You think of yourselves as Silicon Valley style disruptors in this world of alternative
investments. And I find that intriguing. I know what disruption looks like in Silicon Valley. It's the technology that replaced
my rotary dial phone the one I had as a kid with a smartphone that I can now put in my pocket. What does disruption look like
in private credit or GP stakes. So you know we we perhaps fancy ourselves a bit like Silicon Valley but really it's that we've
modeled our business after Silicon Valley which is to say those disruptors. What did they really do. What they did as they
identified a large market that wasn't being fully or properly served said here I'm going to provide a superior solution. We
manage primarily permanent capital. Ninety seven percent of our revenue comes from permanent capital vehicles. So have an
entirely different offering to the users of capital which is we can provide different kinds of duration and different structures
from anybody else. And so we said there is a chance to be that disruptor. And then we purposely built a business model that
looked a whole lot more like a tech company than financial services. We didn't start and say you know our base model is a
bank. How do we become a better bank. We started by saying here's a necessary service. And if we can do a great job
delivering that product we can earn really attractive risk adjusted returns. And our business attributes and this is I
think a really important point for the point of view. Blue Owl or our shareholders. We look a whole lot like a SAS business and
people don't normally map technology or Silicon Valley to Wall Street. But we've done this pretty consciously. Yeah. And our
businesses are set up to deliver to our end user and our clients a certain set of services. But if you held our income statement
against any other SAS company you'd be surprised how similar they are. High growth recurring revenue high margin. Hard to
tell the difference. Why is it so much better. And that's what I did. Better to have permanent capital as opposed to the
traditional kind of fund than an alternative asset manager. Whether it be a private equity firm or private credit provider
would raise. Well every quarter you hear the large asset managers the alternative managers report earnings. They talk
about net a U.N. growth. That's because they brought in a lot of assets but a lot of them rolled off. And so to grow you have to
take two steps forward and one step back. And that's the problem with not having permanent capital. What we have is more of a
layer cake. We raise a fund. It stays in place permanently. We raise another fund. You're just adding to another layer in the
cake and it makes growth a lot easier. You're not out there trying to replace or fill a hole from assets that are rolling
off is the way we are paid is to manage for the long term. The returns with a current income component you don't wait five
seven 10 years to find out how you're doing with us every single quarter. We're making distributions in nearly every product we
manage so well. There's GOP solutions or direct lending. They're predicated on capital stability preservation predictability and
current income. So you're getting paid every quarter as we manage that capital for you. And on the products that do charge
a carried interest we did something that's pretty novel. We left the carried interest in the hands of the people that come into
work each day. So it's not part of our public company. It's part of the remuneration of our employees. And they love that it
provides great incentives. But the public markets really can't get their head around incentive fees. It's really hard to get
your head around a carried interest that can be a billion dollar positive one quarter and a billion dollars negative the other.
And so our business model for our public shareholders was created uniquely to provide an easily understandable income
statement. You're not going to see big whips not negative revenue. How do you have negative revenue. That's what happens
when a carried interest unwinds. And that gave public shareholders fits for years. And the likes of Steve Schwarzman
and others just bemoaned that the lack of understanding of what's a really valuable thing carried interest really aligning
for the employee but really hard for a public shareholder to understand.