for the quarter equates to an approximate 7% annualized return on equity. While we recognize that the company’s net investment income ROE did decline sequentially, we continue to expect that our net income ROE, or total return, remained above the public and private BDC industry average in the first quarter and continued to compare favorably on both a one-year and three-year basis. During the first quarter, SLR Investment Corp. originated $242 million of new investments across the comprehensive portfolio and received repayments of $360 million for net repayments of $180 million, resulting in a quarter-end comprehensive portfolio of $3.2 billion. The primary driver of new originations continues to be our commercial finance strategies, which we believe offer more attractive risk-adjusted returns in today’s competitive private credit markets. As of 03/31/2026, approximately 85% of our portfolio investments were senior secured specialty finance loans, which remains the highest percentage on record and offers a risk profile that is highly differentiated from other BDC portfolios available to investors. We continue to believe that SLR Investment Corp.’s investment portfolio mix shift over the last couple of years to asset-based specialty strategies provides greater downside protection than cash flow loans through our strong credit agreements, actively managed borrowing bases, and underlying collateral support. We expect to continue to approach new investments in cash flow lending opportunistically, especially if signs of widening spreads and improved terms endure. For investors concerned about the uncertainty, technology obsolescence risk, and enterprise value destruction for the software industry from the burgeoning threat of artificial intelligence, we believe that SLR Investment Corp.’s portfolio, with its lack of software exposure, offers a safe haven for investors. Our direct industry exposure to the software industry remains at approximately 2% of our portfolio’s fair value as of 03/31/2026 and is one of the lowest amongst publicly traded BDCs. During the first quarter, we established an artificial intelligence investment committee responsible for assisting investment teams with evaluating both new opportunities as well as the existing portfolio as it relates to the risk of AI to both companies and industries. Despite our de minimis exposure to software, we believe that AI will have an impact either positively or negatively in nearly all industries and are assessing every portfolio company and new investment opportunity accordingly. Our underlying analysis includes evaluating the impact to business model, customer base, and competitive moat from AI as well as incorporating company- and sector-specific evaluation categories. We will apply this process during underwriting of new investments and will reevaluate all portfolio companies at least once per quarter. In addition, we are implementing AI in our specialty finance businesses to assist in analyzing borrowing bases and covenants, streamlining routine workflows, and improving legal document reviews. Overall, we are pleased with the composition, quality, and performance of our portfolio, a direct result of SLR Investment Corp.’s multi-strategy approach to private credit investing. At quarter end, 94.5% of our comprehensive investment portfolio was comprised of first lien senior secured loans. 100% of investments at cost were performing with zero investments on nonaccrual. Our watch list investments represented only 2.2%, which we note is unchanged from the first quarter in 2021. We believe these credit quality metrics compare favorably to peer public BDCs. At March 31, including available credit facility capacity, at SSLP and our specialty finance portfolio companies, we had over $900 million of capital available to deploy. Our liquidity profile puts us in a position to take advantage of either stable economic conditions or a softening of the economy. At this point, I will turn the call back over to Shiraz to take you through our first quarter financial highlights.

Thank you, Michael. SLR Investment Corp.’s net asset value at March 31, 2026 was $990.8 million, or $18.16 per share, compared to $18.26 per share at 12/31/2025. At quarter end, SLR Investment Corp.’s on-balance sheet investment portfolio had a fair value of approximately $2.1 billion in 99 portfolio companies across 28 industries, compared to a fair value of $2.1 billion in 100 portfolio companies across 31 industries at December 31. SLR Investment Corp.’s investment portfolio continues to be funded by a combination of our multi-lender revolving credit facilities and the issuance of term debt in the unsecured debt markets to institutional investors. The company is investment grade rated by Fitch, Moody’s, and DBRS. More than 40% of the company’s debt capital is comprised of unsecured debt as of March 31. At March 31, the company had approximately $1.1 billion of debt outstanding with a net debt-to-equity ratio of 1.14x, within our target range of 0.9x to 1.25x. We have ample liquidity to fund our unfunded commitments and for future portfolio growth. Looking forward, the company has one debt maturity in 2026 with $75 million of unsecured notes maturing in December. We expect to continue to prudently access the debt capital markets and issue unsecured debt as and when needed. Subsequent to quarter end, the company increased its revolving capacity by $25 million with the addition of a new lender. Total revolving commitments now total $720 million, up from $695 million as of quarter end. Furthermore, in May, the Board authorized a one-year extension of our $50 million stock repurchase program. Moving to the P&L, for the three months ended March 31, gross investment income totaled $49.3 million versus $54.5 million for the three months ended December 31. Net expenses totaled $31.4 million for the three months ended March 31. This compares to $32.9 million for the three months ended December 31. Accordingly, the company’s net investment income for the three months ended March 31, 2026 totaled $17.9 million, or $0.33 per average share, compared with $21.6 million, or $0.40 per average share, for the prior quarter. Below the line, the company had net realized and unrealized losses of $0.7 million in the first quarter versus a net realized and unrealized gain of $3.5 million for the fourth quarter of 2025. As a result, the company had a net increase in net assets resulting from operations of $17.1 million for the three months ended 03/31/2026, compared to a net increase of $25.1 million for the three months ended 12/31/2025. On 05/05/2026, the Board declared a quarterly distribution of $0.31 per share, payable on 06/26/2026, to holders of record as of 06/12/2026. The Board also approved a voluntary and permanent change in the company’s advisory agreement with the investment adviser, SLR Capital Partners, reducing the performance-based incentive fee payable to 17.5% from 20%. This further aligns the adviser with our shareholders. With that, I will turn the call over to our Co-CEO, Bruce Spohler.

Thank you, Shiraz. As Michael shared, we believe that the private credit industry continues to exhibit signs of the middle stages of a credit cycle, characterized by rising defaults and growing credit dispersion in direct lending. With uncertainty percolating, today’s environment requires highly disciplined underwriting and a heightened focus on capital preservation. Our specialty finance strategies offer high returns in cash flow loans and greater downside protection through their underlying collateral support and tight documentation. We view these more favorable terms as a complexity premium earned through investing in structures that require significant expertise as well as infrastructure that many private credit firms do not have. Turning to the portfolio, at quarter end, the comprehensive investment portfolio consisted of approximately $3.2 billion with average exposure of $3.7 million measured at fair value; approximately 98% of the portfolio consisted of senior secured loans with 94.5% in first lien loans. The 3.2% of our portfolio held in second lien loans consists entirely of asset-based loans with borrowing bases and no second lien cash flow loans. At quarter end, our weighted average asset-level yield was 11.1%, down from 11.6% in the prior quarter. The sequential decline was primarily due to the lagged impact from the 50 basis points decline in base rates in the fourth quarter and reduced one-time income that had occurred in the fourth quarter. Overall, we believe our portfolio has been less impacted by changes in base rates and spread compression compared to the BDC peer group because of our lower allocation to cash flow loans. Based on our quantitative risk assessment scale, our portfolio continues to perform well. At quarter end, the weighted average investment risk rating was under two, based on our one-to-four risk rating scale, with one representing the least amount of risk. Just under 98% of our portfolio is rated two or higher. Importantly, 100% of the portfolio was performing with no investments on nonaccrual. While our credit quality remains strong, in light of market concerns of increasing defaults in private credit portfolios, we believe it is important to note that SLR Investment Corp. has a strong track record of successfully navigating workouts. When a portfolio company’s performance deteriorates, we work closely with our co-lenders, owners, and management teams to arrive at a value-maximizing path forward. In the event owners are no longer willing to support a portfolio company with additional equity, we are comfortable stepping into an ownership role if we believe that will be the path to drive the maximum return. We have a dedicated senior team that works closely with our investment teams when a situation first becomes noisy. They work hand-in-hand with our senior leadership team at SLR on all workouts. In addition, our asset-based lending teams are led by industry veterans with over thirty years of liquidation and workout experience, and they provide additional restructuring support when needed. Now let me touch on each of our four investment verticals. Starting with our Specialty Finance segments, as a reminder, we dynamically allocate to our strategies based on market and economic conditions, which allows us to source what we believe to be attractive investments across market cycles. Let me start with asset-based lending. Our direct corporate ABL business remains a highly fragmented industry and contains high barriers to entry through the complexity of underwriting, collateral monitoring, and active borrowing base management. This strategy requires significant investment in experienced human capital as well as infrastructure. Our priority remains first lien positions on liquid current account assets, which has historically minimized our downside risk exposure. At quarter end, our ABL portfolio totaled just under $1.4 billion across roughly 250 issuers, representing approximately 43% of our total portfolio. During the first quarter, we originated $77 million of new ABL investments and had repayments of $194 million. The weighted average asset-level yield on this portfolio was 12.3% compared to 12.6% in the prior quarter. Our ABL portfolio contraction in the first quarter was predominantly due to temporary paydowns of existing revolving credit facilities and our proactive management of borrower exposures, consistent with our hands-on ABL credit discipline, as opposed to repayments of loans that would have generated repayment fees. In our ABL business, a meaningful contributor to returns is derived from portfolio churn in the form of early repayment fees and the acceleration of upfront fees. We had close to 70% of this portfolio churn last year across our ABL businesses. Over time, we expect this churn to revert to its historical level, which we expect will drive incremental fee income. We are seeing increased activity across our ABL platform. In particular, we are seeing an uptick, post a quiet first quarter, from our sponsor finance clients who are increasingly seeking incremental liquidity through companies. We expect to produce net portfolio growth in our ABL strategy through the remainder of this year. Turning to ABL strategic initiatives, our adviser recently established a sourcing arrangement for ABL investments with a large U.S. commercial bank that spans many of our ABL strategies. This partnership expands our origination reach. We are optimistic that this initiative will enhance our investment sourcing funnel and support portfolio growth in specialty finance ABL investments. We are currently in discussions for other partnership opportunities similar to this. In addition, we are continuing to evaluate strategic transactions such as portfolio and ABL business acquisitions. We also continue to expand our ABL origination team. Now let me touch on Equipment Finance. At quarter end, the equipment finance portfolio totaled just under $1.1 billion, representing approximately a third of the total portfolio. It was highly diversified across roughly 580 borrowers. The credit profile of this portfolio was unchanged quarter over quarter. During Q1, we originated $122 million of new assets with the majority of these investments coming from our business that provides leases to investment grade corporate borrowers. We had repayments of approximately $126 million. The weighted average asset-level yield for this asset class was 10.2% compared to 10.9% in the prior quarter. We remain encouraged by current trends we are seeing in our equipment finance business. Our investment pipeline has expanded and we are seeing demand from our borrowers to extend leases on equipment rather than buy new equipment at higher tariff-adjusted prices. Now let me turn to Life Sciences. At quarter end, the portfolio had just over $180 million of senior secured investments, representing close to 6% of the total portfolio, which is down from a peak of 15%. Over the past couple of years, we have been reporting on the origination challenges in this strategy. The debt market for venture-backed private and public late-stage life science companies has seen an influx of capital and a corresponding degradation in credit discipline. Our life science finance team has been in this business for over twenty-five years. A zero loss track record has been predicated on underwriting and structuring standards that new entrants are often not adhering to. This trend has impacted our portfolio growth. For context, Life Sciences has historically accounted for an average of 22% of our quarterly gross comprehensive income since 2020. However, in the first quarter, it was only 13.5%. One-time life science fees have historically contributed an average of 3.5% to our gross investment income, whereas they represented approximately 1% during Q1. Similar to asset-based lending, churn is critical in our Life Science portfolio and has been a significant contributor to our earnings. The pipeline of new opportunities has picked up materially in 2026. To capitalize on the expected growing opportunity set in Life Sciences, our adviser has expanded the team through the hiring of three highly experienced professionals. We expect that these efforts to broaden our origination reach and product offering should generate strong portfolio growth over the coming quarters. We will eventually both increase portfolio churn as well as fee income. Finally, let me turn to cash flow lending. As a reminder, in cash flow lending, we position SLR Investment Corp. not as a generalist capital provider across all industries but rather as a specialized, industry-focused partner to private equity firms with portfolio companies in the upper mid-market. This is most evident in the healthcare sector. We intentionally curate our sponsor base, partnering exclusively with dedicated healthcare private equity firms with long-standing successful track records of investing in the healthcare industry. These sponsors prioritize knowledge over terms, recognizing that the healthcare industry’s ongoing regulatory and reimbursement evolution requires a lender with deep domain expertise. By leveraging SLR Investment Corp.’s three healthcare investment pillars—healthcare ABL, Life Sciences, and Healthcare Sponsor Finance—we evaluate sponsor-backed investments with a level of granularity that generalist lenders cannot replicate. Beyond our focus on healthcare, we selectively deploy capital into business and financial services which mirror these same defensive characteristics: target market leaders with high recurring revenue, sustainable business models, and low capital intensity. By focusing on companies that share the resilient non-cyclical profiles of our healthcare portfolio, we maintain rigorous underwriting standards while providing prudent diversification across our cash flow finance strategy. At quarter end, this portfolio was $480 million across 28 borrowers, including the senior secured loans in our SSLP. Approximately 2% of the portfolio is allocated to software investments. Weighted average EBITDA was approximately $110 million. 100% of our cash flow investments are in first lien investments, and the portfolio carried a weighted average LTV of 38%. Our borrower fundamentals are trending positively, with year-over-year growth in both EBITDA and revenue at our portfolio companies. Weighted average interest coverage on this portfolio was 2.2x at quarter end, up from 2.0x in the prior quarter. During Q1, we made investments of $43 million in first lien cash flow loans and had repayments of approximately $40 million. Only one of these 12 investments was to a new borrower. At quarter end, the weighted average cash flow yield was approximately 10% compared to 9.8% in the prior quarter. Now let me turn to our SSLP. During the quarter, we invested $9.8 million and had $3.4 million of repayments. Net leverage was just under 1x. In the first quarter, we earned income of $1.5 million, representing an annualized yield of roughly 12.25%, compared to 9.25% in the fourth quarter. At quarter end, we had approximately $54 million of undrawn debt capacity. We expect to grow this portfolio opportunistically over the remainder of 2026. Now let me turn the call back to Michael.

Thank you, Bruce. Over the last seven months, we think both the public and private markets have come to terms with private credit’s maturation as a core asset class with a corresponding recalibration of forward return expectations to reflect a tighter spread environment and a more normalized default loss experience. With less than 10 basis points of annual losses at SLR Investment Corp. since the company’s IPO sixteen years ago, resulting in an IRR above 9%, our North Star at SLR continues to be protecting capital, avoiding losses, and not chasing higher spreads at the expense of structural protections. We believe this approach provides our investors with absolute returns designed to consistently exceed the liquid corporate credit markets yet with lower volatility. It is with this view—that the private credit market has matured and correspondingly carries tighter illiquidity premiums—that our Board of Directors took action this quarter to adjust the second quarter dividend distribution to a level we view to be sufficiently covered from earnings while simultaneously preserving capital as we grow our earnings, and to adjust our performance-based incentive fees to 17.5% from 20%. These are actions that we do not take lightly as leaders and significant shareholders of SLR Investment Corp. since founding more than fifteen years ago. However, we believe that we have struck the right balance and are acting in the best long-term interests of shareholders. As a reminder, we have taken action previously at SLR Investment Corp. to adjust the dividend during transitioning investment climates to make way for growth. The SLR team owns over 8% of the company’s stock and has a significant percentage of their annual incentive compensation invested in that stock each year, including purchases that took place in the first quarter. The team’s investment alongside fellow institutional and private wealth investors should demonstrate our confidence in the company’s portfolio, stable capital structure, and earnings outlook. We have made significant investments and resources across the SLR platform over the last couple of years and year to date that should fuel growth in the investment portfolio that will support net investment income growth. Importantly, we have the available capital to be opportunistic in market dislocations and to evaluate strategic transactions. Thank you all again for your time today with a busy day of BDC earnings releases. Operator, will you please open up the line for questions?

Thank you. And our first question today comes from Erik Edward Zwick with Lucid Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

Thanks. Good morning, everyone. I thought you made some interesting points in the prepared comments describing how lower churn in some of the portfolios has led to lower fees and how this is, hopefully, a more temporary, market-related impact, but that has driven down the investment income here in the most recent quarter. And I suspect that is what is driving action in the stock price today. But you also highlighted some initiatives you have taken to grow the specialty finance strategies and how those should help rebuild that income through additional churn. I am just curious to what degree—and I realize there is no definite time frame—how soon should we start to see the benefits of those initiatives that you have taken and outlined?

Yes. I think that it will take a few quarters. If you step back for a moment, the churn commentary goes specifically to both our asset-based lending and life science portfolios. Historically, those assets have had a contractual duration of five or six years, but an actual duration of about two years. So it is a combination of bringing more of those assets into the portfolio, which we expect to do this year, and then letting those mature and start to repay over the next twelve to twenty-four months. That is a typical life cycle of that churn that will get back to a more normalized nonrecurring-yet-recurring fee income portion of our gross investment income. Additionally, the strategic initiatives include strategic sourcing arrangements—particularly on the asset-based lending side—additional origination team members on both the ABL and life science teams, and then, less predictable from a timing perspective, we continue to see some attractive opportunities in potential portfolio and team acquisitions in specialty finance, though those are a little less able to predict.

Thank you. I appreciate the color there. And then, just more importantly from my research and investigating, credit performance is ultimately one of the biggest predictors of long-term ROE and performance for BDCs, and you have outlined your very limited loss history and that the portfolio remains very clean from a nonaccrual perspective. Also, comparing your internal risk ratings from last quarter to this quarter, there has been an improvement there, but we are seeing kind of the opposite at other BDCs. So I wonder if you could just talk about the improvement that I noticed here in the most recent quarter from your internal risk rating perspective.

Yes. I think, as you know, we do not judge it quarter to quarter. There are always some names coming in and names coming out underneath those risk ratings. What we like to point to is the watch list is about 2.2%. If you go back over the last five years, it has been a little higher, a little lower, but 2.2% is actually the average going back to 2020. So to your commentary, we are looking for more consistency across the credit performance, and that is what we are happy about and comfortable with. It is also an example of how we have talked for a long time that the specialty finance assets, the ABL assets, are much less volatile than cash flow–oriented loans. That is why the watch list is so low, and we expect it to stay that way.

Thank you for taking my questions this morning.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Rick Shane with JPMorgan. Your line is now open.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Look, the implied ROE on your new dividend based on current book is about 6.8%, which is roughly SOFR plus two. That seems like a relatively low margin given the return and risk profile of the company. And again, I realize great track record on credit, but this is a levered portfolio. There is inherently credit risk in it. How do we think about this going forward? Are you saying that the return profile for the company is likely to be altered—or for the industry is likely to be altered—long term because of some of the dynamics we are seeing in terms of the broader flows to private credit? Or how should we think about the dividend in the context of your long-term return objectives?

I think we set it at a level where we have confidence it is exceeding the near term. In the long term, as Bruce alluded to in his commentary, we have several levers and initiatives that give us comfort that over the medium to long term, we should see our earnings move back toward the $0.40 level that we have experienced in the past and get to the higher ROE and ROI that we expect and have experienced. The other thing is our focus continues to be on total return. Obviously, that takes account of losses. We feel very good about where we are because of the credit quality, and that is something that is sustainable.

Got it. And when you think about those levers to get back to the $0.40 of core earnings, what is the path? Recasting the portfolio is a gradual process. Is the most immediate opportunity a modest degree of enhanced leverage? I am trying to figure out not only what the destination is but what the path looks like as well.

Fair question. We touched on this earlier in terms of timing. Potential portfolio acquisitions, particularly around the asset-based industry—which we have done in the past given the fragmented nature—have shown more opportunities. Those would be more difficult to predict, but more immediate should they come to pass as we bring portfolios in. The most recent, as you may recall, was in 2024 when we brought in the Webster factoring portfolio. Those are difficult to predict but are immediately accretive and also strategic in terms of expanding our ABL footprint either geographically or by industry. The other levers you heard generally revolve around expanding our sourcing across specialty finance, in particular ABL and life sciences. It is a combination of additional originators and strategic sourcing arrangements where we are creating partnerships with existing ABL players. As you know, we are incredibly conservative, so having a broader pipeline and expanded origination opportunity set allows us to bring more of these short-duration ABL and life science loans into the portfolio. We also know they will churn out fairly quickly with a roughly twenty-four-month average duration, so you will start to see those come into the portfolio this year and begin to exit as early as next year. That velocity in those two asset classes will contribute additional nonrecurring, recurring fee-based income.

Got it. And then, philosophically, you guys are conservative. Your credit results are evidence of conservatism. For some types of lenders—if you are a credit card lender—there is an efficient frontier; it is not a zero-defect business by definition. If your loss rates are too low, you are leaving too much opportunity on the table. I would argue that BDC lending is, in fact, a zero-defect business. One of your most thoughtful competitors years ago said to me, “There is no spread that makes up for a bad loan,” and that has always stuck with me. But I do wonder if even within a zero-defect construct, is there a concern that you are too far from that line of zero defect and that there is a little bit of widening you can do and still maintain a zero-defect objective?

That is a phenomenal point. The way we address our, let us call it, ultra-conservative approach to this requirement to be zero defect in private credit is by moving increasingly into these specialty finance strategies. The reason that we have zero defects is in large part because of the leadership of our Life Sciences and ABL teams. Secondarily, they come with collateral, tight documentation, and borrowing bases. There has been no degradation in the documentation in Life Sciences and ABL. The performance of these asset classes, in addition to the leadership of those teams over decades and multiple cycles, allows us to take on more risk in those strategies than we would as a team focused exclusively on cash flow lending because you have that downside protection of underlying collateral—be it cash and IP in Life Sciences and working capital assets in Asset-Based Lending. We are extremely cognizant of your point, and therefore it further aligns with our conservative culture to do more in these specialty finance, collateral-based strategies.

I would add that, in terms of where we are and where others are on the risk spectrum, the jury is still out. We have had a seventeen-year run without a real credit cycle. What we are seeing this quarter and last quarter is public and private BDCs with significant NAV degradation, with the storyline behind it being that it is temporary and mark-to-market. The jury is out on whether that is truly mark-to-market and recoverable. When you think of software exposure, that mark-to-market may be permanent and can actually become worse. We are very comfortable where we have been—on documentation and not pushing the envelope on traditional direct lending—because to your earlier point about spread, it is not just spread that you cannot make up for; it is bad documentation that prevents you from getting to the table early enough to protect your interests. In the past, are there deals that we passed on because we were too conservative and they worked out just fine? Yes. But had we applied that same mentality as a portfolio approach, we would be sitting on a lot of loans today that we would be really worried about. To the earlier comment about rebuilding NII, the good news is that given how low our watch list is and that we have no defaults, the team is not focused on restructurings. They are focused on growth and how to rebuild in a way that we can be profitable for the long term.

Guys, thank you very much. I appreciate it. I realize they are pretty hyper-philosophical type questions, and I appreciate the thoughtful answers.

Thanks, Rick. Appreciate the questions.

Thank you. And as a reminder, it is star one if you would like to ask a question. We will go next to Robert Dodd with Raymond James. Your line is now open.

Hi, guys. I have got a first question—the second question basically already asked—but I have got a slightly different way of looking at it. On the comprehensive portfolio, paybacks—right, you would always rather get your money back than lose it. It surprised me a little bit that it was so strong and the portfolio shrank so much relatively speaking in this quarter when there is this sense that the banks are not looking to go heavily risk-on right now. They are one of your primary competitors on ABL lending. It is a fragmented market. Was the real driver of that payoff simply seasonal? It seems like a market where I would have expected repayments on ABL or competitive takeaways to be more muted. You were very successful on getting a lot of capital back—that is a good thing and a bad thing. Any thoughts on what drove that dynamic?

Under the hood in asset-based lending, there are three primary sources of repayments. There is the traditional refinance to another ABL lender or maybe to a cash flow loan. Then there is what I would call temporary repayment because most ABL facilities have a large revolver with seasonal draws. In our $194 million of ABL repayments, some of that is seasonal repayments, and most of it was not a borrower exiting the platform and canceling their facility. The third dynamic—which we did not have in Q1 but to touch on your broader question—is that sometimes in asset-based lending when we feel the fundamental performance of the business is not going in a direction we are comfortable with, the beauty of ABL is that because we have strong documentation, we can start to turn up the pressure on that borrower and create alternative sources of liquidity. We can wind down our exposure with that borrowing base by increasing reserves and ineligibles such that our advance rates continue to contract in our favor. That will drive an exit or repayment, not necessarily because we got refinanced or there was a temporary paydown, but because we have applied some pressure and encouraged them to refinance us with somebody else. That is also a dynamic our Life Sciences team has used selectively from time to time. A key element of our specialty finance strategies is that you have the ability to wind down exposure and take down advance rates given how tight the documentation is and the underlying collateral support. Specifically to your question in Q1, it was really temporary repayments of facilities rather than a true refinancing or an agreed-upon exit.

Got it, got it. Thank you. And then the second one—it is basically related to Rick’s question. I agree that zero defect is the goal. But when you look at the portfolio, have you been, with the in-house teams, so strict in pipeline construction that the result is you have really high-quality assets but maybe not enough “good” assets in the flow? So when a great asset repays, you do not have a flow of acceptable, probably zero-defect but maybe not “great,” to moderate the size of the portfolio more? Is expanding distribution—like signing a deal with a bank to see more ABL deals—part of moderating the flow?

When you are saying yes to about 5% of the opportunity flow, the way to expand funded investments is to expand the funnel so that 5% becomes a much bigger absolute number. The quality of deals we generally see from ABL banks is higher quality—it might not be their quality because they are measured based on the borrower’s risk rating, rather than the collateral—whereas we can look at the collateral and say, “That is phenomenal collateral.” As Michael touched on with the AI initiative, there are a number of businesses that we lend to that may be impacted by AI. If we have collateral, some of those companies may not survive, but we will likely liquidate ourselves out and be fine. To your specific question, there is no such thing as a “great” private credit deal; you are taking on the ability to potentially lose money. Everything we do is looking for “good.” The more deal flow we have with underlying collateral that checks the SLR box for “good,” the better. Expanding that pipeline by getting more from ABL banks also increases the level of the operating performance of those borrowers. It is really the combination of a much larger pipeline and high-quality collateral—both in ABL and Life Sciences—that we believe, if things go sideways (and we always assume they will), we are going to be fine because of the additional collateral support beyond just traditional ownership support in a borrower.

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Finian O’Shea with Wells Fargo. Your line is now open.

Hey, everyone. Good morning. Thanks for having me on. Can you hit on the fee change, the break to 17.5% on the incentive fee—appreciating that. How did you and the Board come to that number?

It was not a long discussion. It was initiated by us, not the Board. We looked around at what others were doing and thought it was the right thing to do.

Okay, that is helpful. And then did the concept of the hurdle rate come up, given the story now is growing earnings—which is tough for a BDC to do—you have been working at that for a long time; it is not the easiest thing to deliver on. Do you think a higher hurdle rate would motivate or align the team better to achieve higher earnings?

No, actually a lower hurdle would do that in terms of incentive fees, but that was not something we were going to consider. The team, frankly, has never focused on our hurdle rate. That is not their job; that is not how they are motivated or compensated. The hurdle rate we have had since inception goes up and down with rates—it is the right place to be.

All for me. Thanks so much.

Thank you. At this time, there are no further questions in queue. I will now turn the meeting back to our presenters for any additional or closing remarks.

No further comments other than to thank you all for your participation today. We recognize it is a very busy period of time and there is a lot going on within the private credit space, both in the public and private BDCs, and as always, the entire team is available for any questions that you may have to follow up with. Thank you.

Thank you. This brings us to the end of today’s meeting. We appreciate your time and participation. You may now disconnect.