Chris Blunt: and undergo the same analytical rigor as public ratings when it comes to private asset origination most of these are directly originated asset classes that have historically been underwritten by commercial banks and have a long performance history over multiple market cycles providing observable data for thorough underwriting here we utilize Blackstone's best-in-class origination and underwriting and structuring teams to source high-quality pools of physical and financial assets. The combination of Blackstone's structuring talent, our ability to complement Blackstone's ability with other asset managers, the track record of these assets, and our thorough due diligence has helped generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for F&G that have performed very well to date and through stress environments like the COVID pandemic. Recent headlines have been focused on middle market lending to midsize corporations. I'd like to provide further details on this subset of our private origination portfolio. Middle market corporate lending is nearly $5 billion, or 9% of the total retained portfolio. 89% of our middle market lending positions are investment grade. We have low loan-to-value ratios and strong structural subordination. We are lending to sizable, high-quality companies with average annual EBITDA over $200 million. We have a track record of near zero credit losses, and the upgrade to downgrade ratio is positive for our private origination corporate exposure. Next, our mortgage loan portfolio is $7 billion, or 13% of the total retained portfolio. It is weighted toward defensive sectors with two-thirds in residential loans and and the remainder in commercial loans concentrated in multifamily and industrial properties, two segments that have demonstrated resilience across varying economic conditions. Finally, our alternatives portfolio is $4 billion, or approximately 7% of the total retained portfolio. This includes approximately $3 billion of limited partnerships and $1 billion of other equity interests. Under our updated definition of alternative assets discussed last quarter, we have reclassified approximately $6 billion of lower yielding debt-like assets into our fixed income portfolio. As a result of this updated definition, we have revised our long-term expected return assumption from 10% to a range of 12% to 14% for the remaining LP and equities portfolio. Many of these alternative investments are still in the earlier phases of their value creation cycle, so we are not yet fully realizing the long-term expected returns. During the first quarter, we saw improvement in our annualized return at 8.3%, up from 7.8% in the sequential quarter. Next, with regard to our overall portfolio, our fixed income yield was 4.77% in the first quarter, in line with the first quarter of 2025. Relative to the fourth quarter of 2025, our yield decreased 16 basis points as a result of four items in the first quarter. The removal of the assets associated with our sale of FG Life RE, lower yields on floating rate assets, lower preferred stock dividends due to seasonality, and an investment expense true-up adjustment. These were largely one-time items or due to timing. Excluding these items, we maintained our core spread in line with the fourth quarter. As a reminder, our fixed income yield excludes alternative investment income, as well as variable investment income, which we define as prepayment fees. Software exposure across the total retained portfolio is below 5% and relatively short duration. The vast majority of our software positions are protected by high switching costs, large competitive modes, regulatory barriers, and or embedded in workflows that are difficult to disrupt. We believe this exposure is very manageable. Credit-related impairments have remained low and stable, averaging six basis points over the past five years. Through the first quarter, credit-related impairments were a modest three basis points. Portfolio credit quality has improved over time through implementation of de-risking programs. Since 2020, we have selectively repositioned over $2 billion of assets to optimize, de-risk, and position the portfolio to perform in varying market conditions while also improving credit quality. We believe our portfolio is performing exceptionally well, as expected, and conservatively positioned to withstand economic downturns. Now, turning to the liability side of our balance sheet and how we think about the intrinsic value of our business. F&G reported gap equity excluding AOCI of $6.2 billion at quarter end and has grown its book value per share excluding AOCI to $46.51, up 70% since the 2020 F&F acquisition. We think about our business as three distinct and complementary value-creating components. Our new business platform, our profitable in-force block, and our capital light fee-based strategies. Each contributes meaningfully to earnings and together they support a compelling sum of the parts valuation. At the core of our business is a high quality and profitable in-force book that delivers steady spread income on a growing AUM base. We do not have any problematic legacy blocks of business. Our gap net reserves of 55 billion are diversified across 37 billion of retail fixed annuities, $8 billion of pension risk transfer liabilities, and $7 billion of funding agreements. In addition, our $3 billion index universal life in-force book is less capital intensive than our annuity business and generates significant recurring product fee income annually. This is a top 10 IUL franchise with strong positioning in the cultural middle market that has demonstrated above average growth rates. F&G is also uniquely positioned to provide flow reinsurance to third parties and through our sidecar, a capital efficient strategy that generates fee-based returns. Demand for reinsurance capacity has greatly increased in recent years, and we have reinsured over $15 billion of cumulative annuity new business. Our own distribution franchise, Peak Altitude, rounds out the picture. With approximately $700 million deployed into this business, and approximately 80 million in annual EBITDA, we believe the value of Peak is not fully appreciated by the market or reflected in our current share price. As a result, we have initiated a formal process to explore strategic alternatives for Peak to capture its significant growth opportunities and unlock that value for our shareholders. Importantly, each of these components, our new business platform, our profitable enforced block, and our capital-light fee-based strategies, represent a distinct and measurable source of value. Taken together, we believe a sum of the parts framework reveals meaningful value that is not yet fully reflected in F&G's current market valuation, and we remain focused on closing that gap. Next, turning to capital allocation. During the first quarter, F&G returned 67 million of capital to shareholders through 38 million of common and preferred dividends and $29 million to repurchase approximately 1.2 million shares of common stock at an average price of $24.14. The company's existing stock repurchase authorization permits aggregate repurchases of up to 50 million, of which approximately 3 million remained available as of March 31, 2026. Effective March 13, 2026, our Board of Directors authorized an additional new three-year share repurchase program under which F&G may repurchase up to $100 million of common stock. Our Board views repurchasing shares at current levels as a compelling use of capital. Despite the progress we have made to increase our outstanding float through the stock distribution at year-end, buying back shares at current prices reflects our confidence in the results we have delivered, and our conviction in the significant long-term opportunities ahead. Let me now turn the call over to Connor to provide further details on F&G's first quarter highlights.
Connor Parker: Thank you, Chris. This morning, I will provide some additional details of our earnings, asset growth, and other performance drivers, as well as our strong capital position. Starting with earnings, on a reported basis, Adjusted net earnings were 110 million or 82 cents per share in the first quarter. Alternative investment income was 44 million or 32 cents per share below management's long-term expected return for the quarter. Adjusted net earnings included an unfavorable significant item totaling 5 million or 3 cents per share from investment and other income true-up adjustments. As Chris mentioned, effective January 1st, 2026, our presentation of investment income for alternative investments does not include fixed income assets. Prior periods are presented on a comparable basis to reflect the new definition. We believe this updated definition more appropriately delineates between the fixed income portfolio and alternative investments, while also improving comparability to others in the industry. Importantly, this updated definition does not have any impact to adjusted net earnings on an as-reported basis. Please see page 42 in our spring investor presentation for further details. Overall, as compared to the prior year, adjusted net earnings reflect retained asset growth, growing fees from accretive flow reinsurance, steady owned distribution margin, and operating expense discipline driving scale benefit. First quarter results were in line with our expectation, and our core spread remained consistent with the fourth quarter of 2025. With regard to asset growth, we achieved record growth AUM of nearly $75 billion, up 11% over $67 billion for the first quarter of 2025. Retained AUM was $56 billion for the first quarter up 3% over $55 billion for the prior year quarter. The current period excludes a $1.8 billion in-force block reinsured with the sale of the FG Life Re legal entity effective March 1, 2026. F&G reported growth sales of $3.2 billion for the first quarter, up 10% over $2.9 billion for the first quarter of 2025. This includes core sales of $2 billion for the first quarter, up 11% over the first quarter of 2025. This reflects higher core retail indexed annuity and indexed universal life sales and pension risk transfer sales. This also includes $1.2 billion of opportunistic sales for the first quarter, up 9% over the first quarter of 2025. This reflects $1 billion of funding agreements in line with the prior year, and $200 million of multi-year guaranteed annuities, which we intentionally moderated to allocate capital to the highest return opportunities. F&G's net sales were $2.2 billion in the first quarter. This reflects flow reinsurance in line with capital targets for multi-year guaranteed annuities and fixed indexed annuities. The first quarter showcased the diversity of our new business engine, allowing us to flex across our products and channels to source the most attractive liabilities in the current environment to grow AUM. Next, turning to fee-based earnings, our fee income from accretive flow reinsurance was $16 million for the first quarter, as compared with $13 million in the first quarter of 2025. Our fee income from owned distribution margin contributed $9 million for the first quarter as compared with $7 million in the first quarter of 2025. Next, turning to scale benefit. As F&G grows, we are benefiting from increased scale as our ratio of operating expense to AUM before reinsurance decreased to 48 basis points at quarter end, benefiting from higher AUM and due in part to favorable timing of expenses. This compares with 50 basis points at year-end 2025 and 60 basis points at the end of 2024. As AUM grows and we continue to manage expenses, we expect the operating expense ratio to improve to approximately 45 basis points by year-end 2027 for a cumulative 15 basis point or 25% improvement over the three-year period. From a return perspective, our reported results include short-term fluctuations from alternative investment income. As reported, adjusted ROE excluding AOCI was 8.4% for the first quarter. As reported, adjusted ROA was 76 basis points for the quarter and 87 basis points on the last 12-month basis, which was in line with full year 2025. Taking into consideration management's long-term expected return for alternative investments and the unfavorable significant item would have resulted in 3.4% of additional ROE and 34 basis points of additional ROA for the quarter. Turning to our strong capital position, we remain committed to our long-term target of approximately 25% debt to capitalization, excluding AOCI, and expect that our balance sheet will naturally de-lever over time. We continue to target holding company cash and invested assets at two times interest coverage. Our annualized interest expense is approximately $165 million, or roughly a 7% blended yield on the $2.3 billion of total debt outstanding. We expect to maintain our estimated company action level risk-based capital, or RBC ratio, above our 400% target. Importantly, F&G maintains strong capitalization and financial flexibility. We conservatively manage to the most stringent capital requirements of our regulators and four rating agencies. As a reminder, F&G remains a U.S. domiciled company, We are a full U.S. taxpayer, and all new business is originated in our U.S. subsidiaries. Our majority shareholder is F&F, a U.S. domiciled business regulated by Florida, and is also a full U.S. taxpayer. To build on Chris's earlier comments, I'd like to provide some added perspective on capital allocation. Our business is built around a diversified and self-funding capital model designed to support growth and reward shareholders without relying on any single source. This is an important part of our story, and I want to take a moment to walk through both where our capital comes from and how we put it to work. We have multiple reliable sources of capital supporting our business. Our in-force generates approximately one billion from the existing book of business. We expect even stronger capital generation in the future as we rapidly move toward a more fee-based, higher margin, and less capital-intensive business model. Our reinsurance sidecar provides approximately $1 billion of on-demand third-party capital that we can access without diluting shareholders. Our strategic flow reinsurance partnerships add another layer of flexibility, allowing us to adjust retained sales levels and support cash from operations as we grow. Our statutory excess capital provides additional capital strength in line with our ratings. And as the balance sheet continues to de-lever, our available debt capacity will only grow over time. We deploy capital across top priorities. Starting with interest and dividends, we fund our 165 million of annual interest expense and are committed to our 135 million of annual common stock dividend that we have consistently increased over time as well as our $17 million of annual preferred stock dividend. We also invest for strategic growth. That means reinvesting in our core business to drive continued AUM expansion and selectively pursuing acquisitions to strengthen our own distribution strategy. And finally, as Chris discussed earlier, we launched opportunistic share repurchases during the first quarter and have over $100 million of authorization remaining at March 31st. Taken together, our capital allocation reflects the financial strength and flexibility we have built and our confidence in the future. To bring it all together, as I look ahead to the remainder of the year, our focus is clear. Grow our core revenues and earnings, expand ROE, and create long-term shareholder value. On the top line, we are focused on growing assets under management with an optimized sales mix that maximizes return on capital. For our core retail products, we expect indexed annuity and indexed universal life sales growth to track in line with the strong industry trends Chris outlined earlier. In pension risk transfer, the pipeline remains strong, and we expect annual sales between 1.5 to 2 billion. For our opportunistic products, we are pleased to have completed a 750 million funding agreement back note issuance in early January, when market conditions were particularly attractive, and we will continue to monitor that market closely. We expect multi-year guaranteed annuity sales to continue moderating given the current rate environment. Beyond AUM growth, we remain focused on three additional priorities. First, generating additional scale benefits as our business continues to grow. Second, expanding returns on equity excluding significant items. while maintaining our return on assets, excluding significant items, in a corridor around our current level. And third, continuing our evolution toward a more fee-based, higher margin, and less capital-intensive business model, a natural advantage of our position as one of the largest sellers of annuities and life insurance in the industry.
Moderator: This concludes our prepared remarks, and let me now turn the call back to our operator for questions.
Conference Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star and 1 on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star and 2 if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. Ladies and gentlemen, we will wait for a moment while we poll for questions. Our first question is from Wilma Burdis with Raymond James. Please state your question.
Wilma Burdis: Hey, good morning. Excited to be covering you guys. This is a bit of a housekeeping item, but do you consider 1Q26 EPS a good intermediate term run rate off which you can continue to grow? And should we largely expect EPS to grow along with AUM over time, given share repurchases are a relatively small part of the equation? Thanks.
Connor Parker: Yeah. Hey, Wilma. Yes, thank you for your coverage and your interest. I would say broadly speaking, if I think about near term, I'm just talking about the next few quarters here. But broadly speaking, I think that's true. If I break it down, no, we'll... If we get into maybe the core fixed income yield, it's probably down a few basis points for things that are actual rate-related and so on in the market. And we'll manage that core spread maintenance. There'll be maybe a tiny bit of a lag effect there. But we also saw some green shoots on the outside. So my view on the sort of fixed income or core spread is, timing aside, it'll be pretty close. Maybe it'll tick down a little bit. We'll see how surrenders will be in the industry. They're staying relatively close to where they have been, so that should probably be there or thereabouts. It could be a little bit lighter. We'll see. The core reinsurance on distributions should continue to move along nicely and grow up a little bit. The expense number, we're very focused on getting that full 25% reduction from where we started a little over a year ago. I would argue that's maybe a little too good this quarter. Some of that is timing. But all in all, I think, yeah, broadly speaking, this is around the range with the big unknown being how will the alt portfolio do. Right now, we've been assuming a longer-term return in this new definition with the LP and equity portfolio of 12% to 14%. We've been planning on a number below that for capital purposes, et cetera, just so that if that doesn't happen quite so soon, we're not in a hole with that. So, Hopefully that answers your question. I'm very happy to clarify any component of that you'd like me to.
Chris Blunt: And Wilma, this is Chris. The only thing I would add to what Connor said is, because I do think what you said is broadly true, obviously we see opportunity to expand ROE over time due to, I would say, own distribution as we continue to move down this capital light path and reinsure more assets. That obviously has a very positive and accretive impact So, yeah, I would say historically it would track AUM very tightly. It'll diverge, I would think, positively as we go forward because of those other two sources of fee-based income.
Wilma Burdis: Great. Thank you. That was helpful. Where do you guys see opportunities to take advantage on the asset side? Spreads have widened in some asset classes, but are you still kind of remaining conservative given spreads are still overall tight? Thanks.
Chris Blunt: Yeah, we have been. There are pockets. Mortgages, good example, particularly on the residential side, are still attractive on a return on capital basis. So that's an area. You have seen opportunities in some of the asset-backed lending area, but those are much more, I would say, opportunistic and idiosyncratic as opposed to something that you've got a steady flow pipeline into. But I think as a general rule, this feels like a good environment to keep a little dry powder and stay a bit conservative.
Connor Parker: And I would add, we do remain thoughtful and active in the portfolio, so we'll take advantages. Again, that's something that will lead to a higher yield, but it takes a little time. Obviously, before that, you get the full benefit of that through the portfolio. The other thing I would say we're constantly monitoring is how the capital charges might be changing on the margin for different asset classes and Because that's just a constant, I would say, capital pressure that you weigh up. So marginally, we'll do some rotating here and there to just help balance that factor as well.
Wilma Burdis: If I can sneak one more in. It seems to render charge income remains similar to last quarter's or recent quarters. Has the environment remained similar? And what are you seeing from policyholders in terms of surrender behavior? Thank you.
Chris Blunt: Yeah, I think there's a little bit of seasonality that we've seen. This is maybe the third year in a row where first quarter is a little weak because keep in mind the policies that get processed in the first quarter is activity from the fourth quarter. So you get into the holidays. Not most clients' preference to spend their holidays with their insurance agent talking about moving policies. So far it's followed as a fairly similar pattern. Then you get into the nuances of you know, which policies are being surrendered early, what's the surrender charge income, but yeah, I would say pretty consistent.
Connor Parker: Yeah, just mathematically from sort of a modeling perspective, it is actually, it's remarkably consistent perhaps when you compare this quarter with both last quarter and the first quarter of last year. Yeah, I would, I don't expect it to necessarily go up from here. I think it's possible that that it could move down, fewer surrenders in the industry. For what it's worth, April, I would say, has been a consistent month as well. So it hasn't shifted. I might be mildly surprised by that, but not much.
Conference Operator: Okay, thank you. Our next question comes from Mark Hughes with Troost Securities. Please state your question.
Mark Hughes: Yeah, thank you. Good morning. Morning, Mark. Yeah, just following up on Wilma's question, when we look at the adjusted ROA, you know, the 80 bps in the quarter, obviously substantially impacted by the return on the alts. Was your suggestion there that kind of the run rate, the starting point on a go-forward basis ought to be the 80 bps? And then over time, perhaps the ALTS performance, as it matures, you would see improvement. But for the near term, kind of stick with the 80 basis points. Is that fair?
Connor Parker: Yeah, I think if I look at the yield in the quarter, and it ticked on about 16 basis points. We had about 45. Four of that roughly being call it market related changes and things like sofas and floating assets, et cetera. A couple of it is because we had assets that were tied to the Bermuda entity that we don't have anymore. So I'd call that kind of a permanent difference as well. But about 10 of it is largely timing related. It's... It was a combination of fewer preferred stock elements coming in in the quarter, just fewer days, if you will, in the quarter. We had a little bit maybe of, I would say, investment expense cleanup in the quarter as well. So maybe a third, roughly, of the decline we saw in the quarter will likely be permanent, and the other two-thirds likely kind of one time for not.
Mark Hughes: Yeah, and there you're talking about sequentially, is that? Yes. The 87 to 76? Okay. Yes. And then is there – when we think about the return on the ALTS portfolio, that's dampening your adjusted ROE kind of 8%, 8% to 9% here lately. Is that – something that needs to be factored in in terms of the product pricing? If the ALTS portfolio is uncertain, I know you're going to be shifting more fee income in more of a capitalized model, and that'll help returns, but is there anything in terms of the pricing that is relevant? And maybe I'll ask in the context of, because I think this is a the investment in alts is a competitive dynamic. Do you think others are maybe too dependent on better alts performance? Just trying to think through this, how it interacts with ROE and ROA.
Chris Blunt: Yeah, I would say the pricing dynamic is a lot more complicated, right, because it depends on duration of the liability. We're looking at this we're not repricing daily, but we're repricing frequently and we're going through the calculations of exactly where we are on a real-time basis. So I think in terms of the long-term assumption that we guided to, you know, the purpose of it is literally to just try to help you all think about how to forecast our earnings going forward. And the reason we give a range is we're just in an environment where you could make a compelling argument for the lower end of the range. You can make a compelling argument for the higher end of the range. As Connor said, most importantly, from a capital perspective, we take a very pessimistic view because you don't want to get that one wrong. So there's probably more upside than downside from a capital perspective. And then on a pricing basis, yeah, we're modeling all real-time inputs. And it's done not just on a deterministic basis, but on a stochastic basis. If there are various environments, what's the range of returns? is the lower end of that band acceptable to us? So I know that was a complicated answer. In terms of us versus competition, I don't know that we're an outlier in either direction. I think most of the folks in our space are in and around the 5% or 6% alts allocation within their portfolios. I think everybody tries to look at it long term. Now, there could be big mixed differences if you have If you're skewed towards credit, we tend to be skewed towards PE and real estate. And within real estate, you've got the classic Blackstone themes of infrastructure, multifamily housing, as opposed to office. So I realize, again, long-term answer, hopefully that got to some of what you're looking for.
Mark Hughes: And then you're going through a process to... look at your alternatives it was that for the owned distribution that you're talking about the 80 million in EBITDA could you talk a little bit more about that um what you might be looking to do how that would uh to the extent that you have some alternatives how would that impact the go forward business model yeah absolutely thanks for for bringing that up I would say
Chris Blunt: The good news is this is driven by, we realize we're onto something really substantial here. So what started as trying to help a handful of long-term distribution clients who were looking for growth capital and wanting an alternative to the PE model has become a real business and a real business that's growing nicely. We really like the platforms that we own. We see opportunities to acquire more platforms. And really the exercise we're going through now is Where is the best optimal place to hold this business? Is it underneath the carrier? Would it be beneficial to deconsolidate it from FG? What's the best way to fund it? So that's the exercise that we're going through. Everything is technically on the table. I would say it's pretty unlikely that we would sell the whole business at this juncture, just given where we are on the inflection curve for the business. But it's something that we're... we're super excited about.
Mark Hughes: And so presumably you'd keep the same distribution relationships, your own distribution, your own sales on a go-forward basis would not be influenced by that. Yeah, correct. Yeah, correct.
Chris Blunt: Because keep in mind, this was never about forcing market share because it is independent distribution. That label has meaning. You can't force. You have to earn it, and they're separate teams. So, yeah, we don't see that impacting the deep relationships that we have today.
Conference Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Alex Scott with Barclays. Please state your question.
Alex Scott: Hey, good morning. Uh, follow up on the conversation you're just having there on the IMO and the potential, um, you know, would you expect that that would, you know, raise some amount of capital that the hold co has available for deployment, uh, whether, you know, I guess whether it's putting it down into the operating companies or selling it to a third party or deconsolidating, I mean, will that generate cash for the hold co if you pursue one of those avenues and, If so, what would you look to do in terms of deployment?
Connor Parker: Yeah. Hey, Alex. It's Connor. The simple answer is yes. Obviously, it depends a little bit on how exactly we do it, but in the scenario where someone joins us in that ownership of Peak and brings some capital in, one of the things I would mention or highlight would be right now the debt all of our debt is at the whole code, not at the peak level. So I would expect some element of the proceeds we would likely use to pay down some debt because perhaps going forward, like right now, the dividends that we earn from the peak entities obviously service that debt coming through. So we would want to balance that. But outside of that, yes, we would have capital available to... you know, for call it for general business purposes or continue to grow AUM, et cetera.
Alex Scott: But I guess, are you thinking of it from the standpoint of this would help you fund growth down in the OPCO or is this a, cause you, cause you mentioned some of the parts and like that sort of suggests that you're frustrated with the, some of the parts discount and that, that would cause me to believe maybe you'd take proceeds and buy back stock, but you know, what, which would you favor?
Chris Blunt: Yeah, Alex, this is Chris. I would say, I mean, obviously, a little premature. It's not that we haven't thought about this question. But, yeah, I don't think it would be to then convert that capital into additional spread earnings since our goal is to grow the fee portion of the earnings. And so, yeah, once it's there, it's like any other holdco cash. All the various options are on the table of dividends, share buybacks, you know, other things that we could do with that capital. Hopefully that helps.
Alex Scott: Yeah, that is helpful.
Chris Blunt: And sorry, the only other thing I would squeeze in is there is a very tangible benefit of deconsolidating, which is obviously you would pick up some leverage capacity on the business itself that we cannot do today. So you would pick up a pretty attractive funding source to do more deals if, in fact, you deconsolidated from FG.
Connor Parker: Yeah, and I might add, I mean, our expectation would be having someone alongside us to continue. There's, as Chris said, there's great opportunity for continued momentum and growth in the entities as well. We would very much expect to continue to participate in that going forward, so we'd have that advantage as well of continuing, perhaps accelerating the growth of the peak entities alongside a partner.
Alex Scott: Got it. Okay. Next one I had for you is on the investment portfolio. I really appreciate, you know, enhanced disclosure, of course. You know, one thing I realized though, you know, you guys shifted some AUM out of what we were calling, you know, alternative investments. The private origination of, fixed income that you guys kind of disclosed more on in the presentation this quarter. It looked like, I think it was still around the same level at 11 billion from like the last time you talked about it. So, you know, where, where is this AUM that I guess is no longer considered alternatives, more fixed income, like, like does that have private credit like features? Like I would have guessed that that would have been considered private credit and didn't, didn't see anything specifically on that. So I was hoping maybe you could dimension that for us. a bit too, so we could just understand that alongside the private origination that you've got in the deck here.
Chris Blunt: Yeah, so maybe do a reverse order. If you say what's in, what we actually consider alternatives, because part of what we found is peers were defining it differently. And so, you know, we look like an outlier when we knew that we were not in terms of the size of quote unquote alts, but of the 4 billion sitting in all, I think it's about 3 billion in traditional LPs. That's overwhelmingly private equity, private equity real estate with the themes, the classic Blackstone themes that we've talked about. There's a billion that says other equity interests. It's not exclusively, but the bulk of that is, what would you say, credit residuals. So equity tranches, but on the credit side. So what people think of as You know, the longer term, higher returning, but therefore more volatile. That's why that sits there. The reason we move the credit over is those properties are going to look very, very similar to, you know, a high quality CLO tranche or, you know, any other investment grade piece of paper. So, again, it was really a bucketing thing. I think we were defining it for a while based on where it sat. on the schedule as opposed to what are the underlying characteristics will look like. So hopefully that, that helps. And yeah, I mean, on the disclosure side, we feel like we're, you know, we've been through all of our peers. We, we, we feel like we're, we're giving, uh, as much, if not more disclosure than anybody, because we feel good about the portfolio. And you can see that in the credit losses, upgrades versus downgrades, percentage of first lien LTVs, you just across the board. So I'm not sure, um, What more we can do to calm some concerns?
Alex Scott: Well, just to be clear, so the CLO-like assets that you moved out of the definition of a non-fixed income alternative, that is or isn't in the $11 billion that you gave more disclosure on? And if it's not, could you just help us think through that piece of it a little more? Like, what's the size of it even? I mean, I just want to understand it a little better.
Chris Blunt: Oh, sure. Yeah. So again, if you, if you go back to what used to be 11 billion and we now define as four, the remaining seven is, is largely that. It is, it is, you know, you know, you know, investment grade, you know, tranches of fixed income coupon clipping securities. So yeah, it would look a lot like CLO or CMBS type structure.
Alex Scott: And that's not in the $11 billion that you've got in your slides? Or it is?
Moderator: It is.
Alex Scott: Oh, it is in that $11 billion. Yeah. Okay. Got it. All right. That was the piece I was missing. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, I got you.
Connor Parker: And I think Chris carved out that, hey, there's $18 billion of, you know, kind of core fixed income, $11 of origination, $11 of structure, $7 of mortgage loans, and now $4 of all. So all of that should add up to the whole portfolio.
Alex Scott: Got it. All right. That's all clear now. Thank you. Just on sticking with this, of that $11 billion, can you talk about software? Because I know you mentioned 5% for the broad portfolio. Can you tell us about just the private origination? Because I think that's sort of the area of software people are a little more concerned about. Do you know what that number is, or just as a percentage of private origination?
Chris Blunt: Yeah, I'll have to confirm this, but I want to say it is about 20%. And then within that, and the reason we've given the, you know, kind of like the piece that's at risk, you know, and I know because you've written on this, I know you get it. You know, software comes in so many different flavors. So I would say the vast, vast majority of this, we do not think is at high risk of AI disruption, particularly in the near term. Because keep in mind, a lot of these loans are pretty short duration. I mean, these are like two, three year These are not 20-year loans to these companies. But, yeah, I think based on what we've seen from some of our competitors, I don't know that we're necessarily an outlier in terms of software exposure.
Alex Scott: Got it. Okay. That's helpful. Maybe one last one if you're entertained on the investments. You know, a lot of peers are defining it in different ways. So, like, some peers are including, like, 144-year private placements and I'm sort of looking at it both ways. So I just wanted to see if you could opine on that piece of it. Like how much 144A private placement do you have? We can obviously see in the Schedule D disclosures, but I know there's funds without consideration. So I just wanted to check if you had that number handy.
Chris Blunt: I do not, but we can certainly dig that out and follow up for you.
Alex Scott: Okay. All right. That's it for me. Thanks.
Chris Blunt: Great. Thank you.
Conference Operator: And this will conclude our question and answer session. I will now turn the conference back over to the CEO, Chris Blunt, for closing remarks.
Chris Blunt: Thanks again, everyone, for joining us this morning. We delivered a solid start to 2026 with record gross AUM, disciplined capital allocation with an increased capital return to shareholders, and a high-quality investment portfolio that continues to perform well. We continue to execute on our strategy toward a more fee-based, higher margin, and less capital-intensive business model. Underpinned by our diversified new business engine and the structural tailwind of the peak 65 retirement wave, we remain confident in our ability to grow AUM and expand return on equity. We appreciate your continued interest in F&G as we remain focused on delivering long-term shareholder value, and we look forward to updating you on our second quarter earnings call.
Conference Operator: Thank you for attending today's presentation and the conference call has concluded. You may now disconnect.
