Good morning. Welcome to Ares Capital Corporation's Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] As reminder, this conference is being recorded on Thursday, August 4, 2011. Comments made during the course of this conference call and webcast and the accompanying documents contain forward-looking statements and are subjects to risks and uncertainties. Many of these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as anticipates, believes, expects, intends, will, should, may and similar expressions. The company's actual results could differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements for any reason, including those listed in its SEC filings. Ares Capital Corporation assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. Please also note that past performance or market information is not a guarantee of future results. During this conference call, the company may discuss Core earnings per share, or Core EPS, which is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined by SEC Regulation G. Core EPS, excluding professional fees and other costs related to Ares Capital Corporation's acquisition of Allied Capital Corporation, is the net per share increase or decrease in stockholders' equity resulting from operations, less professional fees and other costs related to the Allied Acquisition, realized and unrealized gains and losses, any incentive management fees attributable to such realized and unrealized gains and losses, any income taxes related to such realized gains and other adjustments as noted. A reconciliation of core EPS, excluding professional fees and other costs related to the Allied Acquisition to the net per share increase or decrease in stockholders' equity resulting from operations, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, can be found on the company's website at arescapitalcorp.com. The company believes that core EPS provides useful information to investors regarding financial performance because it is one method the company uses to measure its financial condition and results of operations. Certain information discussed in this presentation, including information relating to portfolio companies, was derived from third-party sources and has not been independently verified and, accordingly, the company makes no representation or warranty in respect of this information. At this time, we would like to invite participants to access the accompanying slide presentation by going to the company's website at www.arescapitalcorp.com and clicking on the 2Q '11 investor presentation link on the homepage of the Investor Resources section of the website. Ares Capital Corporation's earning release and quarterly report are also available on the company's website. I will now turn the call over to Mr. Michael Arougheti, Ares Capital Corporation's President.

Great. Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us. I'm joined today by the senior partners of Ares Management's Global Private Debt Group and members of our investment advisors investment committee: Eric Beckman; Kipp deVeer; Mitch Goldstein and Michael Smith; our Chief Financial Officer, Penni Roll; and Carl Drake and Scott Lem, who Head our Investor Relations and Accounting teams, respectively. This morning, we issued our second quarter earnings press release and posted an investor presentation on our website that supplements this information. We'll refer to the investor presentation later in our call. As always, I'd like to start with a brief discussion of current market trends and how they influence our business and strategy. I'll then highlight a few items from our second quarter before turning the call over to Penni, who'll then take you through our quarterly results in greater detail. Finally, I'll come back and cover our recent investment activity, the state of our current portfolio and then update you on our backlog and pipeline before Q&A. As you may remember from our last call, during the first quarter of 2011, the broadly syndicated loan and high-yield markets saw extremely strong liquidity from fund inflows. These inflows pressured spreads and structures, drove a high level of repayment activity and influenced trends in the middle market as well. However, during the second quarter, this liquidity and elevated repayment activity slowed while the supply of new money loans, meaning loans other than refinancings, increased substantially compared to the first quarter. As a result, the technical supply/demand imbalance witnessed in the first quarter reversed during the second quarter as loan supply outran loan demand. Specifically, according to S&P, during the second quarter, retail loan fund inflows into the broadly syndicated market declined 36% and loan repayments declined…

Thanks, Mike. For more details on our financial results, I refer you to our Form 10-Q that was filed this morning with the SEC. To begin, please turn to Slide 3 of the investor presentation posted on our website, which highlights financial and portfolio performance for the quarter. As Mike mentioned, our basic and diluted Core EPS were $0.34 per share for the second quarter of 2011, a $0.03 per share increase over Core EPS of $0.31 per share for the first quarter, and a $0.02 per share increase over the same quarter a year ago. Our Q2 '11 and Q2 '10 Core earnings excluded $0.01 and $0.06 per share respectively of Allied Acquisition-related professional fees and other costs. The increase in our second quarter Core earnings per share of $0.03 as compared to the first quarter was primarily due to higher structuring fees of about $0.04 per share, net of an increase in administrative expenses of about $0.01 per share. The second quarter increase in structuring fees reflects the higher overall level of gross originations, as well as the composition of the second quarter's originations being more weighted toward new investments as opposed to refinancing transactions when compared to the first quarter. Despite the net growth in our investment portfolio, our interest income was roughly flat with the prior quarter primarily for 2 reasons. First, many of our larger investments were completed near quarter-end so these investments contributed to our interest income for only a small portion of the second quarter. Second, we experienced net exits in the portfolio in the first quarter, including the sale of our higher-yielding CLO investments at the end of February, which contributed about $0.02 per share in the first quarter. These net exits also resulted in a short period of excess cash pending…

Thanks, Penni. Now I'd like to discuss our recent investment activity, update you on our legacy Allied portfolio rotation progress. I'll review our performance statistics and then highlight our post-quarter-end investments and forward backlog and pipeline before concluding. If folks could turn to Slide 14 in the investor presentation. In the second quarter, we made 18 commitments, 8 to new portfolio companies, 7 to existing portfolio companies and 3 to companies through the Senior Secured Loan Program. Of these new commitments, 15 were sponsored transactions. We effectively used our scale and strong capital position to increase our average commitments to nearly $50 million compared to just over $30 million in the past 2 quarters. Therefore, the growth in our second quarter's gross commitments represented increased commitment sizes but not a meaningful increase in the number of commitments as shown. This result is consistent with our strategy to seek to invest up the balance sheet through senior and unitranche debt into high-quality companies. Turning to Slide 15, you can see that 87% of our investment commitments were in senior secured floating rate debt and another 7% were to the Senior Secured Loan Program through which we co-invested with GE in senior secured floating rate debt. On the right side of the slide, you'll see that our exited investments by asset category were fairly balanced including 22% in common or preferred equity and non-core real estate investments. Now turning to Slide 16, I'll update you on our cumulative progress rotating and repositioning the legacy Allied portfolio from April 1, 2010, through the end of the second quarter, which marks 15 months since we closed the acquisition. On a fair value basis, the size of the total legacy Allied portfolio stood at $0.9 billion at the end of the second quarter down from…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question is from Greg Mason, Stifel, Nicolaus. Greg Mason - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Mike, could you talk about the 6.9% spread on investments you've done, even after you syndicated 10% type of yields, clearly down from the 12.4% yields in the portfolio, and that has been shrinking down from 13.4% a year ago. Can you talk about where you think your spreads on the portfolio are going and why this focus on significantly lower coupons in the portfolio?

Sure. Maybe it will help people if I just take a step back and talk about how syndication drives incremental yield and then we can talk about how the strategy we think protects principal and drives total return over the cycle. The reason for the yield being as low as it is in the investments funded quarter-to-date is we are using our balance sheet strength to ensure that we get the opportunity to invest in the highest quality companies that we see. And we've talked a lot on prior calls that given our final hold size capabilities and balance sheet capacity, we can use that to effectively underwrite a company's entire balance sheet. And then, obviously, through market syndication relationships, the Senior Secured Loan Program and Ivy Hill, we can generate liquidity at different parts of the capital structures. We try to generate what we think is an attractive risk adjusted return. So as an example, if we underwrite $100 million unitranche on balance sheet for a $20 million EBITDA company, so 5x levered and we price that at 8%, on its own, it's generating 8% yield, and that's probably a combination of a 7% spread and a 1% LIBOR floor. But let's talk just about it in terms of yield. On that investment, we're also probably generating a 3% fee. So our all-in yield, assuming no syndication in year one, is in fact 11%. Our 2-year yield, assuming no change in interest rates, is 9.5%; and our 3-year yield, assuming no change in interest rates, is 9%. Now assuming that it's out for 3 years, we're probably out of the call period and so there may not be a prepayment premium, but most of the unitranches that we structure actually have call protection associated with them as well that…

Your next question is from John Hecht, JMP Securities.

I guess, following up from that last discussion on the spread. Mike, if I hear you right, you're suggesting that the spread compression is related to kind of structural opportunities, maybe kind of size and quality of the types of companies you're able to finance now. The question I have is in the exclusion of that, recent quarters, you've suggested spreads had been compressing, and it sounds like you're saying in exclusion of that, you'd actually see spreads widening now, given the increased volatility and economic uncertainty in the market. And is that, in fact, an accurate interpretation of what you've been seeing?

Yes, absolutely 100%. It's the uncertainty and the volatility but it's also the shift in the supply/demand imbalance that we saw earlier in the year. And so as deal flow has picked up, which I think we talked about on our last call as well that to the extent that deal flow picked up particularly in the larger markets that we would have expected to see stabilization in pricing. So now that we have a favorable mismatch and there's uncertainty, we are seeing spread widening. Now back to your comment though, with that spread widening, I think that, that allows us to now invest in even higher-quality companies and maintain our total return profile rather than trying to stretch for that incremental spread and go down the credit quality spectrum.

Okay. Great. Second question is coming through Q2 and it sounded like, at least, through a portion of Q3, repayments have slowed and deal activities moving up, increasing. How sensitive are both of those to the volatility in the market? You referred to today, the stock market being down somewhat dramatically. I mean, as these transactions you're looking at begin the process, do they take on a life of their own or do they start along with the volatility in the market?

Eventually, the volatility in the market will slow deal flow, but there's a pretty significant lag effect. I think generally, and this is truer for middle market private equity firms versus larger market. But for the most part, middle market private equity firms, in my opinion, tend to operate in a fairly insulated environment in terms of how they believe that global economic trends or activity or characteristics are driving their investment decisions. So I don't expect the type of volatility that we're seeing today to necessarily halt people from continuing to fund the backlog of investments that are in process. I think if the bad news continues and the volatility continues, eventually, like we saw in the end of '08 and '09, you're going to see a reduction in deal flow. It's too early to tell just how significant that potential is right now. But I would expect that if it's in backlog today, it's probably moving along a path to closing. You may see some moderate purchase price renegotiation. You may see some modest renegotiation of leverage and pricing on the debt, but it probably doesn't go away.

The next question is from Sanjay Sakhrani, KBW. Sanjay Sakhrani - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc.: So I was wondering if this defensive posture that you guys are taking is indicative of how you feel about the economy. Is there anything in the portfolio that's leading you guys to feel that way? And I guess, second, just in terms of the pipelines -- the pipeline you guys addressed, in terms of spread, should we assume that they're comparable to what we're seeing -- what we saw in the second quarter? And then, maybe, if you can just elaborate on your prepayment expectations for this quarter, that'd be great.

Sure. So again, it's an interesting conversation to have and we started to speak about this last quarter is, we're defensively positioned but we're still seeing very, very attractive investment opportunities out there. We had a record quarter this quarter in terms of investment activity. Our backlog and pipeline are as significant as they've ever been. And so there is nothing that we're seeing that is telling us not to invest, but what we are seeing is just a view that growth is slow. There is volatility, which means that the further down the balance sheet you go, the more risk you probably have to principal given changes in enterprise values and attachment points. But when you look at our portfolio, as we said in the prepared remarks, our portfolio companies are still doing very well. We had period-over-period, so 6-month over 6-month roughly comps of 8% and 12% on revenues and EBITDA. So companies are growing period over period. We've seen that consistently over the last couple of years. However, we have a view that the rate of growth may slow. And as we start to see the rate of growth slowing, it's a pretty good indicator that, number one, you're probably in a better credit environment than you are an equity environment. And as you get to the slowest of growth, you probably benefit from being higher up the balance sheet than not. And the example I gave on the unitranche structure on balance sheet with syndication is a pretty good example, because if you're a mezz-only provider of capital who does not have the ability to originate $100 million alone -- and by the way, I think as people know, both on balance sheet and co-investing with GE through the Senior Secured Loan Program, we're actually in…

I would -- all I can tell you is I expect that the book will grow in Q3. Prepayments are -- we can predict them, but they're tough to predict perfectly. I would expect that we'll see more than we've already seen quarter-to-date. How much more, I can't tell you. But I think when the dust settles in terms of our backlog and pipeline against our repayments, I'm pretty confident that we'll have a growth in the portfolio in Q3.

The next question is from John Stilmar, SunTrust.

Just real quick question going back to the idea of syndicated transactions that you've talked about where Ares sort of leads -- is a lead sponsor. In this quarter, you did -- it seemed like one very -- relatively large transaction, Anthony, Inc. Is that sort of the investment pieces that we should look towards? And then is there anything in the schedule of investments as we look back that we should towards as examples of this? And I'm kind of trying to get a sense of timing. I would have expected 1 or 2 of these syndications to have occurred last quarter or from last quarter's investments. And I just...

Well, yes, and so I think it's a function of our size now. But it's a strategy that we've always employed. So if you go back, even 3, 4 years ago, 5 years ago, we were doing this on a much smaller scale. I think we're trying to be opportunistic. I don't want people to come away from this call with a view that, that is our singular business model. But it is important to us that as we see high-quality companies, that we use every lever that we have to invest in them. And we spend a lot of time talking with you guys about what the drivers of total return are across the cycle. And position in balance sheet, we think is most important. Company and industry attributes are probably second. And size is important, but it's probably third. But when you factor all of that in, we want to make sure that when we look at the available market and we see the highest quality company that we invest in it, and that may mean we have to underwrite the entire balance sheet in order to own that company. So I would expect on a go forward basis that you'll continue to see chunkier positions, some of which we’ll syndicate. And frankly, in the case of Anthony, Anthony is a $200-plus million investment on a $5 billion balance sheet, that's not an uncomfortable position size for us. So I think it's going to be company-specific and return-specific as to whether or not we syndicate or hold. And we also always have the opportunity to hold and syndicate at a later date. So there's no rule of thumb. But I would expect particularly, in this kind of market environment that you'll see some of that activity in the quarters going forward.

Okay. And then unfortunately still sticking with that same topic, to who are you syndicating towards? Obviously, the size of company has changed as Ares has changed. So what are the types of partners that you -- or if you could kind of paint a picture for me as to who the people that are going to be buying or is it banks, is it finance companies?

Yes, it depends on how -- what syndication strategy we adopt. So if we underwrite something at the security level and we choose not to change the capital structure, then we're syndicating to other alternative credit providers, be they hedge funds, other BDCs or some finance companies. In situations where we're doing what I gave the example on, which is effectively creating a really low-levered, really well-priced first-out term loan, those tend to go to regional banks. And as I think a lot of people on the call probably know, regional banks are looking to get invested. I think they have a lot of cash and liquidity. And getting an opportunity to see a unique investment and a high-quality asset with this profile is something that there's a lot of appetite for.

Perfect. And then my final question, and this is directed at Penni, and this is regarding valuations. But as you've gone through the valuation this past quarter, clearly, the balance sheet is much more defensively positioned in terms of the balance sheet position with its senior orientation, but we've seen spreads kind of widen. As we think about book value from here kind of going forward, which is it that's probably a little bit more of a driver? Should we think about spread volatility as being a bigger driver or less of a driver than as we kind of look at Ares or some of the other BDCs in the past given the fact that there is a little bit more of a senior orientation to the balance sheet? Just wondering about your thoughts about changing market conditions given where you are in the capital structure.

Right. Well, clearly, market yield to the extent we have debt securities that are valued off of a market yield and looking to what other lenders or investors in those loans would want as a return on those investments. Volatility and interest rates will impact those valuations. As we sit here today, it's hard to know how much of that volatility will come into play because we only value the quarter -- or the portfolio once a quarter. But it could mean that the senior level assets that we're investing in could have valuation differentials against their cost basis quarter-to-quarter because of those changes in market rates. It's just hard to determine what that impact would be as we sit here today.

Your next question is from Rick Shane, JPMorgan. Richard Shane - JP Morgan Chase & Co: The number that you guys had cited was about $920 million in available liquidity. And again, I realize that you can't very closely project what the originations are going to be or how capital is going to be deployed. But when you look at it internally so that we can sort of think about it within our models, what type -- what's your sort of liquidity [indiscernible]? How many quarters of available liquidity versus your expectations in terms of budget do you want to have available?

I'll let Penni just give you a couple of statistics just around debt capacity as it relates to our target leverage ratio. And then maybe I'll give a little qualitative commentary around that, Rick.

Right. With the capacity we have today, we have nothing drawn on our revolving credit facility, which has about $810 million available. I think a little less than that what was credit posted. But overall, we have about $920 million of debt capacity plus cash. If we fully funded the debt capacity that we have, the yield on -- our weighted average stated rate would be down to 4.25%, down from 5.1% today at June 30 and then, the weighted average maturity would be about 8.6 years versus 11.9 years today. So still have a good profile, good capacity, and it would allow us to draw into our lower cost debt capital that's still available to us.

And then, in terms of the leverage ratio, I think if we fully funded all of our debt capacity, with no increase in the equity base, we would be about 0.83x levered on a gross basis. So obviously, above our target range but well within regulatory limits. So now the qualitative answer, we have said we want to run the business at a target leverage ratio of 0.65 to 0.75 to 1, and that's really how we think about managing the business. We do have a lot of visibility into our backlog and pipeline, and our liquidity needs. And while we can't predict it as perfectly, we also have a fair amount of visibility into our paydowns. We do not want to be in a position where we're sitting on cash or excess liquidity and I think we've been pretty explicit that while we've been under-levered, to the extent that we see good investment opportunities, we'd rather be more levered than we have been. I'd also point out, as we've shown in the past, given the assets that we're originating, investing in, we have sources of balance sheet liquidity other than capital markets raises, and that's syndication, our relationship with Ivy Hill and other things. And so I think as you've seen us do in years past, we're obviously looking at the capital markets to continue to fund the growth of the business, but we aggressively manage liquidity through asset sale, as well as we continue to optimize and reposition the portfolio. I can't quantify in terms of 1 or 2 quarters, but I think we want to try to get as close to our target leverage range as possible, and maintain it. And it's really always a function of just where we are in the disposition of our backlog and pipeline. Richard Shane - JP Morgan Chase & Co: Got it. Mike, and I think you guys -- I may not have conveyed my question quite the way I intended which is, what I'm trying to think about is not how quickly you will go through that $900 million of available liquidity. But over the long-term, as you manage that available liquidity number, how do you think about it? Is it -- should we assume that you will sort of roughly keep $1 billion available of dry powder at any given time or...

Yes, I understand. There's no rule of thumb that I can give you, Rick. But you should know, we run, even despite our liquidity positions, daily liquidity models. We're looking at everything that's in our portfolio and everything that's in our backlog and pipeline and it's a function of again, what we think the investment opportunity that lays ahead of us, what we think the market risk is. If we feel that we're going into a market where liquidity will be constrained, we'll run less levered with more liquidity. If we feel like we're going to be in a fairly stable market environment, then we'll probably run with less liquidity. I can't give you a rule of thumb other than to say that we aggressively manage liquidity all the time.

The next question is from Arren Cyganovich, Evercore.

Mike, you made some comments that you saw some mezzanine opportunities presenting themselves that you might be able to invest in. It seems as though the mezzanine market has been kind of taken out a little bit by the second lien market. Are you seeing a pullback in -- from folks that were offering second lien loans to open these opportunities?

I think 2 things. That's a good observation. I think unitranches and second liens have significantly displaced traditional mezzanine. And again, it speaks to what we always say, which is the importance of being able to invest up and down the balance sheet and not be a single-asset class provider. Second liens were very prevalent and continue to be fairly prevalent in larger companies. We have not seen second liens really find their way into kind of the core traditional middle market. Although some first lien agents in the market would love to see that occur because it allows them to maybe be more competitive with a buy and hold provider like ourselves. We just haven't seen a lot of appetite for second lien in kind of the traditional middle market. So yes, I think mezzanine -- and this is something that I think people appreciate and you see it through the cycle, not every company is a good mezzanine candidate. You're giving up a fair amount of security and investing at a pretty high attachment point in order to generate outsize returns. And to put it in perspective, a high-quality mezzanine investment today is probably carrying a coupon between 12% and 14%. It's fixed rate, so it's interest rate sensitive. And the return for that fixed rate, you need to protect your yield through call protection. And in markets where mezzanine is getting squeezed, and there's a lot of mezzanine capital available for investment, it's very hard for a mezzanine-only provider to actually remain disciplined around call protection. And so we've seen traditional mezz providers actually giving up a fairly significant amount of value through reduced call protection. And once you start doing that, the relative value of second lien and unitranches against traditional mezzanine really blows out. So we'll see how it goes. Again, as I mentioned, if there's high-yield market volatility, I think the larger end of the mezzanine market will get very active with private high-yield-type structures. But I think the traditional middle market mezz asset class right now is actually pretty challenging.

And then finally, the non-accrual that went back onto accruing status. Was that restructured or is that just have an improvement on the underlying business?

It was an improvement in the underlying business.

The next question is from Joel Houck, Wells Fargo.

Mike, right now, there's a couple of internally managed BDCs trading below 70% of stated book value. Neither company, in our view, has been good stewards of shareholder capital, and one in particular is trading at less than 50% of realizable NAV today with a fairly high cost structure. So given Ares' success with the Allied deal, just curious to what your thoughts are on possible M&A where you could potentially double the size of your company, probably get a 30% to 50% IRR on the deal. And also, how do you weigh potential M&A versus deploying capital right now in an uncertain environment where you're getting admittedly lower net spreads? Obviously, you're staying up the balance sheet and protecting your own shareholders' capital. But how do you view those 2 risk reward propositions?

Sure. Allied has been an absolute success for us. And I think we learned a lot through the acquisition and over the last 15 months. I think first and foremost, we were disciplined at the purchase. And if folks remember, we worked on that transaction for close to a year before we actually bought it, and there was a lot of analysis that we went into identifying what price we were comfortable buying the assets at. So for us, in order for us to take on somebody else's problems, if you will, it's really just a question of is the price right relative to the risk and the distraction? And it depends on the target, because for a company that is smaller, we could probably originate new assets with our own structure and diligence and the like in one quarter relative to the size of some of the smaller internally-managed companies. So in those situations, in particular, we're going to be very focused or we would be very focused on price. And I think the challenge is, and this also speaks to maybe some of the larger opportunities, you have entrenched management teams and entrenched boards and when it comes to buying assets, liquid or illiquid, bid-ask spreads can be pretty wide. And our experience has been beauty is always in the eye of the beholder and the price at which we would be willing to transact to generate the return that would be exciting to us is probably not a level at which certain management teams or certain boards who are entrenched would want to transact. But look, if the markets felt that they should transact or trade, we would love that.

We have one final question. That is from Matthew Howlett, Macquarie.

Mike, just on the -- just getting back to the targeted leverage. Is there a specific equity level or even industry concentration that has to be reduced to a point where you feel comfortable going to that level?

No. One of the things people hopefully appreciate -- senior secured loans, even if they're unitranches with a slightly higher enterprise value attachment point are leverageable well in excess of our target range. As people know, prior to the dislocation, senior secured loans were getting levered 10 to 12x. And in the post-crisis world, liquid loans are getting levered, again, 8 to 10x and middle market senior loans in the structured products market are still getting levered 3 or 4x. So for us, it's a function not of what we perceive the risk of the portfolio and our willingness to take on leverage against those assets because, candidly, if we were allowed, given the strength of our portfolio and the first lien nature, I would lever them more. So from our perspective, it's maintaining prudent liquidity around our regulatory capital requirements and making sure that we never find ourselves in a position that our peers did, which was getting on the wrong side of the leverage ratio. So for us, it's managing our regulatory constraints as opposed to a view on the underlying portfolio risk because, candidly, if the SEC would let us, we would actually be in favor of leveraging our portfolio a little bit more.

And then nothing on the equity? I mean, you wouldn't want to see the equity go down further before anything -- before taking leverage up, I mean, just into the volatility...

I think our equity, you should assume, and we said this before, our equity is still too high as a percentage of our portfolio, although it's coming down. I think we've said historically, there's always going to be a component of equity in our portfolio in and around 10% of our assets. And as we've demonstrated, over the cycle, our gains, realized gains have exceeded our realized losses. And so if you're doing all of the credit work to get comfortable on making a meaningful credit investment in a company, and there's an attractive equity story, co-investing alongside the debt as a means to enhance yield on an individual asset basis but also mitigate loss on a portfolio basis, we think is the appropriate way to invest in this market and these asset classes. But we do not have a view that we're supposed to be taking concentrated equity positions or buying companies at ARCC, and it's not something that we're going to do. So yes, we want to see the equity come down and we'll continue to chip away at it, but that in and of itself is not a driver of our willingness to take on leverage.

Got you, great. And then just last question, I mean hypothetically, of the -- if we do go into a double-dip, I mean, would you look at your portfolio, I mean, are there just really limited a number of default candidates out there really that if we do go into double-dip given just liquidity on those portfolios have improved, there's just not that many stated mature near-term maturities? Is that -- I mean, have you looked at the cycle versus what we went into in late '07, early '08, I mean, are things just that much better with the underlying portfolio just in terms of cash level?

Yes, I'd say 2 things. Number one, if we went into a similar dislocation, I don't want to say double-dip but a dislocation, I can't envision it being as violent as the last one just because, government balance sheets aside, our markets have delevered dramatically and a lot of what we experienced in the end of '08 until '09 was really just the unwinding of structural leverage in our markets. And for the most part, that's been dealt with. So that's the good news. So there should be less rapid changes in asset values. The other thing, too, what we love about investing in this kind of a market environment is every company that we invest in, we get to see how they performed through the worst recession of their history. And so we know how management reacts. We know how their customers react. We've seen how their supply chain reacts. And so underwriting sensitivities around what happens to a company in a recession is a lot easier now than it was 5 years ago, because at that point, you were going back 7, 8 years, if not, 14 years to try to figure out how a company would perform, and the company was never at the same position. But right now, when we're investing in these high-quality companies, we know exactly how they perform and so we can underwrite downside scenarios that are much more realistic, and we can run analyses around those downsides and set covenants that are much more tested. So I don't think anybody is rooting for a double-dip, but if did happen, I think we're appropriately positioned. And as we did the last time, I think it could be as much of an opportunity than is a risk. Okay. I think that was it for the questions. So again, thank you, all, for your time and your continued support. We appreciate it. And good luck out there, and we'll talk to everybody next quarter. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude our conference call for today. If you missed any part of today's call, an archived replay of this conference call will be available approximately one hour after the end of this call through August 19, 2011 for domestic callers by dialing (877) 344-7529, and to international callers by dialing plus 1 (412) 317-0088. For all replays, please reference account number 10001609. An archived replay will also be available on a webcast link located on the homepage of the Investor Resources section of our website. Thank you.