Aneet Deshpande

And you have to ask yourself the question, why am I seeing that at co-investment opportunity, obviously.

But for us, we've seen more and more of our, I would say, our higher conviction GPs that we are currently invested with bring us an increasing number of co-invest ideas.

I don't know that either one of them bothered me, to be completely honest with you.

Whenever we underwrite, we always think about the world on a net of fee basis, net of total fee basis.

And so we have underwritten expectations that we expect out of strategies.

One of the reasons why we re-up with managers is because they've hit those buggies, generally speaking.

And so we like to stick with proving managers that we've invested with.

But I think for your average manager,

RIA or indiscriminate investor that doesn't know how to measure what success may look like on an after-fee basis, after-tax too, for that matter, simply optimizing for lower fee on the front end is rationale to go after that investment.

So I think, yes, it's good, but it's also, but be careful.

And perhaps people are more sensitive to it now because, you know,

investment periods are longer, hold periods are longer, fund ages are longer, and there's a lot of different reasons to start looking at the compounding effect of that math.

But I do, you know, again, I'm not apologizing for it, but I think a lot of that is being also used to drive dollars into

the evergreen space because of the natural immediate compounding that they allege the benefit you get versus, say, a traditional drawdown structure.

So it's hard to draw the similarities.

It's hard to draw the parallels.

And there's certainly nuances there.

But fees are a problem across the private market industry.

And evergreen will do its job, I think, to drive more competitive fees across the industry.

In ordinary times, it's like for like assets.