Good morning and welcome to Owl Rock Capital Corporation's Fourth Quarter and Year Ended 2019 Earnings Call.I would like to remind our listeners that remarks made during the call may contain forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance or results and involve a number of risks and uncertainties that are outside the company's control. Actual results may differ materially from those in forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors, including those described from time to time in Owl Rock Capital Corporation's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements.As a reminder, this call is being recorded for replay purposes. Yesterday the company issued its earnings press release and posted an earnings presentation for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2019. This presentation should be reviewed in conjunction with the company's Form 10-K filed on February 19 with the SEC. The company will refer to the earnings presentation throughout the call today. So please have that presentation available to you. As a reminder, the earnings presentation is available on the company's website.I will now turn the call over to Craig Packer, Chief Executive Officer of Owl Rock Capital Corporation.

Thank you, Operator. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today for our fourth quarter earnings call. This is Craig Packer and I'm CEO of Owl Rock Capital Corporation and Co-Founder of Owl Rock Capital Partners.So with me today is Alan Kirshenbaum, our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer; and Dana Sclafani, our Head of Investor Relations. Welcome everyone who is joining us on the call today.I'd like to start by highlighting our fourth quarter results and providing an overview of our investing activities in the quarter. Alan will then provide more detail on our financial results and an update on our financing activities before I return with closing comments.Getting into the fourth quarter results. Today we are pleased to report another strong quarter performance. Net investment income per share was $0.37 for the quarter. We saw another quarter of robust origination activity and continue to maintain our strong track record for the credit quality. We ended the quarter with a net asset value per share of $15.24, up $0.02 from the third quarter as we continued to over earn our dividends. Our net investment income covered our dividend this quarter by approximately 106%.Looking forward for the first quarter, our Board has declared a dividend of $0.31 per share in addition to the previously declared special dividend of $0.08 per share for a total first quarter dividend of $0.39 per share, which equates to an annualized dividend yield of 10.2% on book value.Last quarter, we began the call by highlighting of public investment grade bond issuance we executed in October. Along with our continued focus on expanding our unsecured liabilities we are pleased to again access the public bond market last month, issuing $500 million of senior notes with a 5.5-year maturity. Alan will cover this in…

Thank you, Craig. Good morning, everyone.To start off and you can follow along starting on Slide 6 of our earnings presentation. We ended the fourth quarter with total portfolio investments of $8.8 billion, outstanding debt of $3 billion, and total net assets of $6 billion.Our net asset value per share was $15.24 as of December 31st compared to $15.22 as of September 30th. Our dividend for the fourth quarter was $0.31 per share plus a $0.04 per share special dividend. And our net investment income was $0.37 per share over earning our dividend again.On the next slide, Slide 7, you can see total investment income for the fourth quarter was $202 million. This is up $14 million from the previous quarter or approximately 7%. We should generally expect to continue to see revenue increases for the next several quarters as we ramp back to our target leverage building up to approximately $10 billion in total investments when the portfolio is fully invested.As for expenses, total expenses net of our fee waivers for the fourth quarter was $57 million. This is up $7 million from the previous quarter or about 13%, which was almost entirely due to higher interest expense in connection with increasing leverage quarter-over-quarter. Our net asset value saw an increase of $0.02 per share this quarter. You can see a NAV bridge on Slide 8 of our earnings presentation.As you can see on this slide, the increase in net asset value was driven by over earning our dividend this quarter. As a reminder in connection with our IPO, we waived our best-in-class public BDC fee structure for five quarters to keep our industry low private phase fee structure of 75 basis points management fee and zero performance fee.The way you will see this flow through the income statement…

Thanks Alan.In closing, I thought I would touch on the current direct lending market environment. In the fourth quarter, market conditions in the broadly syndicated loan market were weak as the market experienced a risk off sentiment and investor appetite weakened for new issues due to global macroeconomic concerns.One benefit of the weakness in the public markets is that in the fourth quarter we saw some high quality investment opportunities shift away from the syndicated market to the direct lending market and also saw the direct lending market as a whole move towards improved spreads and documentation terms, which we were able to capture on our new investments in the quarter.We hope this trend would continue into the new year, however, the central banks have continued to signal commitment to low rates and the economy continues to grow modestly, the broadly syndicated loan market has strengthened alongside most other markets.In the short term, we expect this to remove some of the tailwinds from market conditions we had experienced in the fourth quarter. In Alan's earlier comments, he highlighted we expect to be back to our target leverage level of 0.75 times in approximately six months for the end of the second quarter.We had previously indicated that we would achieve this target at either the end of the first or second quarter, but are now trending to the wider end of that range given our current visibility on our deal pipeline. This reflects several factors. The first thing is generally slower activity level among financial sponsors. Those sponsors are plus with cash activity in the first quarter has been subdued.Additionally, we continue to be as we have always been highly selective on credit. However, as we move closer to being fully invested, we're even more focused on the return profile for…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Mickey Schleien from Ladenburg. Your line is open.

One question I wanted to ask is about fee and other income, which climbed quarter-to-quarter. Could you give us a little more background on what drove that increase?

Sure. We had some paydowns downs this quarter and if you look back to 2Q, we also had a decent level of fee income coming through. As you can appreciate, it's a bit idiosyncratic, but we had a paydown with a couple of our portfolio companies; Hillstone, City Brewing, and on a smaller extent ConnectWise.

These are pre-payment fees then, Alan?

These are the acceleration of OID and prepayment fees from Hillstone and then we took in the syndication fees on selling down some pieces of City Brewing and ConnectWise.

It's pretty much split evenly between OID and [indiscernible].

All right, I appreciate that. And could you discuss a little bit the outlook of Feradyne Outdoors and Give and Go? I noticed that their valuations are down quarter-to-quarter and I understand they are private companies, but any background you can give us on what's going on there?

Sure. Feradyne is a manufacturer of hunting products. It's owned by a private equity firm Snow Phipps. It's an investment we made in May of 2017. The company has struggled a bit, it hasn't certainly hit our expectations or Snow Phipps' expectations. They continue to be very supportive of it and put additional capital in. We've had some amendments. We still feel ultimately expect to get a part recovery on it, but based on its performance have felt it appropriate to market where it is. So, it's about all I can say on that one.And Give and Go, I believe that one actually marked up this quarter. It has a low mark so I understand why it might have crossed your radar screen. That's a company in the food space. It's controlled by T.H. Lee, a buyout firm. They've had some operational issues and some cost structure issues. It has a fairly large publicly traded first-lien term loan.We're in a fairly modest part of a smaller second-lien term loan. And I think there's probably folks you could tap into to get a broader view on how the company is doing. But in this past quarter its condition I would say had improved modestly and so we marked it up a little bit. Similarly we expect ultimately to get a part recovery there, but feel like it's marked appropriately.

[technical difficulty]

Mickey, we can hear you.

We cannot hear you.

[technical difficulty]

You're fading out now, Mickey.

We can barely hear you. Why don't we switch to the next question and maybe he can phone later?

[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Casey Alexander with Compass Point. Your line is open.

But that's not the worst thing I've been called, Cathy, I have a couple of questions. First of all, have you guys been polling your portfolio companies to determine exposure to and potential supply chain issues from China and how do you feel about that looking through your portfolio?

The answer is yes. And while it's still early for sure, I would say we feel fine about where we are and we don't feel like we have any great degree of exposure. Our businesses are primarily US oriented businesses and we finance a lot of services businesses. If you look at some of our biggest sectors; healthcare, software, distribution; they're generally not businesses that have big global industrial supply chains. We have a few that we are going to pay close attention to.So, I don't want to say it's - there's no exposure or that we are complacent on it. But I would say one of the virtues of lending to a BDC is it's primarily US businesses and we particularly are more oriented towards service businesses which we generally think are more recession resistant than big industrial businesses that are going to cycle.

Well, thank you for that. And I'm sure you can appreciate that's probably a question that we're going to have to ask almost every BDC just a matter of course given what the current conditions are. On your cost of debt, does that cost of debt at 4.6%, does that include be unused fees?

Yes, it does.

Okay, terrific. Well, I mean it appears as though you guys are controlling everything that you can control except for LIBOR which we realize is out of your control. Craig, you discussed that you like unitranche and you kind of characterized it as first lien whereas I've always thought that kind of the definition of unitranche is something that combines first lien and second lien exposure. So when you describe it as first lien, are you talking about its location in the capital stack or in your unitranche it's kind of the attachment point that doesn't actually reach into the land of second lien?

Sure. So, I'll be as clear as I can. Look, unitranche is a term of art. Different lenders will call different instruments unitranche. There's no universal definition. When we describe unitranche, we're describing an instrument that has the following characteristics. It's a first-lien term loan. However, the leverage level for that loan extends to a point which is more typical of second lien or something beyond a typical first lien.So it's - as a contractual matter, it's first-lien debt. There's no doubt ahead of it. It's got first claim on the company's assets. However, we acknowledged by calling it unitranche that it's a higher leverage level then would be typically the case of first-lien loan. Historically in the space, folks would do unit tranches and then in an effort to boost the return on that loan, they would sell what's called a first-out position or an additional loan within the unitranche itself to another lender at a lower spread. So, they would boost the return on the remaining last out piece.At Owl Rock, we typically have not done that. We've done it once or maybe twice because we prefer to just control the entire loan. And so for us, it is a first lien. We call out the percentage because I know you and others find it helpful to know exactly how much unitranche there is and so we call that percentage out. As I said a moment ago, we like it because you're getting the blended rate between a first and second lien, however you're attaching $1.So to the extent that there's an issue with the credit, you have all the downside protection of being a first lien lender. And as I said a moment ago, we don't typically have a first out lender in there so we don't have any lingering inter-creditor issues that I know some folks have concern on.So, we're not trying to be cute at all of the words. It is first lien, but we also make a point of highlighting what percentage. We also disclose in our 10-K exactly how much unitranche we have so you can check that number every quarter - we do it quarterly so every quarter you can see exactly how much we have. Different lenders may characterize the same loan as unitranche or not unitranche because the judgment of how - of the leverage point is just subjective. So, does that help?

Our next question comes from the line of Mickey Schleien with Ladenburg. Your line is open.

Can everybody hear me?

We can, Mickey, yes.

So, I just wanted to follow up. Alan, you're carrying pretty good amount of cash on the balance sheet over $300 million. I understand there's a lot of moving pieces there and it could be a timing issue, but obviously that's not optimally efficient, Alan. What kind of run rate can you expect in terms of your cash balance?

And you're right, Mickey, it is a bit idiosyncratic. It gets driven largely by two factors. One, we have a series as you know of drop-down at SPV financing facilities in place and we run quarterly waterfalls that release the cash from those facilities and that happens I think shortly after quarter-end. And the other part of that is just idiosyncratic based on what the timing of when deals are funding and we could always have a little more or a little less if we're closing a deal immediately after quarter-end.

And my last question, curious how disposed the Board is to consider raising the target leverage given the portfolio structure and current market conditions and obviously your relationships with your stakeholders, including the credit rating agencies?

Sure. Candidly, management has not engaged the Board with that discussion. As we've outlined here today, we are still working our way back to our target leverage level. We've got some work to do to get to that level, much less considering an increase. This is a topic we talked about a lot in the context of our IPO, where we delevered quite significantly. We have very much placed a strategic priority - at keeping access to the investment grade bond market. We were very fortunate to be able to get investment grade ratings very early in our lifecycle as a private BDC before we went public.And we are - very much value that - those ratings and as we've highlighted, we've tapped that IG bond market on multiple occasions. And so it’s strategically important that we not do anything to disrupt on that ratings profile, given where we are given the return profile. We were able to generate. We feel like we've got the right balance with our current leverage targets. So it's - not something we've even discuss with the Board. So I certainly wouldn't want to characterize their disposition to it. We feel like we're in the right place right now.

Our next question comes from the line of Chris York from JMP Securities. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

So Craig, we often hear from peer BDCs that both terms and yields are growing more borrower friendly some of these peers tend to attribute this to big new entrants. So how should investors reconcile this comment with your growth as a big new entrance, but the fact that other BDCs tend to continue to seek your deal flow and they're often clubbing with you on many deals?

Well, that's a great question. Look, I guess what I would say rather than - really answer your question. You're making an observation which I would share, but - rather than talk about what our competitor is saying, I guess - I'll just tell you what we're seeing. What I think has been happening over the last few years is the private equity community is becoming more and more comfortable with direct lending solutions.In part because they are much bigger pools of capital available to provide them from firms like ours that have trusted relationships with those sponsors, really big investment and investment team. The ability to provide solutions that are not, only competitive with, but in many ways have attractive features relative to the syndicated market. And so, they're doing more and more deals with direct lenders like Owl Rock.And yes, I think we are - a leader in that because we've built a business around - provide being a great partner for financial sponsors. Every investment we make has to pass our credit spectrum first and foremost. We continue to close on less than 5% of the deals we look at. We care deeply about documentation. We're quite experienced at that. We negotiate our documents bilaterally with the sponsors. There is no bank in the middle.We almost always lead our deals and we care about leading our deals because we get to control that documentation. The vast majority of our first lien term loans have maintenance covenants and the return profile, you can see for yourself. We just reported our results, and we think our returns for the risk in our portfolio, we think offers very attractive risk reward for our shareholders.As for our competitors and what we're saying, you have to ask them. I think that - as a new entrant, I understand that we've come in, to a market and there maybe some jealously or frustration around that and maybe that reflects itself in some folks comments. But as you noted, many of those competitors are coming into our deals. So you have to ask them how they reconcile that.

Fair enough. I wanted to switch gears, so - or the manager recently received investment by Dyal. So does that recent investment provide external manager with opportunity to grow the platform, which could allow you to potentially increase the origination team, maybe even expand into specialty niches? So, could you just comment on that potential opportunity and what those growth opportunities could be?

Sure and the answer is yes. And the reason we took the investment from Dyal all that capital is going to be used to help grow the Owl Rock platform. As folks know, we really bootstrapped Owl Rock my partners and I with our own capital. We did take outside investors start the firm. We have today still $112 million personally invested in ORCC and more than $200 million invested in the various Owl Rock funds. So we have tremendous personal commitment. We've had great success at growing our platform. We continue to find investors that want to invest with us and borrowers that want to borrow from us. And so, we intend to use the dollar proceeds to continue to grow our platform.What we've talked about generally is additional investment in direct lending product. We'd like the direct lending space. So, I would expect new funds that we were to launch to be in the direct lending arena, leveraging the relationships we have in our underwriting process and not get into much more far flung areas, but we should - you should absolutely expect to see us continue to invest in our team both the investment team, origination, credit, underwriting, portfolio management and we'll continue to do that.So I think it's a positive we've highlighted up here and in - other cases we've highlighted that our size of our platform and ability to write a large check is - we think is a huge competitive advantage. So, I think all - the investors and all of our funds will continue to benefit as we grow.

Makes a lot of sense. Could you elaborate, maybe and just let us know what the FTE number of full time employees were at the platform at the end of 2019 and then maybe the year-over-year growth?

Sure, Chris. We're at about 140 employees today and a year ago, we were probably in the 80 to 90, 95.

Awesome, thanks Alan. Next question is on your second lien. So the portfolio mix hasn't moved materially over the last year, but I do know that you guys are comfortable taking that mix as high as 40%. So how should investors think about the expectation for any changes in the portfolio mix going forward in today's environment?

Sure, so just to remind folks of the history here when we started investing in 2016. Obviously, the portfolio at that point was not skilled, but in that first year or so you'll recall we were as high as 40% second lien. Today, it's really low on second lien is sub 20%. I think at this point the credit cycle, we are very focused on being defensive and doing only loans that we're extremely confident are good loans and that will withstand the cycle.And so that has led us to drive our first lien up to north of 80%. And we don't have an expectation that will change in the near term given where we are in the economic cycle. Second liens offer an attractive spread when we do second liens, we typically only do them in very large upper middle market companies that have significant equity cushion beneath us and typically and businesses that we don't expect to cycle or have any volatility, so that we don't find ourselves in a disadvantaged position.If we found those in this environment, and we could get an attractive spread we would do them. So, but we haven't seen that many of those in the third quarter we happen to see three. We did them in the fourth quarter we didn't see any we didn’t do any. So, I think in the near-term, I would expect us to be in the - low 20s, high-teens, but I don't want to - I don't have a crystal ball.And so, the market cracked in this middle of this year and we saw bigger opportunities and we thought it was prudent for our shareholders to take that percentage up to the high 20s. We would do that, but I don't expect that to happen, but I wouldn't rule it out if market conditions allowed us to do it. We don't imagine anytime soon, we've got to 40%. So, I think in the 20s is probably where we'll live. Certainly, we'll have update calls between now and when we make it to 30% given, we're at only - reaching 19% today.

That context and insights is very helpful. Last question just housekeeping, interest coverage was 2.5 times at year end 2018 for the portfolio. What was the year end interest coverage for 2019?

I think we're going have to do - I think we're going to - we have a lot of folks here, but - nobody's refinanced that question we’ll be happy to give you a call offline and provide that to you, sorry.

Our next question comes from the line of Robert Dodd with Raymond James. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

On Craig, what are your comments in the prepared remarks at the beginning was - you expect [we paid activity] to pick up in 2020. Generally, we know - repayment, if repayment activity accelerates in periods, where spreads are compressing and given that some of the other typically - and given some of the other color you gave about less low yield loans et cetera?I mean can you [reconcile] is that the right way to think about it that repayments could accompany compressing yields and how far are you willing to go - by yields I mean spreads really you don't control LIBOR. How far are you willing to go on that spread I mean this quarter obviously portfolio spreads were up new investment spreads were down slightly. So your repays were on the - some of the lower spread investments, but can you reconcile all that for us?

Sure I guess I would gently adjust the sub position of the way you asked the question. I don't - our repayments while certainly rate, the rate environment will impact the company's ability to refinance us. There are a lot of other factors that drive that decision. Oftentimes we get repaid when the portfolio company gets sold. It may get sold to another financial sponsor, may get it sold for strategic, maybe it will go public.There will be some corporate catalyst, where the company is revisiting its capital structure. Oftentimes that's driven by the company's success. The company sponsor might have done an LBO we financed it, it's grown, and so it's credit profile has improved. So yes regardless of market conditions, it may get a lower cost of financing just by virtue of the fact the credit environment - the credit has improved.Maybe the company has grown large enough to go to - syndicated market to take us out. Maybe it’s a second lien and they decided to do all first lien structure because the leverage has improved. Just a lot more of that goes into it then purely the rate. Obviously, rates can help companies refinance. But I would say, and I don't. This is in scientific at all, but I say generally speaking, that is not what's been happening.It's improvement in the credit or sell the company that's driving refinancings. So I guess that's what I think will drive the reason why common hours will increase is because our portfolio is still relatively young in our repayments are still relatively modest. As you know, our loans are typically five to seven years. We assume on average they're three-year life. We have started investing in 2016.But obviously our pace of investment has picked up considerably in 2017, 2018 and 2019. And so, it's natural and we would expect to have our repayments increase just as companies go to refinance. Companies don't generally even if their business hasn’t improved and the rate environment hasn’t improved companies generally don't like to wait until their maturity to refinance their debt.And so companies in our portfolio that have done just fine and are given just refinance at the same exact spreads we’ll do that early and we would expect to obviously be well positioned to do that given our incumbency. So, I don't think, I just answered your question, but I think that's how I think about it.

Got it, no that does answer the question. I appreciate and then one follow-up to Chris question on [Dyal and Dual], you answer to that. I mean you said that all investors all funds could benefit from expanding the platform into tangential areas of private credit, which would sense good. How much - in the event if you do add another vertical for lack of a better term to the platform as a whole if that's eligible from your thought process to go into ORCC?How much kind of heads up, would you give to investors about any change in type of assets I mean, even if they are high security it might be different kinds. So - can you give us any color on how much notice investors and shareholders would get about changes in any kind of mix concept at the BDC even if it's the same security level or whatever?

Well, I'm not sure I am totally following your question. But I would say is ORCC's a public company. We take our responsibility about disclosure and our strategy and what we intend to put in the fund quite seriously. We have these calls and obviously we speak to you and the research analysts and our investors on a regular basis. And our strategy is sort of well-defined and laid out to the extent that we have additional funds underneath the Owl Rock and the Owl Rock platform.We today and will continue to invest deals across funds of subject to our SEC exempted relief. We have a very, very thorough detailed allocation policy that governors that, but we think it's an advantage of our platform to be able to put deals across the different funds and I don't want to - I don't want to spend too much time talking about what other funds might be or with the strategy might be.But just to say, to the extent that we have a fund that had a different strategy than ORCC, those investments going out funding. We're not going to alter ORCC's strategy just because there is a different fund under the Owl Rock platform that - and it might have a different flavor to it. So I certainly wouldn't want to raise any concern for folks on our call that because we're going to grow our platform that would change our strategy or strategy at ORCC's, it's very clear and we're executing on it.

Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Lynch with KBW. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

First one, you guys kind of talked about some opportunities in the fourth quarter coming from the broadly syndicated loan market of those guys there that are now taking the direct lending route. I'm just curious of those borrowers that have or may be choosing the direct lending route versus the broadly syndicated loan route, are they bringing over kind of the terms covenants and structures of the broadly syndicated loan market to the direct lending market or are you able to negotiate slightly better terms and structures on those crossover loans.

Sure, but I'm glad that you asked that because I think this is a topic that there is not - there is some confusion on. When we make a loan, regardless of what the borrowers are terms are, we structure that loan to our satisfaction. Vast majority of our first lien term loans have maintenance of events. As you know, the broadly syndicated market almost all of it is covenant lite.And in addition to the maintenance covenants, our documents are quite extensive and govern everything about the company. I must say can borrow, liens they can put on, dividends they can pay out, everything, it's 100 plus page documents and we spent incredible amounts of time negotiating every aspect of it.When a borrower chooses a direct lending solution they are agreeing to a much tighter documents and they would have in the broadly syndicated market. But they're getting some benefits from that. We provide certainty. While the syndicated market, it doesn't provide certainty, their deal execution depends upon market conditions.We hold the paper, broadly syndicated market doesn't hold the papers, you don't know who your lenders are. So sponsors are choosing to live with tighter documents and higher spreads and exchange for the certainty and the direct lending relationship that they value.Our economics are clear. You can see what they are, we get a premium, not only in terms of the spread versus where initial could potentially borrow and the broadly syndicated market, but we also get OID which typically would be given to the banks that are arranging the financing, the combination of that additional spread plus the OID, we think is very attractive and one of this core virtues of direct lending along with the improved documentation.And lastly and maybe most importantly a much more detailed level of due diligence, we got to do on the borrowers versus the broadly syndicated. So as a package, I feel really good. We're delivering to our investors on a much more attractive package, than they could otherwise get investments in the broadly syndicated market.The sponsors are finding that trade off, attractive. Again this is at a time where markets are generally quite strong. We've gotten a period where markets were more volatile. They find it even more attractive.

And then in your prepared comments, you had mentioned, you guys are trying to seek some wider spread loans to help offset the decline in LIBOR. Can you just provide a little color on how you're doing that just because it doesn't seem as an overall spreads in the market or changing meaningfully? So how do you guys intend to seek wider spreads, how do you accomplish that?

Hope it's like anything else, you've got it long. You've got to find the credits that you like. And you've got to find an economic package that you're willing to do. In the fourth quarter, we were able to do that on. As I've signaled when the - in the first quarter, it's harder, but it's going to move up and down based on market conditions, not only the public markets but general amount of capital, general amount of field, the supply demand for deals and financing.We want to get properly compensated for our capital. Our first and foremost is credit, but we want to also make sure as we put dollars out, we're getting properly compensated for it. We had good success in the fourth quarter is pushing for additional spread as the market is heated up in the first quarter, that's harder. It's going to move up and down quarterly, monthly depending upon market conditions. There's all sorts of things that disrupt the market.Again, it's all on the margin. When the sponsors are buying a company, another 25 to 50 basis points, generally speaking is not going to have a profound impact on their IRRs. We think it's important for our shareholders that we push to get the most attractive spreads that we can. And so we'll continue to do it. It's a battle on deal by deal basis. So that's - I guess that's the best I can characterize it for you.

Our next question comes from the line of Finian O'Shea with Wells Fargo Securities. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

It's been a lot talked about today, which I appreciate. Just on a portfolio company, ConnectWise you re-recapitalized upsized at this quarter. Just a question on the spread there is 600 versus 550, can you break that down for us in terms of how much was the market widening you look forward versus anything on leverage attachment point, structure and so forth.

I don't think it's appropriate to get into too much detail on any one deal. I'll just say generally. There are things that happen - portfolio company's sponsor may come to us in the context of an acquisition or doing additional financing and similar to pricing, a new deal we made from time to time adjusted spread it up or down based on what they're doing without getting into any anything - on ConnectWise. I don't think anything market driven was happening there. That was specific to the credit and we've reached an adjustment in the rate with the sponsor it is what it is.

And you mentioned some - there were some syndication in fee income related to that, was the BDC able to retain all of the upfront fees on the circumstance or was there a split with the advisor.

So I think that might go back to my comments. I was referring to income at the BDC tuck-in in the current quarter and my comments were accelerated OID and prepayment fees, when company pay down in part or in full. And also from time to time, we will sell-down positions from a risk perspective and from time to time, the BDC warrants syndication fees on those sell downs and we saw a little of everything I just mentioned in the current quarter.

And just on the matter of the upfront fee, as you have scaled up materially now and soon, you’ll sort of revert to the market fee structure. Can you give us an update on how you look at the capital structuring fee whether that goes to the advisor or the BDC?

Sure. I mean, Finn - as we've talked about with you in past quarters, I mean there is no - there is no relationship between the fee structure we're charging on the fund and how we might handle fees on an individual deal. They're just not related to each other as we've disclosed. And as we've talked about on this call with you, we from time to time we'll take fees to the advisor per certain services, the advisor performance for the companies.We've talked about that as a practice that we have. It's only done in selected circumstances, and certainly not done on every deal or anywhere close to every deal, but we do it on selective basis that process has been in place, we've talked about, it's going to be ongoing. It's nothing to do with our fee structure and it's not, there is nothing new really to talk about there.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Kenneth Lee with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Wondering if you could elaborate on your prepared remarks on seeing slower activity among sponsors, wondering how much is due to seasonality and whether you expect to see some kind of pick up as the year goes through. Thanks.

Sure. Of the sponsor activity will go up and down, I don't, may be different views, even in this room on this. I don't think it's seasonality. I just think it's a little bit of a slowdown in sponsor activity, sponsors have tremendous amount of capital and they would like to be deploying that capital.So I don't think there's any change in their disposition, but they can only put capital out when they find new opportunities and I think that what you're seeing in the first quarter is just less deal flow. It could change quickly; it could change on a dime. But we saw it based on what we're seeing. And again, we're midway through the quarter, we thought it was appropriate to flag that it has been slower, this quarter, I think that's consistent with what other of our peers are seeing as well.I don't expect that to be some a prolonged period of time because they have capital, they've raised that they want to deploy, and economic environment is still attractive, valuations are still attractive. I think it's just idiosyncratic for where we happen to find ourselves in the first quarter of 2020.

There are no further telephone questions at this time. I'll now turn the call back to Craig Packer for closing remarks.

Great. All right, well, thanks everyone for dialing in. Thanks for your questions. We're always available, if you have additional questions then just reach out to us separately. We appreciate your time and look forward to seeing and speaking with you soon.

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.