Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Power Corporation Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2024 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all lines are in listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Analysts who wish to join the question queue may press star, then one at any point throughout the call.
If anyone has any difficulties hearing the conference, please press star, then zero for operator assistance at any time. I would like to remind everyone that this call is being recorded on Thursday, March 20th, 2025. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Jeffrey Orr, President and Chief Executive Officer of Power Corporation of Canada. Please go ahead.
Thank you, Operator. Welcome, everyone. Thanks for joining us for our Q4 2024 results. It's our first call of 2025, and on the cover page, you'll notice our logo has got a little change to it. We're actually celebrating the 100th anniversary of Power Corporation in 2025, and so fun to be here for that. We'll move through with the presentation. You've got over pages two and three, standard cautionary information or disclaimer, I should say, regarding forward-looking information and non-GAAP measures.
Page four, joined here with Jake Lawrence for today's call, and we'll both be sharing the presentation as well as answering questions. With that, I'm going to move right along to page six, which is the opening page. Thank you. Just really pleased about another strong quarter at Power and for the group, and a strong year right across the year with very strong results. Really strong earnings, double-digit earnings growth at each of Great-West Lifeco and IGM from a quarterly basis and on a yearly basis were the key drivers on our earnings.
Of course, those are the main contributors to our earnings. We had good growth in net asset value across the quarter and into the first part of 2025, particularly with the release of Great-West Lifeco's earnings in early February. That really drove performance at Lifeco and our NAV, so continued strong performance in the first quarter based on the 2024 results.
Good development, continued development at our alternative asset management platforms, and we announced a 9% dividend growth funded really through the strong 10% dividend growth that came through Great-West Lifeco. Really a strong quarter. Looking forward to talking about developments, but I'm going to pass it over to Jake here to walk through the results themselves. Jake.
Great. Thanks, Jeff, and good morning, everyone joining us today. I'm going to start on slide number seven. Before I get into a bit more detail on the high-level numbers Jeff just shared, I just want to provide some color on a definitional change that we made to our reporting this quarter. This quarter, we expanded the definition of adjusted net earnings to apply it to GBL, our standalone businesses, and all of our investing activities as well.
We also modified the definition to capture market-related remeasurements that occur that have been creating some accounting volatility in our numbers. We believe this new definition is going to better reflect the ongoing operating performance of the businesses. With that, I'm going to turn to some of the numbers reporting on this basis. In Q4, our adjusted net earnings from continuing operations were 829 million.
That's up a very strong 20% compared to the same quarter last year. On a per-share basis, it's slightly higher with $1.28 or up 21% compared to Q4 2023. As Jeff noted, the results really reflect strong performances coming from our main earnings drivers, which are Great-West Lifeco and IGM Financial, both of whom, again, reported the double-digit earnings growth that Jeff alluded to. Our Q4 net earnings also include a gain on sale from our investment in PEEK, and that's partially offset by some items that I'm going to detail in a moment.
The NAV story, Jeff just gave a picture on, so $ 60.44 at the end of the quarter, and that was up 4% in the quarter versus Q3, where we really saw a good move, as Jeff noted, as we moved through the end of the quarter and where we find ourselves today after reporting Q4 results from Great-West Lifeco and IGM earlier in February. We're up an additional 8% now to 65.10 on a NAV basis.
Another factor contributing to the NAV, I'd say both in Q4 and throughout the year, was our buyback activity. We bought in excess of 400 million shares during the year, in excess of 120 million during the quarter, and it's obviously reduced the share count and added about $ 0.70 to the adjusted NAV year over year.
As Jeff noted, a good increase in the dividend now at $0.6125 per share, that 9% increase putting us at about a 5% yield at last night's close. Turning to slide eight to provide a bit more of a breakdown on our earnings, Great-West delivered those strong quarterly base earnings we talked about. It exceeded 1.1 billion, and that's up 15% year over year.
We did see good growth across all four segments at Great-West, and it marks the sixth consecutive quarter of base earnings growth at the company, which is quite impressive. It's the third consecutive quarter where Great-West has reported earnings in excess of $1 billion.
I think that really reflects some of the actions in recent years taken by Great-West to support and accelerate its growth strategies, particularly in the US, which is now the largest segment, but also in Canada. As a result of its earnings momentum and capital position, we did see Great-West announce a 10% dividend increase in the quarter. In addition to that, they have also announced intentions to repurchase up to 500 million shares through their NCIB.
IGM also reported strong year-over-year quarterly earnings growth. Our share of their earnings was up 23%. We had increased contributions from their two core businesses, IG Wealth and Mackenzie, as they both reported record quarter-end assets. IGM's performance was also augmented by its four strategic investments, all of whom delivered record-high client assets, including significant inflows across all of their businesses.
GBL's contribution to Power's adjusted net earnings did decline year over year, as GBL's share of losses from the portfolio companies it consolidates did increase on an adjusted basis. This was partially offset by fair value gains on some investment funds that are accounted through at fair value in the P&L. Moving to the alternative investment platforms, which Jeff referred to, they do continue to develop. Sagard reported fee-related earnings of 5 million and fair value increases on its investments in private equity and venture capital funds.
Power Sustainable's results were comprised of fee-related losses consistent with the prior year and Power's share of losses on its consolidated energy assets. Sagard and Power Sustainable continued to develop their platforms in 2024. They launched new products, they acquired some stakes in GPs, and they partnered with capital allocators in a year that was marked by headwinds for alternative asset manager fundraising.
In Q4, the contribution from our standalone businesses to adjusted earnings does consist of our share of LMPG's losses, and there are some other items related to standalone businesses that are reflected in the adjustment segment. These adjustments do include the gain on sale of our investment in PEEK, which was 279 million. We did write down our investment in Leon's to Nil. That reflects the company entering CCAA protection.
We had a non-cash impairment charge of 87 million at LMPG as the company continued to face an uncertain business and macroeconomic environment. Overall, we are pleased with a strong quarter in Q4, as well as strong 2024 results. We believe it's a reflection of the meaningful changes that have been undertaken in our group of businesses and reinforces the future growth potential in our companies.
Moving quickly to the NAV on slide nine, we do break down that year-end December 31 value. As we noted, growth in NAV was driven by strong share price performance at both Great-West and IGM. The alternative asset platforms also continued with some NAV growth in the quarter. Seed capital investments were made to support new strategies, and we also had some fair value increases in private equity, venture capital, and energy assets that led to roughly a 300 million increase.
The decrease in NAV for our standalone businesses was driven by the monetization of PEEK. That's obviously moved over into a cash balance on our balance sheet, as well as the non-cash impairment LMPG charge I mentioned and the write-off of Leon's to Nil. Getting back to our cash balance, we sit at year-end at 1.6 billion. That's quite a strong position.
That was partially offset in the quarter by 120 million in buybacks I referred to as we continue to increase efforts to return capital to shareholders. Of the 1.6 billion, we consider 1.3 to be available after factoring in dividends declared by Power and IGM, but not yet paid or received. With that review of financials, I'll turn it back over to Jeff to go into a bit more detail.
Okay, great. Thank you. I'm going to move along to page 10 and just a few comments on Great-West Lifeco. Jake has already covered the earnings, so I won't go there. I will also just make a few points. However, in addition to earnings, there's been a steady increase in the return on equity at Great-West Lifeco. Over 2024, they achieved 18% ROE. I'm going to show another slide in a second.
I'll show the progression of that. Very strong cash generation across the businesses of Great-West Lifeco, which is something that they are endeavoring to explain more clearly to the market, the cash generation. At the end of the quarter, they had $ 2 billion up at the Lifeco level, which is a strong increase in cash and maintained very strong capital ratios at the regulated entity level.
That was part of the earnings drove the dividend increase, but also the announcement of buybacks and the increased buybacks is also a reflection of the very strong capital and cash generation capability at LifeCo. Just a bit of page 11, just a bit of a historic perspective. Great-West has obviously really repositioned its business over the last five years. You see it.
We can look at either side, but if you go on the left side, base earnings over the last five years, you really see a rebalancing of the portfolio. The strong one, obviously, is the emergence of the US with the growth of Empower, both organically and through acquisitions. It has got a very balanced portfolio across geographies and business line. I would say also by currency.
If you look at this, the Canada earnings are obviously Canadian dollars, US is US dollars, Europe is a mix of sterling and euros, and then Capital and Risk Solutions, which is the reinsurance business, is multi-currency, but it's all US dollars, a little bit of Canadian dollars. It's a mix in there. You have got diversification by geography, by business line, and by currency across Great-West Lifeco.
Another way of looking at Great-West is to go back and say, you know, in early 2021, just about four years ago, they came out with medium-term objectives on earnings per share, ROE, and dividend payout ratio. You see what they have done in the four years since they made those announcements. They told the market they thought they could grow base EPS by 8%-10%. They actually delivered 12% compounded over that period.
Their ROE at the time was 13. I mentioned earlier they hit 18 in 2024. Now, about half of that increase is from the switch from IFRS 4 to IFRS 17, but the other half is actually improvement in capital efficiency and higher earnings. We were at a Great-West was at a payout ratio that was running around the highs. It happened to be 61 in 2020, but it was up around the high 60s.
They announced they were going to move that to a target range of 45-55. Over that period, they basically have moved the payout ratio, notwithstanding the growth in dividends, down to right in the middle of that range. Really good performance and coming out and saying what they're going to do and then delivering. Great-West Life does have an investor day.
I think it's April 2nd, right, Jake?
Yep.
Looking forward to hearing that. If you have an interest in Power and in Great-West, that's something I'd encourage you to tune into. Moving forward on page 13, a couple of comments on IGM. As we mentioned, really strong growth in the two core businesses, IG Wealth within the wealth management and Mackenzie within the asset management businesses, driven by strong growth in AUM and AUA.
Earnings in the quarter-over-quarter were up by 22%. Net adjusted earnings per share and then adjusted earnings up about 11.5% on an EPS basis. I think it's up 12% year over year. That's been in an environment where really for the last two, three years, the Canadian individual market, where the bulk of both IG Wealth and Mackenzie have their assets, has been in outflows.
Typically in inflows, about 2% is what we figure is the right number. With inflation hitting, mortgage rates going up, interest rates pulling money into deposits away from funds, the industry has been in outflows. By the end of the year, it started to come back to just about even. There are some improving conditions there, which is good. My point is that Mackenzie or IG Wealth have not benefited from organic growth over the last few years.
It has been what they have been doing to the businesses, plus growth in market, obviously, has been a key driver. Who knows what is going forward? There is a little bit of risk out there in the world. We were getting quite optimistic about the flows coming in, but it is difficult to make predictions at this point, given all that is happening around the world that I am sure you are all aware of.
Moving to 14, the strategic investments don't drive a lot of earnings, but they're performing really well. Wealthsimple in the upper left-hand corner, you see the year-over-year growth in AUA of over 100%, really knocking the cover off the ball. In the fourth quarter, they grew it by $12 billion. Terrific performance at Wealthsimple. Upper right-hand side, Rockefeller, 24% growth in client assets as both organic market as well as continuing to build their team of advisors.
Really strong growth at Rockefeller. Down in the lower left, China AMC. There are headwinds in China in that the regulator mandated reductions in fees, but China AMC has offset that by very strong growth in assets and AUM. That's both from the industry having good flows, but they're also gaining share. They're the number two market player.
They have offset the decrease in fees with growth in assets. Northleaf, we talk about what a difficult environment it is in alt management land for raising capital. If you are not one of the very, very large players, $4.9 billion in 2024 in new commitments and very strong growth in AUM at Northleaf. The whole portfolio there is performing really well. Page 15, just to remind everyone that in December of 2023, IGM also came out with five-year EPS growth targets of 9% over the next five years.
Obviously, in the short term, IGM bumps up and down a little bit with market levels. They are much more sensitive than Great-West Lifeco. Over a five-year period, they are very confident that they can, under normal market conditions, create 9% earnings growth with the base businesses, the core businesses driving 7%, and the strategic investments driving 15%.
That gives you your 9%. By the way, they delivered a 12% earnings growth in EPS in the first year after hitting their targets. Comment on GBL then, moving to page 16. A lot of action going on at GBL. They continue to dispose of public assets. They sold a big chunk of Adidas in 2024. You see EUR 1.7 billion. They sold EUR 800 million, I think is the way to say it, in March of 2025 of SGS.
The money that goes out of their selling of the public portfolios is basically half is going into return to shareholders and half is being invested in private assets. They continue to aggressively pursue the strategy. Of importance, in the upper right-hand corner, they did an investor day, strategy update day in November of 2024.
Our three main Opcos, all three now have gone public with goals for what they're trying to achieve with their shareholders. They have announced they believe, over the medium term, they can create double-digit total shareholder returns. That's much higher than what they've done in the last few years for those of you who have followed.
They've had some headwinds, but they are committed to increasing value for shareholders, creating TSRs and returning cash all at the same time. You saw, of course, the last quarter, they increased their dividends by 80% for the dividend that will be paid in 2025. That's part of that strategy of returning cash to shareholders. Page 17, asset management activities. Just a bit of a five-year view here.
We said that we would be growing the assets under management of our platforms and be using capital other than Power Corporation's. We'll recycle our capital. You see the growth over the five years. You see in the dark blue there the Power Corporation capital. The 2.1 billion- 2.7 billion is not because of a lot of net investment. It's actually growth in value. You see they continue to grow their businesses.
They're not at the point where they're creating profitable contributions to us per se at the asset management asset manager level, which is different from saying we're not creating value there, but they're not creating earnings. We have, however, on the seed capital, been creating value and also been creating cash, which we have been able to use for different activities.
I will then turn to page 18 o n that 2.7 billion, you see in total, we think over time that based on the target IRRs, we should be able to create 10%+ across that portfolio, which again is a source of value creation and ultimately cash for Power Corporation. Sagard did enter into, on page 19, just announced this week or over the past week, that GBL is going to acquire a 5% minority interest in the alt manager at the GP level as part of an ongoing partnership.
They have participated in Sagard funds in the past, and they committed EUR 250 million as part of that over the next five years to Sagard's products. That just continues Sagard's strategy of not only fundraising. I think they did 2.7 billion in 2024, but of entering into partnerships with Lunate, or formerly Abu Dhabi Investment.
ADQ.
Thank you. Lunate, Bank of Montreal, Canada Life, and now GBL are all partners and participating in funding strategies. It is a multifaceted strategy that Sagard is using to get to scale and grow their business. I am not sure I have much to add on page 20. I think, Jake, you covered this well. I think you mentioned on Peak that although the Peak sale was in the market prior to Q4, the announcement of it, it closed in Q4.
We did receive $ 468 million in the quarter. We had a gain of $ 280 million or a 3X multiple. That has been a good experience for the group. I think you addressed the Leon's and the Lumenpulse. I am going to turn to returning capital to shareholders. Power did return 2 billion in 2024 between our dividends and the buyback activity.
Got lots of room for further buybacks, and that's very much part of our playbook. We've got cash of 1.6 billion. When you net out our dividends payable, we got 1.3 billion of available cash. That gives us lots of room to continue buybacks. As I mentioned, we got lots of other sources to continue that as a core part of our strategy to add a point or two to our return that we get from our underlying investments.
We think that this is an additional driver of value. I'm going to make a couple of comments and then turn to a few other elements on buybacks on page 22, a five-year view. This is part of the source of our cash. Even though if you look at the non-Great-West Lifeco, IGM, GBL portfolio, the alt portfolio, the seed capital of standalone businesses, when you look at the entire portfolio over five years, you do not see a lot of change in the value that we have there.
That belies the fact that there has been massive activity. It is not the same value that it was five years ago. Here is one illustration. We actually sold $3.6 billion of investments out of that portfolio over the five years. You see it on the left-hand side. While it is always difficult to trace cash because cash is fungible, we did do 1.8 billion of buybacks over that period. We invested 1.4 billion in seed capital underpinning Sagard and Power Sustainable.
We also, as part of the transaction, Great-West Lifeco invested 553 million in Great-West Lifeco shares back at the time we sold China AMC to IGM. Lots going on. The portfolio has kind of stayed pretty static as a percentage of the, or in terms of dollar values, I should say, not exactly. Lots of activity going underneath over the last five years.
I'm going to make a few comments to close here with a bit of perspective and then a little bit of looking towards the future. The strategy on page 23, it was announced as part of the reorganization five years ago. We're still on that strategy. It's working. We're pleased with it. We are not changing that right now. We're driving forward on it.
One of the elements, page 24, that we talked about that we were hopeful that it could be a driver of value is an asset value discount. It has averaged 24% since the reorg, which was lower than the double discount between Power Corporation and Power Financial of 34% that was in the period up to the end of 2018. It's been up and down, but it's still around 24%. Is that an opportunity? I think it's an opportunity. I believe it is.
It either comes down or we, but in the meantime, we're continuing to take advantage of it. If that's where it is, we'll continue to try and evolve our portfolio and narrow it because we think it should be narrower. In the meantime, we're selling and liquidating assets, and we're buying shares back at a 24% discount.
We're taking advantage of it to increase our earnings per share, our dividends per share, and our net asset value per share. Let's look at what's happened on page 25 through different time lenses on the returns that Power has created. Go back on the right-hand side here to 31 December , 2019. That was about two, three weeks after the reorg was announced. We've delivered 14% compounded total shareholder returns to shareholders.
I think you add a little bit if you went back to the date of the reorg. I think you're somewhere closer to 15% if you go back. You have to be careful. At any given period, you have to be a little careful with their endpoint and start point and endpoint sensitive. Like the last five years is 25%. That's an overstated number. That was the start point. There was a month after COVID hit.
I don't think we're expecting to create 26% returns going forward. 14%, that's probably a reasonable expectation of what we think that we can create without any reevaluation of our underlying subs or the discount moving. I'm going to get to that in a second. We have, importantly, through most measures, you're going to look at beating our core benchmarks, the TSX Financials, which is a mix of different companies.
We've done well relative to the banks over the period and the overall benchmarks. We're pleased with that. Let me turn to page 26 and then try and I'll end on this page and just give you a few thoughts on how we look at the future and value creation. I already mentioned we're not changing the strategy.
I mentioned that over the last five years, depending on the end date, start date, we've created kind of mid-teens returns to shareholders through growth in NAV and dividend yield without the discount having moved and without Great-West Lifeco and IGM having changed their multiples. Their multiples were, if I go back five years, Great-West and IGM on a forward-looking basis based on street estimates, were in the tens on their PE multiple.
If we look at yesterday's close based on the street estimates, they're trading in the mid-teens. There's been no change in the valuation of Great-West Lifeco and IGM on a multiple basis. There's been no change on the valuation of Power on an NAV discount basis, but we've created 14% returns. That is kind of interesting in that it hasn't been through valuation.
It's been through growth and earnings and growth and value. As we look forward, I would look at it the following way, and I'm on page 26 here. Great-West Lifeco and IGM are 83% of our gross asset value. They're obviously the overwhelming majority of our earnings because that's the way they're based. They have each got targeted EPS growth in their guidance that centers on 9%.
In Great-West Lifeco's case, they've had four years of experience where they've exceeded that. IGM's got one year where they've exceeded that. If you assume for the moment they hit that over a three- to five-year period, which I believe they're confident in, but again, that's not a forecast. There's lots of risk out there. It depends on normal markets. Let's just assume for the moment they continue to hit that.
They've also provided yield on top of that of 4.7% at Great-West based on yesterday's close. Of course, Great-West has been increasing their dividend every year. If you thought about the next three, four, five years, you might expect if earnings grow, and you would expect, given they've set a payout ratio of 50%, that you'd get some uptick in that yield. IGM's got a 5% current yield.
They've been holding that flat. You're going to get to those two. If that happens and their valuation doesn't change and they grow with those earnings and the dividends are maintained, you're going to get a 14% return at the center point of some range. It's not going to be exactly that, but that's the center point of the range. That would be a reasonable TSR we will get from that 83% of the portfolio.
The rest of the portfolio, I showed you the slide. The bulk of what we have in our asset managers is in the proprietary capital. And we've got a targeted return of 10%, which we're confident under normal market conditions we can return on that. I mentioned GBL's targeting double-digit returns. I just covered the portfolio there.
You're going to get, if you get those kind of growths in our underlying portfolio and our discount does not change, we're going to be able to create returns that are in the 13, 14, 15% range. It is not going to be that every quarter, not be that every year. It is going to have a range and lots of assumptions that the world carries on in a normal way. That is not a forecast.
When we think about it and when we talk to our board and when I talk to investors, that's the way we think about it. We're not dependent on a change in valuation here. We just continue to execute the strategy, and we're confident that we can continue to create very attractive returns. With that, I am going to stop, Operator, and I will open the floor up to questions from those on the line.
We will now begin the question and answer session. To join the question queue, you may press star, then one on your telephone keypad. You will hear a tone acknowledging your request. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. To withdraw your question, please press star and then two. Our first question comes from Doug Young with Desjardins Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good morning. I guess, Jeff, roughly five years ago, I guess it's been roughly five years since you've folded in Power Financial. You've done a lot to clean up the structure. I kind of get what you're talking about on slide 26. It just feels like a lot of heavy lifting has been done up at the hold co level.
I'd just be curious with you and your discussions with the board and internally, I mean, what's next? I guess what other levers can you pull to really materially help clean up the story, perhaps? I know the discount to NAV, you talked about that, help materially potentially push that down. What do you think needs to be done? I get the operating companies of Great-West and IGM, but I'm talking more up top of the house.
Yeah. Thank you, Doug. That's a good question. There's been heavy lifting at Power Corporation . I am going to pick up before I answer your question and just tee off one of the things you said. There's been heavy lifting at Power Corporation . There's been heavy lifting at Great-West Lifeco, and there's been heavy lifting at IGM, both in their core businesses, but also at IGM in terms of building up the strategic portfolio.
There has been heavy lifting. I want to say going forward, if we did not do a lot of heavy lifting going forward, my comments were we are not as dependent on it going forward as we were five years ago. I think we have to do a lot of that heavy lifting. I think if we, I am not going to say put it on autopilot. That's a silly comment.
I think we do not have to do as much heavy lifting to create attractive returns. That is question number one, question or point number one. Point number two is, I think one of the issues we continue to face is that, well, we have invested in things like Rockefeller, Wealthsimple, although, as you know, we have negative investment in Wealthsimple, but we did initially put 300 million into it.
As we have got our portfolio of seed capital supporting the alt managers, we are not getting valuation for that, in my view. You can never prove that. How do I go out and get in the minds of all the people that buy and sell our shares? This is my view and having talked to a lot of investors. They view us as an earnings driver, and they value our earnings. They value our dividend growth.
It is interesting that we have all this other stuff, but talk to me when it turns into cash. We are long-term oriented. We think that investing in things like Wealthsimple, Rockefeller, they could be the massive parts of the franchise 5, 10, 15 years out. We are not going to give up on that.
But at the margin, we can move to more earnings growth, and we have to be disciplined in the amount of appetite that we have for that kind of investment. You will note that Great-West Lifeco and IGM Financial, which drive the earnings, are 83% of the gross asset value. I think they were 76% if you go back five years.
It is not only because they have been growing, but also as we take money out of the non-earnings growth portfolio, non-IGM, and we buy shares back, you do the math on that, we are actually migrating the portfolio towards more earnings growth. That, I think, will help with value creation. If you are going to ask me a question, what else can we do of a major structural?
I am not going to speculate on that because it obviously gets into, if you are going to do something like that, are there more transactions you can do, and what would they be? That is really hard, Doug, for me to get into a discussion on that kind of things. Just an answer, final, and I will turn it back over to you. We talk about that stuff all the time.
When you have all the deals that have gone under Power, all the deals at Great-West Lifeco, all the stuff at IGM, obviously, we're always talking about transactions, and that is part of our DNA, and we'll continue to see what else we can do to add additional value. Hope that covers the waterfront for you.
Yeah. No, I appreciate the color. I guess maybe the second question, one thing just that's obvious and curious what the strategy is around Power Sustainable. It just seems like, and can you talk a bit about what, it looks like the drag on adjusted earnings has increased. I think it's 2 to 3% of your NAV that that's part of that franchise.
Can you talk a bit about what's going on? What's been the drag on adjusted earnings, and what's the strategy around Power Sustainable? I know you got rid of the investment side in China and all that stuff, but if you can kind of delve a little bit more, please.
Yeah. A couple of comments. Good question. First of all, I'm going to go to the seed capital. Part of the losses on the energy seed capital is just the nature of our investment in the infrastructure fund, which is producing really good earnings and is going to produce good carry and good cash flow.
Because we consolidate that, we end up taking the amortization of the assets through, and we show net losses, but cash flow is generating positive cash flow. We have to do a better job of telling that story. The seed is part of it. If I go to the manager itself, the asset manager, Power Simple manager is not at scale at this point. You can say, well, what can you do to obvious questions, can you combine it with this, combine it with that?
These businesses are all different cultures, different groups. Where we are focused on is there are four strategies within Power Sustainable Manager. We think they are good strategies, and we think we can get the underlying strategies to far greater profitability over the next year or two with fundraising that is ongoing.
Power Sustainable, the infrastructure fund in Canada, the US infrastructure debt fund, these are great teams, great investors. If we can get those strategies to greater scale and contribution at the fund level, we have a lot more optionality either to carry, then Power Sustainable gets much more profitable. At that point, you have greater optionality to go out and either leave it as Power, leave it as it is, do something else.
We're focused on getting the underlying funds to far greater contribution to the GP, and that will give us lots of different options. In the meantime, it's a rounding error in terms of our P&L, and the value uptick from doing it is way more than the small losses we're incurring. That's why we're steady as she goes right now, even though it looks like we're kind of just enduring ongoing losses. We see a way through it here in the next year or two.
Okay. Just lastly, Jake, I do not know if you can give us some detail, but the value that Sagard, the value for Sagard that was part of the deal with GBL. Can you talk about, and if you cannot give numbers, if you can talk about it relative to the deal with BMO and Abu Dhabi?
No, happy to. We actually go through an independent valuation activity around Sagard with some level of frequency. Last quarter, so Q3, we marked it up to $600 million. Our interest, it's just below 50% now after the latest transaction. GBL comes in for 5% at that $600 million valuation. I think the good note around that, Doug, is I don't have the precise number in front of me, but if we take half of the 600 , call it CAD 400 roughly, that's our stake.
Our investment would be less than CAD 50 million upfront. One of the ways these platforms can create value is also through the value of the GP. I think that transaction is good validation of the economic positivity that Sagard is creating for the broader group.
The ADQ and the BMO deal, I do not have the value in my head. We can get back to it, but this has been a nice story. As Jake mentioned, Sagard, the underlying value of the GP, even though it is not creating a lot of earnings right now, it has a lot of revenue. Even before the performance equity transaction and the HalseyPoint CLO transaction, they had a run rate of about 200 million US.
That is getting to be a really, really big number in CAD dollars of fees, of ongoing fees. They have lots of strategies, and they are playing for the long term and continuing to grow and launch strategies.
We have not seen it through the earnings, but the value of our stake in the GP, as we said, is around CAD 400 million right now, and that is a really good return on money. We will get the number. We can get the number for where it was done, but I do not have it handy here. There has been growth in values for sure over the last few years, Doug.
Appreciate the color. Thank you.
Okay. Thanks very much.
The next question comes from Tom MacKinnon with BMO Capital. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Thanks. Two questions. One's kind of more detailed in numbers and second's more strategy. I'll start with the detailed one. On page 31, you mentioned for Sagard there that you've got some fintech investments that would be making a contribution here in terms of venture capital for Sagard. It's CAD 8 million in the quarter.
And it notes that some of that includes your share of losses of earnings or losses on Wealthsimple. The Wealthsimple treatment at IGM is fair value through OCI, so there's no earnings coming in. Do you treat this different? Do you account for Wealthsimple differently at Power than at IGM? What was the Wealthsimple earnings in the quarter? And if you do account for it different at Power than IGM, why do you do that?
That is yours, Jake?
Yeah. Tom, we will come back to you offline just on the two different accounting methodologies. I want to confirm something down at IGM. Wealthsimple is just a small portion of the loss in that footnote that you are referring to. In terms of the question around their profitability in the quarter, I do not believe they currently disclose it. I think they noted publicly in an interview that they have turned profitable, but I do not think we are at the stage where we are disclosing the amount.
I think the key number around Wealthsimple over the course of the year is the revaluation of the company up to about 5 billion. We do consolidate Wealthsimple at the Power level, and IGM does not. There is very different accounting, and it is not because we choose to do that. That is the way it works. We consolidate. Yeah.
All right. Maybe question just with respect to buybacks here. How do you balance the how are you going to approach buybacks? It seems to be you've got almost 1 billion here in terms of kind of dry powder. Do you think it's better to buy back stock, or do you think it's better to do contributions into Sagard and Power Sustainable in order to increase perhaps their profitable contribution at the asset management level?
To your point, Jeff, people do not see value for the alts until they can turn into earnings. Is there anything you can do in terms of this dry powder to get better earnings out of Sagard and Power Sustainable as opposed to just trying to buy back stock and increase the NAV per share?
Yeah. It's a very good question. I think it's a balanced approach that we take to it. We think about buybacks as something that we want to do on an ongoing basis. Even though we've got a lot of cash, I want to just correct the way, or at least tell you the way we think about cash. Even though we've got 1.6 billion on the balance sheet, we do like to keep around 800 million around.
That's been something we've done for a long time. We could question that from time to time, but we do. Then we've got dividends payable. It's not quite that much, but we can fund buybacks for quite a long time here, certainly well through the next year at the pace we've been at, just based on our definition of excess cash.
We want to be in the market doing buybacks on a consistent basis and not jump in and do it kind of all at once just because the discount gaps out. Obviously, when the discount gaps out, it's more attractive, but we want to be in the market on a consistent basis. I mentioned that we've got a trade-off that we're trying to build businesses.
Part of that is creating and investing in businesses that are increasing in NAV, but the market in the short term won't pay for it until we've turned it into either something that grows earnings or something we can turn into cash. There's how I'm going to go a little bit to how the two get linked. Over the last five years, we've been taking cash out of that portfolio.
I mentioned the 3.6 billion of acquisitions of sales that we did, but we also had returns, cash returns from the underlying seed capital, and in some cases, sold our position in some of those. When we use that to buy shares back, we actually are turning the returns from the NAV portfolio into earnings. It sounds silly, but it's a tool to do it.
You take $100 million or a billion dollars over a period of time that you return from those NAV portfolios, whether it produced earnings or not, and you buy shares back, and you shrunk your share base, and you've increased your EPS, and you've increased your ability to pay dividends per share. That's an indirect tool. It doesn't show up in our NAV, but an effect is going on. We're using cash flow from those portfolios. It's a balance.
We're using the cash, and we're trying to do a balance. We've got to put some more money in to keep being in the strategies and supporting them. We're taking some money off the table as they grow in value to do buybacks. We're doing a balance so that we are able to continue to support the growth of the businesses while still increasing our earnings. Happy to walk through.
How much approach? Yeah. How much if you're going to spend 100 and buy if you have 100 in kind of free cash here, how much would you put into buybacks, and how much would you put into the alts in order to get them to the position where, hey, they're going to have some more contribution at the asset management level?
It's not an algorithm. You're sitting there, and all of a sudden, you decide you're going to take your money out of China, and you've got $500 million on the table, right? Okay. All of a sudden, we've just launched a new fund, and they need to go out in the fund in the US, our US infrastructure debt fund with Tom Murray. It's a fantastic team we have there, trying to get the strategy launched.
And they need initial seed capital to get their first investments done, and they need $100 million-$150 million to do it over the next three months. You're not on we're not driving a Tesla here. You don't put it on autopilot. It's actually always different stuff coming at you. You get cash in.
All of a sudden, you've got a big demand for cash, and you're trying to be steady with your buybacks and not be in and out and not, so it's just I can't tell you. It's judgment all the way through, depending on what the circumstances are. That's the only way I can answer the question because that's what we do.
What drives money going into the alts is really more initial seed. Is that what you view it as? Is there anything else you can do to get them to more profitability on the asset management level other than just this initial seed?
Yeah. The initial seed, doing all the partnerships that Sagard has done, Power Sustainable did with Canada Life as well to get more scale into the strategies as I was when I was answering Doug's question. The more strategies that are up and profitable and running, the more contribution you have, and ultimately, you get more profitability at the asset managers.
I do think, can I say something? Five years ago, when we came up with the strategy, I was talking about, "Hey, we're going to get alt managers up to profitability, and everyone's going to love it because it's going to create all kinds of contribution." Five years later, they're not creating any contribution. As much as I talk about the last five years having we've done a lot of stuff. We've had lots of success.
That portion of what we advertise to the street and to you has not played out the way we thought it would. We just have to recognize that. It has been a longer build. It has been a tougher fundraising environment. The businesses to get the scale have had to continue to throw new strategies. They are investing. The GPs, per se, are not creating ongoing profitability. We go, "Okay. We did not get that one right when we talked about our goals."
That does not mean we are not creating value through it. We are still creating very strong total shareholder returns notwithstanding that. That is part of the balance here. How much of this can we continue to do if we are confident we can create low mid-teens kind of returns, and we can also be setting the stage for better returns in 2030 and 2033?
We're going to do that. If we're creating 8% returns over time because we can't do it, and you might say, "Boy, we actually can't afford to do this." It is judgment.
Appreciate the color. Thanks.
Okay, Tom. Thank you.
The next question comes from Jaeme Gloyn with National Bank Financial. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Thanks. First question, just going back to, I believe it was slide 26, the three bullets of looking ahead. The third one is continuing to monetize assets. It seems like most of that is done, as you kind of said, heavy lifting is done. What might you be referring to when you make that statement?
Yeah. Great question. Let me rephrase it. What could fund our buybacks? We are sitting on a lot of cash. Let's start there. Within the portfolio of proprietary capital, we have assets that can still be monetized. Some of it is seed capital, as I said, that will produce returns. We get cash back from it. Occasionally, we sell a position.
The previous seed discussion, if you were listening to it, we put 100 million in on a seed capital. Three years later, the fund is up and running. The seed capital is worth 150 million, and somebody wants to buy a secondary position, and we sell 75 million. We occasionally sell positions. We get returns of capital on the seed. We have some assets in the energy portfolio that are actually not in the funds.
They're kind of retained energy and wind assets that are going to be sold. We got that source of cash. GBL is creating cash for us. They bumped their dividend. That was not flowing through. They did a 80 million, I think, was our Canadian dollar share at the time of the increase. Of course, that is for 2025. The Euro has been strong against the Canadian dollar. We did not flow that through.
There is another source of cash. We got lots of tools here to fund buybacks for the years to come. Lots of tools in the toolkit. I think we probably over-focused you and the market on the standalone businesses as being the source, but in fact, the rest of the portfolio away from Lifeco and IGM is creating cash, and we think it will continue to do so in the years to come to fund the strategy.
Jame, if you look at slide 22, which shows us the last five years of monetizations that Jeff walked through, 3.6 billion, 1.8 billion went to share buybacks. A portion, 1.4 billion, went to seed. If you were to look at that list of items, I'm not sure what items five years ago you would have picked out as being obvious sources of capital, right? There are so many levers here.
You probably would have said, "Oh, standalone, the peak." Yeah, that's probably gone. Some of the other items, a Wealthsimple secondary, some of the sale of an LP interest in Sagard Europe funds, they may not be as obvious on the surface, just looking at our statements, but there are many levers, as Jeff noted, to fund buybacks over the next couple of years. That does not include return of capital from the investments itself.
We really should do a more thorough kind of reconciliation of what we've done over the last five years to show the different sources because this is part of it. We get lots of questions on this, and if we're getting questions on it, we're not being clear enough on it. The answer to your question is we have lots of sources here for the ensuing years to keep the buyback program going.
Yeah. Yeah. Understood. I guess related to that, in terms of the proprietary capital now, 2.7 billion, how do you view that? Is that sort of like a steady state level, or do you see it materially increasing as you continue to grow the funds or winding down from here? How should we think about the direction of proprietary capital at work?
Yeah. In terms of our commitments, we're trying to keep it at an even level. Part of that growth was through markup in the value. Wealthsimple, the Power stake is in there because it's managed by Sagard, and it gets caught up in the definition there. You have some value accretion in there.
Again, we can present it with that broken out of it. I think the way to think about it is our message to both Sagard and to Power Sustainable is that we will support their seed capital, but we have to recycle it because we're not looking to increase our overall commitment to it. We've been true to that over the last five years. The value of what it's shown at will jump up and down a little bit.
As I was answering to, I think it was Tom's question, all of a sudden, we got to put in CAD 100 million in a fund, and we get two going at the same time, and it jumps a little bit. We are trying to keep our commitments level over time. That means we got to be taking money out, and we got to be selling positions from time to time to be harvesting cash as well. Net-net, that's been positive. We have kept the commitments at the same levels, but we have been taking cash, net-net, cash off the table over the last five years.
Great. In terms of the Sagard ownership, are you at a satisfied level right now in terms of the Power ownership in Sagard, or is there opportunities to bring in more partners? Is the Power Sustainable structure similar in terms of Power ownership versus others, or is there an opportunity there as well?
Okay. I'd love to own as much Sagard as we possibly can, but we're prepared to own a smaller chunk of a larger, more successful company. We made that decision by allowing now the fourth outside partner. We've got management as a significant partner. We've got Canada Life, BMO, ADQ, and GBL, and then Power.
We just dipped below the 50% mark here with the GBL transaction. Our share is, Jake mentioned, at current values, about CAD 400 million, $300 million on the mark. I said it's about CAD 400 million, up from not very much five years ago. We're going to continue to do that because I think the most important thing for Sagard is to continue to grow, and they have, I think, the ability to become much larger, more successful. They got the team and the management to do it.
We are not going to stand in their way by saying that to do that, bringing in partners is fantastic. Bringing in partners brings distribution. It brings capital. It brings relationships. They are going to continue to press on that. As they have also been using, they are using every tool in the kit. They are also doing M&A, as you have seen, and they have been out doing fundraising.
They are doing everything they can to grow. We are not going to get in the way of that. Quite frankly, like owning the position, we are doing really well on our GP stake. Power Sustainable Manager, as I said, is at a different stage. We are at an early stage of trying to get the strategies that are in place right now to a much greater level of contribution and profitability at the strategy level.
You launch your first fund, you typically do not make any money. You get onto your second fund, you start to make money in a given strategy. They have been disciplined. We thought China, five years ago, we were going to get lots of money into it. Were not getting any traction. Took all the capital out of that. We had a UK strategy we were going to launch. We dropped that.
We are looking at the existing strategies that are in place that we think have a real chance of creating profitability. We are focusing on getting scale there. They did do a transaction with Canada Life, who came in last year to the GP, and we diluted there. Canada Life had a very high interest in some of their strategies, including the US debt fund that they wanted to seed. Same strategy, very different stage of development.
Great. Last one, maybe just for Jake here. Dividend increased 9%, maybe a little bit bigger than I had previously expected. How should we think about that in terms of payout ratio? Is it adjusted EPS, the core metric, or free cash flow? If I kind of use my free cash flow calculations, we're kind of almost close to 100% payout ratio. Maybe just refresh how we're thinking about that on a go-forward basis.
Sorry, I think Jeff alluded to this much of the recurring earnings come from Great-West and IGM. On the dividend side, when we see an increase at Great-West, we’re essentially looking to flow as much of that through as we think is reasonable. It’s essentially a flow-through, so don’t necessarily look at it on an earnings basis. I’d take cues from what’s happening with dividend growth, sustainable dividend growth at the underlying companies.
Yeah, I’ll just add to that, if you don't mind?
Yeah. We do not think of it as a payout ratio at the Power Corporation level. Great-West will and IGM will, but not us. We take their dividends in. We deduct our operating expenses and our financing charges, and you end up with a net cash flow. We then want a positive cash flow balance.
We are at a point where we flow it through, but we have a small amount of positive cash flow that comes net-net. That is, as I mentioned earlier, not including the recent jump in the GBL dividend, which will, so we have positive cash flow at that level. Not a massive amount, but we have positive cash flow.
We have the rest of the portfolio that is, as I've mentioned four or five times in the call here, generating positive cash flow through the activities that we're doing that you could think of as primarily funding the buybacks from that part of the portfolio. That is the way we think.
Good. Very good. Thank you.
Thank you, Jaeme.
The next question comes from Michael McHugh with TD Cowen. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good morning. Just wondering if you could provide some visibility on the fundraising, the level of fundraising on the Alts platform, both in the quarter and for 2024 as a whole.
Yeah. For the quarter, I don't have it. These things can be, but CAD 2.7 billion at Sagard, CAD 200 million at Power Sustainable. I think at Power Sustainable, you've got a lot, we're expecting better, we're expecting some things that were worked on through 2024 to result in some much more material funding in 2025.
It makes it sound like there wasn't anything happening. In fact, on their two biggest, or on the two infrastructure funds, debt and equity, we are expecting some big fundings in 2025 if they're successful. The decarb fund is just getting going, and that will be fundraising in 2025. 2.9 billion across the platform, do we have it?
Yeah. That's the full year number.
Yes. That's the full year number.
A billion in Q4. It is really a tale of two halves, Michael, to be clear. The first half was quite anemic. There was a lot of headwinds and challenges. I would say two-thirds of that 3 billion was raised in the second half of the year. We have seen good momentum as we move into 2025. As Jeff noted, there are several strategies in market now that we are hoping to have stronger fundraising years in 2025.
Great. Thank you for that visibility. Just one more from me is say you're targeting a 10% return on the 2.7 billion of that proprietary capital. Are you able to provide some visibility on the sort of IRR that that's been generating in the last five years? I know you guys talk about putting money in, taking some out, but just in terms of internal return last five years, what that looks like?
Yeah. I don't think we've done that in a clear way. You'll find some of that in the MD&A. If you go there and we'll give you a week and a half, you can call back, and you'll have done your homework. There's a lot of detail there. We actually need to do a better job. We need to pull that together and present that in a simpler way. The answer, I don't have a quick answer for you here, but it's a good question, Michael. We will endeavor to provide that to you and to others.
Michael, maybe just on what you see on page 18 is the forward at 10% plus on the proprietary capital. That's based off what the funds have put in their offering documents. That's not always based off what the historical performance has been, as we all know in the investment space. Past performance won't be an indicator of future results always. This is not us taking historical in all instances. This is us leveraging what the funds have marketed as their target IRRs.
Right. Okay. Great. Thanks. That's all for me. Appreciate it.
Thank you, Michael.
The next question comes from Nik Priebe with CIBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Thanks. Just wanted to ask a question about excess liquidity. It's conceivable that IGM doubles down on their interest in Rockefeller at some point in time. When they made that initial investment, IPC was sold to Great-West. This is hypothetical, but IGM owns an interest in GWO and, of course, Wealthsimple too.
My question is, number one, would it be possible if IGM pursues an additional stake in Rockefeller that you might consider consolidating Power's ownership in one of those businesses? Number two, if that is a possibility, does that make you want to carry an excess cash buffer relative to that two-times fixed charge ratio to retain a bit of flexibility to accommodate a transaction like that?
I appreciate these are what-if scenarios, but I'm just wondering how those considerations might inform your desire to hold a bit of a buffer in terms of excess cash.
Yeah. It's a good question. The excess cash is we're creating a lot of cash, and we're, as I mentioned, rebuyouts, not trying to go out and kind of blow it all at once, if I can put it that way. We also, as I've also said, Nik, we're always looking at we always have M&A opportunities. Sometimes we're looking at a bunch.
Sometimes we're looking at one. If we're not looking at a live one, we're thinking about, like, what else can we do? It's just a little bit of the DNA here. When we do that, we are looking at all the ways that we can fund it. If IGM were looking at an acquisition, it would be looking at, like, what could we sell? What could we do to fund? Can we borrow money? What's our leverage capability?
What's our cash? Those are all yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Those are all the tools in the toolbox that we have. You balance them against earnings and how much of the portfolio is NAV, all the things we've been talking about through this. I can just say those are all the tools in the toolkit, and we consider them all.
It is true Great-West Lifeco at the IGM level is a bit of a historical artifact that goes back 20-25 years. They have not hesitated when we were deciding to consolidate the CMAC position. Whoops. Did we lose the call at 9:30? No. Are you still there, Nik?
I'm still here. Yep.
Perfect. Sorry. I heard something drop off. They did decide to unload some Great-West Lifeco when they wanted to consolidate the CMAC position. Both they did and we did in one spot. They used that as a tool. We were happy to buy Great-West because we were huge believers in the future of Great-West.
You have seen that in the past. Would we consider that if there was a need for capital in the future? I think that would be on the list of things that we would think about. As to what we would actually do and what decisions we would make, that would be in the future. I cannot comment on that.
Yeah. No, that's fair enough. Okay. That's all I had. Thank you.
Thanks, Nik.
There are no further questions. I would like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Jeffrey Orr for any closing remarks.
My closing remarks are just to say thanks for joining us, and have a good day, everybody. We look forward to talking to you in the future. Thank you.