Good morning, and welcome to Sixth Street Specialty Lending, Inc.'s Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year Ended December 31st, 2025 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on Friday, February 13th, 2026. I will now turn the call over to Ms. Cami Senatore, Head of Investor Relations.

Thank you. Before we begin today's call, I would like to remind our listeners that remarks made during the call may contain forward-looking statements. Statements other than statements of historical facts made during this call may constitute forward-looking statements and are not guarantees of future performance or results and involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors, including those described from time to time in Sixth Street Specialty Lending, Inc.'s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. Yesterday, after the market closed, we issued our earnings press release for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended December 31st, 2025, and posted a presentation to the Investor Resources section of our website, www.sixthstreetspecialtylending.com. The presentation should be reviewed in conjunction with our Form 10-K filed yesterday with the SEC. Sixth Street Specialty Lending, Inc.'s earnings release is also available on our website under the Investor Resources section. Unless noted otherwise, all performance figures mentioned in today's prepared remarks are as of and for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended December 31st, 2025. As a reminder, this call is being recorded for replay purposes. I will now turn the call over to Bo Stanley, Chief Executive Officer of Sixth Street Specialty Lending, Inc.

Thank you, Cami. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. This marks my first earnings call as CEO, and I'm energized by the continued strength of our platform and the discipline our team has maintained through a dynamic 2025 and into 2026. Before we dive into the financial results, I'm pleased to introduce Ross Bruck, who is joining us on this call today for the first time in his capacity as Managing Director and Head of Investment Strategy. Ross was one of our first members of our direct lending investment team, having joined Sixth Street more than a decade ago. She has had roles across the Sixth Street platform in both the U.S. and Europe. Applying his deep underwriting expertise to various credit investment strategies. Ross brings a unique perspective that bridges complex asset level underwriting with a strategic lens on market opportunity. His appointment reflects our commitment to elevating our internal talent to drive disciplined investment decisions, and we are excited to have his voice on these calls. For our prepared remarks, I will review full year and fourth quarter highlights and pass it over to Ross to discuss investment activity in the portfolio. Our CFO, Ian, will review our financial performance in more detail, and I will conclude with final remarks before opening the call to Q&A. After the market closed yesterday, we reported fourth quarter results with adjusted net investment income of $0.52 per share or an annualized operating return on equity of 12% and adjusted net income of $0.30 per share or an annualized return on equity of 7%. Adjusted net investment income of $0.52 per share exceeded our base dividend of $0.46 per share, providing base dividend coverage of 113%. As presented in our financial statements, our Q4 net investment income and our…

Thanks, Bo. I'd like to start by layering on some additional thoughts on the direct lending environment and more specifically, how we are positioned for the opportunity set we are anticipating this year. Our base case is that the investment environment for 2026 will be characterized by the continued imbalance between the supply of private capital and the demand for financing, resulting in sustained levels of competition and tight spreads for regular way on-the-run transactions. In contrast to what is implied by terms across our market, we believe that asset selection today remains complex. Fluctuating macroeconomic conditions, geopolitical paradigm changes and rapid technological advancements create significant cross currents. With this backdrop, we remain focused on driving investment activity through our differentiated and thematically oriented originations engine and our deep underwriting capabilities, in each case, leveraging unique capabilities from across the Sixth Street platform. Our asset selection prioritizes businesses with positions in their value chain and resulting unit economics that are robust in the face of potential headwinds. Additionally, we remain focused on thoughtful structuring and deal documentation, providing us with the tools to actively manage credits during our investment period to preserve capital and generate incremental economics for shareholders. While we remain highly selective in investing capital, we see 2 potential upside nodes for accelerated originations. The first is capitalizing on generalized market volatility to finance businesses in which we have high conviction at attractive risk-adjusted returns. By maintaining a strong balance sheet through the cycle, we are well positioned to be a capital solutions provider in times of uncertainty. The second is an acceleration in the market correcting rebalancing of capital. As noted in our November shareholder letter, we anticipated higher redemptions from non-traded BDCs, which began to materialize at the end of 2025 and view this capital reallocation…

Thank you, Ross. In Q4, we generated net investment income per share of $0.53, resulting in full year net investment income per share of $2.23. Our Q4 net income per share was $0.32, resulting in full year net income per share of $1.81. We experienced an unwind of $0.05 per share of capital gains incentive fees in 2025, resulting in adjusted net investment income and adjusted net income per share for the year of $2.18 and $1.76, respectively. At year-end, we had total investments of $3.3 billion, total principal debt outstanding of $1.8 billion and net assets of $1.6 billion or $16.98 per share, which is prior to the impact of the supplemental dividend that was declared yesterday. Our ending debt-to-equity ratio was 1.1x, down from 1.15x in the prior quarter. Our average debt-to-equity ratio increased from 1.1x to 1.17x quarter-over-quarter. Ending leverage was lower than average leverage during Q4, driven by the timing of repayments occurring near quarter end. For full year 2025, our average debt-to-equity ratio was 1.17x, down slightly from 1.19x in 2024. We continue to have ample liquidity with approximately $1.1 billion of unfunded revolver capacity at year-end against $199 million of unfunded portfolio company commitments eligible to be drawn. In terms of upcoming maturities, we have reserved for the $300 million of 2026 notes due in August under our revolving credit facility. After adjusting our unfunded revolver capacity as of year-end for the repayment of the 2026 notes, we continue to have significant liquidity that exceeds our unfunded commitments by 4.2x. We remain focused on our established cadence in accessing that market annually to maintain our funding mix. Pivoting to our presentation materials. Slide 10 contains this quarter's NAV bridge. Walking through the main drivers of the change in net asset value, we added $0.52…

Thank you, Ian. I'll close by tying together a set of themes we've been consistently communicating in our shareholder letters and on recent earnings calls. For several quarters now, we've been very vocal that the sector has been overallocating capital into a tighter spread environment. We've also been clear that as reinvestment spreads compressed and the forward curve rolled over -- rate curve rolled over, sector ROEs would come down. While net investment income may decline slightly further based on the current shape of the forward curve, we believe we are approaching trough earnings for the space, absent any credit losses. As anticipated, the natural outcome of this misallocation is a reallocation of capital. We believe that the market is in the early innings of a gradual [ market-cracking ] rebalancing. As Ross mentioned, this began to materialize in December with a meaningful increase in redemptions from the perpetually offered non-traded BDC vehicles. Over time, we expect capital to migrate towards managers and structures that can consistently earn their cost of capital and away from those that cannot. Should we see capital continue to pull back, whether due to generalized AI fears or broader macro uncertainty, we are very well positioned with significant liquidity and a robust balance sheet to capitalize on the opportunity set. These periods of market retreat and heightened volatility represent the greatest environment for SLX to fully leverage the breadth and depth of the broader Sixth Street platform. Our firm's extensive sector expertise, flexible and diverse capital base and integrated investment capabilities enable us to provide differentiated bespoke capital solutions. Coupled with our technical underwriting and thematic investment approach, this unique combination has historically allowed us to outperform during periods of market instability or uncertainty. Our average net income ROE during years of heightened volatility has been nearly 14%, outperforming the average net income ROE of our peers during that period by over 600 basis points and our own average ROE in more benign periods by 200 basis points. Should the investment environment present a similar opportunity, we have the necessary resources and structural advantages to generate differentiated risk-adjusted returns and create lasting value for our shareholders. With that, thank you for your time today. Operator, please open the line for questions.

Our first question comes from Brian McKenna with Citizens.

Okay. So just my first question, how much of the portfolio has turned over since 2022? And then if you look at the mix of loans today, what year or 2 were the majority of these assets originated in?

Sure. Thanks for the question, Brian. So as we've stated before, we have less exposure to pre-2022 vintages than our peers. I think today, we sit at about 20% to 25% of NAV. The vast majority of our portfolio we originated post the rate hiking cycle in 2023 and 2024. We've been less active of late as the markets have gotten tighter. But yes, so about 20% of NAV before 2022, which is much different than our peers.

Okay. That's helpful. And then I guess somewhat of a related question. I appreciate all the detail on software and how Sixth Street is thinking about the sector and really where we go from here. But I think what the market might be missing is that there's going to be a very large new set of deployment opportunities really across a number of sectors over time in and around what's happening with AI. So thinking through how you invest and why, and I know you're thoughtful about that. But I would just love to get your thoughts on how you see the deployment environment evolving here over the next few years and really what this ultimately means for the evolution of your portfolio?

Yes, sure. It's a great question. Look, I think, first of all, we did try to provide a framework of how we're thinking about the sector given a lot of the noise related to enterprise software and its effect on direct lending and its effects on portfolio. Hopefully, people found that helpful. It sounds like you did. What I would tell you is we're thematic investors here at Sixth Street and have always been. And the great thing about being thematic investors, themes rotate often. 18 to 24 months is the general gestation period of a theme, and we're constantly rotating across the platform on a relative -- looking at things on a relative value basis to find the best risk-adjusted return and to find those durable moat businesses that we talked about in the earnings script. We've never thought of software as a sector. And as such, we've always had rotating themes in and out of the sector. And I think that's really important because over the past 2 to 3 years, our team has been focused on the impacts that AI have on the ecosystem and where businesses are going, and we've been rotating our capital to those businesses that we think are going to be the beneficiaries in the future. Those are the ones that I talked about that have the strong moats that are able to invest in product and what we ultimately think will expand the TAM of the market. So we're pretty excited about that. On top of what we think is going to be a misunderstanding generally, and we're seeing that already of the threats and the opportunities. I want to be clear, we think there's going to be winners and losers here. There's going to be businesses that are fragile that will, over time, be disintermediated by AI, but there's going to be businesses that are systems of record that have strong data moats, most importantly, own their customers that are going to be able to invest in product and drive TAM. And we're looking forward to being providers of capital to that -- to those winners.

Our next question comes from Finian O'Shea with Wells Fargo Securities.

I guess we'll move over to the JV. Will these look like more BSL, CLOs, just sort of true third party that you and Carlyle already have big platforms in? Or is this something like more of a typical JV where it's a little more senior type direct lending or you're selling stuff down to it from the book as it matures?

Good question, Fin. I'm going to address just what the criteria was for us to invest in this JV and then pass it over to Ross and Ian, who actually were very instrumental in working through this for that question. I think it's a very good question. But the 2 important criteria is it has to be clearly accretive to our shareholders on a returns basis and on a relative value basis to other options that we see. That's one. And then two, it has to overlay with the core competencies of our platform and what we do well here at Sixth Street, and this hits both of those. Ross, do you want to address Fin's question directly?

Sure. Thanks, Fin. So in terms of the underlying collateral, these will be broadly syndicated loan CLOs. We don't anticipate the CLOs holding private credit either originated by us or third parties. And we'd expect that on the liability side, they'd be financed like traditional PSL CLOs, as you mentioned, that ourselves and Carlyle already have large platforms originating and managing. The main exception to third-party CLOs will be there'll be no management fees at either the CLO or the joint venture level. In a typical third-party CLO fees are 40 to 50 basis points of assets or about 400 to 500 basis points to the equity. So that's the real differentiator in driving accretion for shareholders of the BDCs that are participating in the joint ventures.

That's helpful. Sorry, Ian, were you going to. What about like you already -- I missed the number. I'm sure you said it on spillover, but it's something reasonably high. How do you address the spillover problem that sort of true BSL CLO equity brings?

So it's a good question. I think we've made the comment multiple times about monitoring spillover income. And it's something that we think about deeply about how we can generate the best return on shareholder value taking that into account. There's not one factor that matters the most, but we take them all into account, including where we're trading, how much of that spillover needs to be distributed in the near term, what our prospects for over earning are. Your point is a really good one on the BSL side. I think just to address that more directly, it's going to take us some time to ramp the JV. So we talked about a commitment of $200 million. That's not investing $200 million today. So this is not going to create an impact on spillover income in the next quarter or the next 2 quarters. This is going to be something that happens over time. And as you saw, spillover income can move quarter-to-quarter. Our supplemental dividend framework was really designed to help us manage that without sacrificing stability in NAV. So it will be something that we -- that will develop, and we'll be monitoring that as we go. But I don't have a specific answer on whether that changes our approach. I think it's just -- it's another factor that we include in our assessment.

And why will it -- will it take a lot of time for operational reasons or because you want to -- the [ ARB ] is really tight kind of thing and you want to manage it to that?

Well, just think about the general sequence and cadence of CLO creation. We're not looking to create a CLO with, in our case, $200 million equity commitment today that's going to allow us to create multiple CLOs.

Our next question comes from Arren Cyganovich with Truist Securities.

I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the investment pipeline and some of the disruption that we've seen from the public software space and if that's impacting any of your deals. I know it's quite early thus far, but just curious if you've had any conversations with sponsors.

Well, actually, we've had a lot of conversations over the last few weeks, as you'd imagine, with sponsors. I think sponsors are trying to understand the landscape of who's going to be providers of capital in this market and who is not. I would say it's too early to see if there's going to be a pickup and pipeline from this disruption. I think we're well suited, as I mentioned in the script, to take advantage of any dislocation -- these dislocations are really what our platform is built for. So we stand ready and able to take advantage of that. As far as the generalized pipeline, I think the pipeline is decent. We had good activity in Q4 as you saw a pickup in M&A activity, particularly on the sponsor side. Last year, our non-sponsor to sponsor origination was around 50-50, so 50% non-sponsor versus sponsor. We were certainly focused on origination away from the regular channel as allocation to -- we were allocating our capital to transactions that we believe earned our cost of equity. But we're encouraged by the pipeline, certainly encouraged if this dislocation continues, whenever there's a lot of uncertainty, that's the period that we generally step in and take advantage of.

And then the unrealized losses were -- they weren't too high, 1% impact to NAV. What was driving some of those impacts to your portfolio company?

Yes, sure. So this is Ian, Arren. There was about $0.03 per share that was attributable to spreads. And then on the credit side, there were some specific reversals. So [indiscernible], which is a public equity name that we hold, the market price at 9/30 was higher than what it was at 12/31. So that creates a reversal of previously unrealized gains. And then there was an impact from a restructuring at IRG and a couple of other portfolio companies that were less impactful individually.

Our next question comes from Ken Lee with RBC Capital Markets.

Just one on the SCP JV again. I wonder if you could just talk a little bit more about some of the motivations here. Are you seeing particular opportunities within the BSL markets? Just wanted to flesh that out a little bit more.

Yes. Ken, this is Ross. So I mean, to echo Bo's comments, we are constantly on the lookout of how we can leverage core competencies of the Sixth Street platform for shareholders. As you know, we've leveraged the expertise of our structured credit platform for some time now, investing in CLO debt with a very strong track record in that asset class. And so we've been thinking about ways to do more beyond CLO debt, and we developed this structure, which Carlyle happened to be kind of considering on their end simultaneously. And so the motivations are we think the risk return generated by fee-free CLO equity is really attractive within a portfolio context for SLX. It's not so much picking a specific market environment in which we think the [ ARB ] is more attractive or less attractive. The idea, as Ian alluded to, is that we're going to deploy this equity capital sequentially in CLOs over time, creating very high diversification across borrowers and across vintages. And so those are some of the key motivations.

Got you. Very helpful there. And just one follow-up, if I may. I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about what you're seeing in terms of spreads on new investments. There's a little bit of a delta quarter-to-quarter, but just wondering whether that's driven more by mix rather than any kind of spread compression or widening.

Yes. Generally speaking, we've seen spreads pretty stable throughout the course of 2025 and expect that in 2026. We hope maybe a bit of a pickup given the broader markets recently. But any -- I think we were within a 50 basis point band across the 4 quarters last year, again, speaking to the breadth of our platform and our ability to find things off the run thematically. But broadly, we see stability. We don't -- we're not anticipating any real change in that going forward. Our hope as capital continues to reallocate in the sector that spreads will continue to widen a bit, but we haven't seen that as of yet.

Our next question comes from Sean-Paul Adams with B. Riley Securities.

Could you provide just a little bit more color on the restructuring for IRG Sports?

Yes. I'll take that one really quickly. IRG Sports is a business that we've been an investor in for 8 or 9 years now, I believe. We concluded the sale of one of the operating assets during the quarter that was actually above our NAV. We have then are in process of marketing and selling the other operating asset. We have marked that to what we believe is the midrange of the bids that we have today and feel good about that. Hopefully, it may actually do a little bit better than that.

Our next question comes from Paul Johnson with KBW.

Most of mine have been asked. But I am curious, though, on the 40% software exposure, where has that gone over time? Has that come down? Or has that been pretty consistent over time? And just based on current market conditions, I guess, where would you expect that to trend to just with your pipeline and your selectivity, I guess, currently?

Yes. So I'll take that. Given that we've always mapped to the end market, and I think we've provided a framework why we think that's the right way to think about risk because that is ultimately what you're underwriting. We don't have historical statistics. We actually took a look at the portfolio and wanted to provide some clarity given the market context and mapped the portfolio to broadly what we believe people -- how people in the space are defining enterprise software. What I would say anecdotally, I would believe that has come down marginally over the past couple of years, in part because we were seeing a decline in unit economics across the software space post the COVID pull-through of demand. And I think that's one of the things that's really important to note that people are losing sight of is that valuations in software companies are coming down in part because unit economics are slowing. There's a little bit of cannibalization of AI budgets and enterprise software budgets that are causing some of that. There's not disruption and dislocation from AI taking market share yet, though. But as we saw unit economics coming down and frankly, more capital in the private markets, which are over-indexing probably to software and certainly private credit to software, we were just less competitive in the regular way LBO financing for software companies. A lot of the businesses that we did invest in the software space over the last couple of years were off the run direct to company or very thematic in some of the areas that we were rotating to. So I don't have the exact numbers because we've never tracked it that way. What I would tell you is, anecdotally, it has come down marginally over time because we are less competitive. As far as future, we're going to invest where we feel we can invest in defensible businesses that meet our criteria. I'm hopeful on the margin that we're more competitive in the regular way financings for the winners in the future, but that will remain to be seen.

Our next question comes from Rick Shane with JPMorgan.

Look, I'm going to start with a strange comment. Joe Morgan used to say that the difference between a 5-run lead and a 4-run lead is more than 1 run. I would argue in the BDC space trading at a 15% premium to NAV and trading at a 5% discount to NAV is more than a 20% differential. You guys are one of the few BDCs that enjoys this advantage. You're not in a position right now where you need additional capital, but that advantage is ephemeral. You do have a maturity, a bond maturity or no maturity coming up this year. Can BDCs issue converts? And is that a way for you guys to sort of lock in that advantage and also get ahead of your maturity?

Rick, it's Ian. And first of all, welcome back to this forum. You're probably familiar with from your previous experience, we have issued converts in the past. We did it at a time where the unsecured market was not well developed. And since we've experienced the maturities of the converts that we previously issued, that market has become a lot more supportive of the space, providing cost of debt that's pretty competitive. To answer your question directly, we do consider converts. We get pitched by the bankers that cover us quite regularly with new ideas, converts being one of those ideas. And we consider that on a quantitative basis against the cost of debt that we see in the regular way unsecured market. So we just view that as another alternative financing tool available to us, and we assess it on its merits.

Got it, Ian. And, it's been long enough, I have to admit. I was kind of trying to rack my brain whether the BDCs can issue converts. So thank you for that. Again, sort of getting back to this competitive advantage that you enjoy in terms of your multiple and cost of capital. We all know how this works, which is that there will be a time where you guys want to put capital to work. You have that opportunity, but there is no way to ensure that, that advantage will persist. How do you think about locking that in right now when most of your peers can't take advantage of that multiple?

I think the way we think about it is on a broader liquidity perspective, but we have to marry that with the opportunity set in front of us. So we're not going to run with so much excess liquidity that it becomes a drag on earnings. We actually think that we have a very strong liquidity position today. Bo mentioned in his earlier remarks that one of the levers that we have is that we can take leverage up. We're only at 1.1x. So we have capacity on leverage today before we get to the upper end of our target range. I know your question is focused on how do you lock it in today. I think we're focused on providing a more durable business model. And if you look at our history as a public company since we went public 12 years ago, we've traded at a premium for 98% of the trading days. So we've had that opportunity to lock it in, as you say, but we've always been mindful of just being efficient with capital.

Yes. I mean the only thing that I'll add is by focusing on the shareholder experience and allocating capital to credits that earn our cost of equity and really focusing deeply on the quality of our underwriting and our loan management. Ultimately, that has allowed us to trade above NAV in periods of dislocation and always be able to take advantage of markets. And that's our North Star. It will continue to be our North Star, and I think we'll be rewarded with that when we need it.

No. It's interesting looking back through our model, it goes back all that way. It's clearly true. The asset selection focus has not changed here. It is interesting, I think also 2025 was the first year where you actually had where paydowns exceeded fundings. At what point -- I mean, how long are you willing to let the runoff continue? Do you see an inflection point approaching or given where spreads are and the liquidity, even though private credit is paying down a little bit, the liquidity that's in the market, how big an impediment is that in the first half of '26?

Look, we're always going to size the portfolio to the opportunity set in the market. We can't control payoffs when markets tighten up. That's why we structure things with call protection and capture fees. That -- those fees drive income in periods of heightened repayment activity. The great news is we have a very strong originations engine that can originate things away from regular way deals. We proved that last year. We had a great origination year. But again, we're always going to allocate capital to the opportunity set. And we just don't think of the world in terms of how do we control repayments. We don't control repayments. We have call protection in our names, most generally. But if markets tighten and are irrational, we don't control that.

Our next question comes from Robert Dodd with Raymond James.

I've got some questions about the JV, but I think I'll follow-up with you on those. On the spread question going forward, if I can. I mean in your guidance and you kind of prepared remark, you're saying you expect spreads to remain tight. So does that mean that you think that the market AI software concerns are going to blow over rapidly? Because obviously, right now, software spreads in the liquid market, obviously, we can't really see them in the private credit market yet. But those are 150 basis points wider, give or take. And that's not just the explicit software, health care, IT, anything where software is the product, spreads are materially wider, but you expect them to may be tight for the year. So can you reconcile that for me? Do you expect it to blow over? Or how do those 2 things align?

Thanks for the question, Robert. Look, our base case coming into the year is that credit spreads are going to be stable and not increasing. What I would tell you is it's too early to tell the dislocation recently in software and in the BSL market. And I think for performing BSL for software names, we said in our script is closer to 50 to 100 basis points. I think you're quoting more broadly software and some of the more challenged names that out to 150. I think overall, that should be support for the ability to find risk with better spread environment than in the past. But I don't think that's our base case now. I think we -- I think the markets are still generally awash with liquidity and capital. That could reverse, right? We saw redemptions in the non-traded BDC sector pick up in Q4. I can't imagine that they're going to slow down any in Q1. We think that's a gradual reallocation of capital in the sector, which is healthy. Over the long arc, we believe the space needs to earn its cost of equity, spreads need to widen. That's going to take time. Our base case isn't that they're going to in the near term, but that could change very quickly. I do think over the long term, they have to.

Got it. One more, if I can. On -- I mean, software and technology has been a core part of the platform for a considerable period of time. And the personnel backgrounds even before that. How long has there been, say, I don't know, an AI risk section in an investment committee memo or an investment committee meeting? I mean, it's not like I think AI risk suddenly appeared over the last 3 months. So how long has that been a core part of your underwriting for the software as a product rather than software as an end market kind of businesses?

We've been thinking about how AI impacts the ecosystem, both positively and negatively really over the past 3 years. And as I mentioned, working thematically to reposition our portfolio and our new activity to the areas that we think are both most protected and can benefit from those. The other great thing about Sixth Street and our platform is we have a purview of what is going on in the ecosystem. It's not just in direct lending. we have a growth franchise that starts to see businesses just post kind of venture. And we -- and then we have folks that are looking at things in the broadly syndicated market and also on the distressed market. So we have this perfect purview of what's going on across the ecosystem, and that allows us some early signals of where we should be focusing our capital and where thematically we should be thinking about positioning our portfolio. So it's been for quite some time. Our team has been working on this and thinking through it. And so. Yes.

Our next question is a follow-up from Brian McKenna with Citizens.

Just 2 more unrelated questions, if I may. So how much of your software and related exposure is sponsor versus non-sponsor? And then one for you, Ian. When you look back at the last decade as a public BDC, what's been the low end of the initial target range for ROE? What did the operating environment look like during that period, specifically as it relates to base rates and spreads, et cetera? And then where did the ROE actually come in for that period?

Might be easy if I answer your question to me first. We've provided guidance, excluding this year for 2026. We've done it on 11 prior occasions. Our actual operating ROEs have ended up above our guidance range in 8 of those years. And the other 3 years, we've met the midpoint of those ranges. And so that's across a period from 2015 to 2025. You had different periods where base rates were elevated in 2018. You had some dislocation from energy markets on the broader market in 2015 -- 2014, 2015. You had COVID. I'm not as familiar with what our peers do on the guidance side, but we've been providing guidance now for -- this is our 12th year of providing guidance.

And then just going back quickly to your question on sponsor versus non-sponsor in the software space. We don't have it broken down for the software space, but I would venture to say that it would mirror the broader portfolio that has traditionally been close to 35% non-sponsor versus sponsor. Of course, of late, over the last 18 months, that activity has been closer to 50-50.

I'm showing no further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the call back over to Bo Stanley for closing remarks.

Well, thank you, everybody. Thanks for the great questions today and for listening to us. I also want to thank everybody in this room for the tremendous amount of work for preparing for this in every quarter and wish everybody a great long weekend. Thank you.

Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect. Good day.