Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to today's WhiteHorse Finance Fourth Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note this call is being recorded. And it is now my pleasure to turn the meeting over to Mr. Rob Munnings of Rose & Company. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Bo, and thank you, everyone, for joining us today to discuss WhiteHorse Finance's Fourth Quarter 2025 Earnings Results. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that certain statements made during this call, which are not based on historical facts, including any statements relating to financial guidance, may be deemed forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Because these forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, these are important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. WhiteHorse Finance assumes no obligation or responsibility to update any forward-looking statements. Today's speakers may refer to material from the WhiteHorse Finance Fourth Quarter 2025 earnings presentation, which was posted to our website this morning. With that, allow me to introduce WhiteHorse Finance's CEO, Stuart Aronson. Stuart, you may begin.

Thank you, Rob. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. As you're aware, we issued our earnings this morning before the market opened. I hope you've had a chance to review the results for the period ending December 31, 2025, which can also beyond on our website. On today's call, I'll begin by addressing our fourth quarter results and current market conditions, then Joyson Thomas, our Chief Financial Officer, will discuss our performance in greater detail, after which we will open the floor for questions. Our results for the fourth quarter of 2025 reflected improved earnings and NAV performance relative to the prior quarter. Q4 GAAP net investment income and core NII was $6.6 million or $0.287 per share compared with Q3 GAAP and core NII of $6.1 million or $0.263 per share. NAV per share at the end of Q4 was $11.68 compared to $11.41 at the end of Q3, an increase of approximately 2.4%. The increase in NAV resulted from share repurchases that were accretive to NAV by approximately $0.184 per share as well as net realized and unrealized gains of approximately $0.77 per share while also reflecting distributions paid during the quarter of $0.25 per share in base dividends and $0.035 per share in special dividends. We will continue our distribution policy framework that was previously discussed where the company intends to distribute a quarterly base distribution of $0.25 as well as make potential supplemental distributions above the base level in the future pursuant to this distribution policy. For the first quarter of 2026, the company declared a $0.01 per share supplemental distribution in addition to our base $0.25 dividend. To the extent our nonaccrual and other troubled situations in our portfolio result in recoveries or if current market conditions improve and/or base rates…

Thanks, Stuart, and thanks, everyone, for joining today's call. During the quarter, we recorded GAAP net investment income and core NII of $6.6 million or $0.287 per share. This compares with Q3 GAAP NII and in core NII of $6.1 million or $0.263 per share as well as our previously declared fourth quarter base distribution of $0.25 per share. Q4 fee income was approximately $0.8 million, primarily due to higher prepayment fee activity relative to the prior quarter. For the quarter, we reported a net increase in net assets resulting from operations of $8.4 million. Our risk ratings during the quarter showed that approximately 85.9% of our portfolio positions either carried a 1 or 2 rating, an increase from the 81.8% reported in the prior quarter. Upgrades during the quarter included investments in Telestream and Max solutions. Downgrades during the quarter included moving our positions in Outward Hound from a 4 to a 5 rating as well as Therm-O-Disc from a 3 to a 5 rating, given those investments anticipated exit values in Q1. As a reminder, a 1 rating indicates that a company has seen its risk of loss reduced relative to initial expectations and a 2 rating indicates the company is performing according to such as initial expectations. Regarding the JV specifically, we continue to utilize the platform as a complement to the BDC. As Stuart mentioned earlier, we transferred 2 new deals in 2 existing investments during the fourth quarter to the STRS JV totaling $19.2 million. As of December 31, 2025, the JV's portfolio held positions in 43 portfolio companies with an aggregate fair value of $323.6 million compared to an aggregate fair value of $341.5 million as of September 30, 2025. Leverage for the JV at the end of Q4 was approximately 1.07x compared with…

[Operator Instructions] And we'll go first today to Rick Shane with JPMorgan.

Look, solid order. Stock is still trading 40-plus percent discount to NAV. You have announced an increase to the repurchase. I am curious, and this is not going to be a shock given all the questions that I've asked over and over again on earnings calls. How are you balancing the opportunity in terms of what's out there for new deployment versus the attractiveness of your stock? And also, as we think about that, can you just give us a sense of how you're going to be managing leverage as well?

Yes. Thanks for the questions, Rick. And the simple answer is at the current trading levels or really anything close to the current trading levels, we think our stock represents a very attractive purchase, which is why the Board originally authorized the $15 million buyback and why insiders, including myself, have been buying shares at or near current levels. Given how far the shares have traded down and given the success of the buyback in the last quarter, the Board authorized an increased amount for buybacks. We have very limited availability of capital for new on-balance sheet transactions. The JV generates a higher return. And so we are still doing some JV transactions. But as long as the shares are continuing to trade at this type of discount, one of the best things we can do with our capital is to buy the shares. And then also that it wasn't in your question, but I'll highlight, we and the Board are viscerally aware of the significance of the discount and are looking at options that we can try to avail ourselves of to improve the earnings of the BDC and/or improve value to shareholders.

I appreciate that. And again, I mean, look, I think the challenge ultimately is, I think you would suggest that of your investment options behind the stock at this discount for yourselves might be the most attractive. But in general, we've seen BDCs struggle with that approach. Is the expectation if we see net runoff in the portfolio that, that capital will largely be redeployed into repurchases at this point? Is that how we should be thinking about things? Or how will you balance that?

The Board is going to continue to evaluate the trading price vis-a-vis the NAV and make decisions with the management to try to optimize performance for the shareholders. That is why even though we had enough capital to continue the buyback into the next quarter, the board wanted to send a message to shareholders by increasing the capital by another $7.5 million. And each quarter, the Board will look at the trading level and the market to determine what it thinks the best use of capital would be. But at the moment, as opposed to putting assets on the balance sheet, we are primarily focused on repurchasing shares at currently, as you said, a 40% or more discount to NAV, which is very accretive to both NAV and also accretive to NII.

We'll go next now to Christopher Nolan with Ladenburg Thalmann.

Following up on the previous question. What measure does the board use to compare the performance of WhiteHorse BDC to its peers?

We look at a whole series of metrics. Joyson, I may pass it to you to highlight what those metrics are. But we look at return on the share price. We look at costs that the BDC incurs versus others, and we look at our trading level vis-a-vis the discount to NAV compared to other BDCs. Joyson, did I miss any there that are important?

No, I think I would just add also just that the dividend yield relative to NAV, obviously, based on our own analysis on what the core earnings power of the portfolio is.

Okay. Do you guys feel that your exposure to the JV senior loan funds effectively takes a first lien investment on the scheduled investments, puts it into the JV and suddenly, you are in a subordinated position because you're holding equity in the JV. Is that a correct analysis?

We put leverage on the JV, and we are subordinated to that leverage. That is correct.

Okay. So you're in a subordinated position taking higher -- you're getting a mid-teens return. Do you think in the current environment, which is sensitive to the asset quality of private credit that part of the discount in your share price could be the fact that the market is looking at these SLF positions and saying they're second lien and they're given the appropriate haircut?

We haven't heard that from any of our covering analysts nor have we heard that directly from its shareholders. The JV portfolio is remarkably clean in terms of performance. And while we do have leverage on the JV and leverage on the BDC, that leverage is against a pool of first lien assets and modest leverage against first lien assets is, frankly, a very common thing in the direct lending market and the BDC market. And if we heard from shareholders or covering analysts that the STRS JV was a reason or a key reason for the share discount, we would certainly take that information in, communicate it to the Board and make decisions based on that. But again, so far, I've gotten no feedback that would indicate that, that would account to the discount to NAV of the trading level.

Got it. Okay. Well, your stock is trading roughly almost a 16% dividend yield on the stock price. On the new NAV, it's roughly trading a 9% yield, which is okay. But your stock price is 50%, 60% of book. I mean, there has to be a real big issue. And the only thing that's left there is most likely the portfolio. I'm just putting it out there. I mean, anyhow...

Chris, I would tell you that we strive to be transparent and realistic in our marks. That is why, historically, you've seen some assets that mark down and continue to mark down but other assets that get marked down and then get marked up, which include names like Telestream, [ Chase ], and I mentioned this quarter, we're seeing positive news also on Playmonster. Too early yet to know whether there will be a markup. But we agree that the discount to the NAV is extreme. And we are trying to take action to improve shareholder value, starting with the share buyback and also with the refinancing of the leverage at a cheaper rate. And we are talking to advisers about anything else we can do that would improve value for shareholders.

No argument on the marks. And I think what you guys are doing in terms of repurchases is definitely awesome. And I hope you continue the waiver and the repurchases. I think it's a great use of capital. My point is, this is an elephant in the room, and it's effectively a second lien position. At a time when financial services companies are -- or the sector is under scrutiny, BDCs in my humble opinion, tend to be valued more on a discounted value of their NAV, which leads to haircuts in terms of the type of assets in the book. So that's just my two cents.

[Operator Instructions] We'll go next now to Heli Sheth with Raymond James.

You mentioned an active M&A market, but also a lower than normal pipeline currently. Any further insight into what we should expect in terms of timing or pacing of both repayments and originations for the year? Are there any catalysts down the line that might drive more activity?

Yes. Just to be clear, we have had noticeably better activity and volume in Q1 of this year so far than we had in Q1 of last year. But as we sit here now in early March, the pipeline that we have looking forward, March into April is not as strong as it was at this time last year. Now you'll also remember or I'll remind folks that at this time last year, there was a fair amount of optimism in terms of M&A activity coming back. And then the tariff issues arose, which threw a real monkey wrench into a lot of people's plans on the M&A side. There is, once again, optimism from the bankers we are speaking to and from private equity shops we're speaking to regarding likely activity, M&A activity in 2026 for the reasons that I highlighted in my call, including lower interest rates and abundant capital with pricing on that capital being at or near all-time lows. But as we've seen just in the past couple of days, things can certainly happen on the geopolitical side that were not forecast and can have an impact on M&A activity. So we currently are projecting based on what we see, improved M&A activity for the year. We think that, that could lead to slightly better pricing in the marketplace. But that slightly better pricing is likely to be offset by rate cuts, whether it's 1 or 2, which I think is the current conventional wisdom or whether it's 3 or 4 driven by leadership of the Fed likely changing in May.

Got it. I appreciate the detail. And in that pipeline, is there any sort of shift in the kinds of deals that you're seeing maybe in terms of sponsor, nonsponsor incumbent versus new borrowers or LTVs, anything along those lines?

We're seeing fewer deals that are straight repricings because the lower pricing has now been in the marketplace for about 1.5 years to 2 years. So we are seeing more new M&A deals. In terms of sponsor nonsponsor, we finished the year with a couple of non-sponsor deals in Q4. But the nonsponsor pipeline has been lighter than normal here in the first quarter of 2026. We do think that the nonsponsor market in general is more appealing than the sponsor market right now, largely because in the sponsor market, there are over 200 active direct lenders. But in the nonsponsor market, at least in the mid-market and lower mid-market, we see fewer than 10 shops who actively originate nonsponsor mid-market and lower mid-market deals. So it's a much less competitive market and as evidenced by the nonsponsor deals that we did in Q4, we are getting still pricing of 600, 650 or even 700 on nonsponsor deals at modest leverage and modest loan to value.

[Operator Instructions] And gentlemen, it appears we have no further questions this afternoon. So that will bring us to the conclusion of today's conference call. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to thank you all so much for joining the WhiteHorse Finance Fourth Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. Again, thanks so much for joining us, and we wish you all a great day. Goodbye.

Thank you.