Image source: The Motley Fool.
TPG Specialty Lending Inc (TSLX 0.53%)
Q1Â 2019 Earnings Call
May. 03, 2019, 8:30 a.m. ET
Contents:
- Prepared Remarks
- Questions and Answers
- Call Participants
Prepared Remarks:
Operator
Good morning and welcome to TPG Specialty Lending, Inc.'s March 31st, 2019 Quarterly Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin today's call, I would like to remind our listeners that remarks made during the call may contain forward-looking statements. Statements other than statements of historical facts made during this call may constitute forward-looking statements and are not guarantees of future performance or results and involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors, including those described from time to time in TPG Specialty Lending, Inc.'s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements.
Yesterday, after the market closed, the Company issued its earnings press release for the first quarter ended March 31st, 2019 and posted a presentation to the Investor Resources section of its website, www.tpgspecialtylending.com. The presentation should be reviewed in conjunction with the Company's Form 10-Q filed yesterday with the SEC. TPG Specialty Lending Inc.'s earnings release is also available on the Company's website under the Investor Resources section. Unless noted otherwise, all performance figures mentioned in today's prepared remarks are as of and for the first quarter ended March 31st, 2019. As a reminder, this call is being recorded for replay purposes.
I will now turn the call over to Josh Easterly, Chief Executive Officer of TPG Specialty Lending, Inc.
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. I will start with an overview of our quarterly results and hand it off to my partner and our President, Bo Stanley, to discuss origination and portfolio. Our CFO, Ian Simmonds, will review our financial results in more detail and I will conclude with our final remarks before opening the call to Q&A. After the market closed yesterday, we reported our results for the first quarter of 2019. Net investment income per share was $0.41 and net income per share was $0.59, both exceeding our first quarter based dividend of $0.39. The difference between this quarter's net investment income and net income was primarily driven by unrealized gains of $0.11 per share from the impact of tightening credit spreads on the valuation of our portfolio and mark-to-market gains of $0.05 per share related to our interest rate swaps from the flattening of the forward LIBOR curve.
Our Q1 results corresponded to an annualized return on equity on a net investment income and net income basis of 10% and 14.5% respectively. Reported net asset value per share at quarter end was $16.34, an increase of $0.21 compared to the prior quarter after giving effect to the impact of the Q4 supplemental dividend which was paid during Q1. Net asset value movement this quarter was primarily driven by unrealized gains related to a partial recover of credit spreads following year-end volatility and the flattening of the forward curve as discussed. Yesterday, our Board announced a second quarter based dividend $0.39 per share to the shareholders of record as of June 14th payable on July 15th. Our Board also declared a Q1 supplemental dividend of $0.01 per share to shareholders of record as of May 31st payable on June 28th. We believe our dividend framework is an effective way to enhance the shareholder cash returns while (inaudible) work related distribution requirements and preserving the stability of net asset value.
As part of our ongoing assessment of our optimal capital allocation for our business, yesterday we announced a change to our existing $50 million stock repurchase plan. Instead of purchasing shares automatically when our stock trade prices starting at $0.01 below our most recently reported net asset value per share, we will -- we will be doing so starting at $0.01 below 1.05 times our most recently reported pro forma net asset value per share, which corresponds to a price of $17.15 based on Q1 pro forma net asset value of $16.33. Given our focus on efficient capital allocation and shareholder returns independent of what it means for asset growth and the implications of fee income for the manager, we believe we should be reinvesting in our existing portfolio when there is an ROE accretive -- when it's ROE accretive and the payback period is short.
It's our belief that with hindsight, our self-imposed constraint of repurchasing our stock at book value is no longer applicable given our differentiated portfolio and fee structure and most importantly coupled with the change in regulatory framework, which has transformed the earnings power of our business. Circling back to our business, if we can positively impact the earnings profile of our business through efficient capital allocation in the form of stock repurchases, we should do so. Our stock repurchase plan is based on the careful assessment of trade-off between the de minimis near-term dilution on book value and the length of the payback period as well as reinvesting in our portfolio and foregoing the future opportunity to make new investments in a higher spend environment. We've laid out our analysis on Slide 17 of our earnings presentation materials.
With that, I'll turn the call over to Bo to walk you through our portfolio activity and portfolio.
Robert Stanley -- President
Thanks, Josh. The deal environment in Q1 continued to be competitive given the record levels of capital raised for the direct lending strategy over the past few years. Meanwhile, on the supply side, broader M&A activity in Q1 was relatively subdued coming off a volatile year-end. Our strategy continues to focus on sector themes and being opportunistic in areas that coincide with our platform's underwriting expertise. We aim to differentiate our capital in the space by leaning in on the capabilities and capital base across the TSSP platform. As always, we are guided by our investment discipline and downside orientation in order to construct a high quality portfolio that performs throughout market cycles. To that end during the first quarter, we generated $179 million of originations across four new investments and upsizes to four existing portfolio companies. $27 million of originations were allocated to affiliated funds and $7 million of originations consisted of unfunded commitments.
On the repayments front, Q1 was relatively quiet following an elevated repayment level during Q4 of last year. This quarter there were $33 million of repayments across two full realizations and two partial investment realizations and sell downs resulting in net portfolio growth of $112 million. Turning to specific investment activity. Two out of our four new names this quarter were sponsor M&A transactions that intersected with our thematic focus where our ability to offer certainty of execution was a competitive advantage and our ability to create strong risk adjusted returns for our shareholders. Now I'd like to provide an update on a few of our ABL investments. On February 18th, Payless filed voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code given the continuing challenges facing brick and mortar retailers. Post quarter-end, we were fully repaid on our loan, which resulted in an unleavened -- gross unlevered IRR of 18% on our investment.
During the quarter, we also received full repayment of our Sears debt loan in connection with the company's exit from Chapter 11. Subsequently, we participated in the $250 million asset-based loan to support Sears go-forward operations. We've been a lender to the company since late 2015. Given our relationship and familiarity with the company's capital structure and its collateral, we believe we create a strong risk adjusted return opportunity for our shareholders. Retail ABL continues to be one of our various themes given the ongoing secular trends and our platform's differentiated capabilities and relationships in this area. As the direct lending asset class has become increasingly competitive, we've continually developed and evolved our investment themes in order to generate a robust pipeline of strong risk adjusted return opportunities. Given the pipeline generated through our direct originations platform, post quarter end we had approximately $150 million in net fundings.
In broad strokes, these post quarter fundings exemplify our focus on thematic originations and the power of the platform. Turning now to our portfolio metrics and yields. The underlying credit quality of the portfolio is in good shape with no investments on non-accrual status at quarter end. Portfolio composition has remained consistent quarter over quarter with 97% of investments being first lien on a fair value basis. We remain diversified across 48 portfolio companies and 18 industries with financial services and business services as our Top 2 industry exposures at 20% and 18.6% of the portfolio at fair value, respectively. As a reminder, the vast majority of our financial services portfolio companies are B2B integrated software payments businesses with limited financial leverage and underlying bank regulatory risk. At quarter end, nearly 100% of our portfolio fair value was sourced through non-intermediated channels.
This allows us to structure meaningful downside protection on our debt investments. To provide some numbers around this, at quarter end we maintained effective voting control on 81% of our debt investments, averaged 2.1 financial covenants per debt investment, and had meaningful call protection on our debt portfolio of 103.4 as a percentage of fair value as a way to generate additional economics should our portfolio get paid -- repaid in the near term. At March 31st, the weighted average total yield on our debt and income producing securities at amortized cost was 11.6% compared to 11.7% at December 31st. This slight decrease was primarily due to the downward movement in LIBOR in our floating rate portfolio.
With that, I'd like to turn it over to Ian.
Ian Simmonds -- Chief Financial Officer
Thank you, Bo. Our portfolio grew at a measured pace in Q1 ending the quarter with total investments of $1.82 billion compared to $1.71 billion at year-end 2018. Total debt outstanding at quarter end was $742 million and net assets were $1.07 billion or $16.34 per share, which is prior to the $0.01 per share Q1 supplemental dividend that we declared yesterday. As Josh mentioned, our net investment income was $0.41 per share and our net income was $0.59 per share. Given this quarter's net funding activity, our ending debt to equity ratio was 0.69 times compared to 0.59 times in the prior quarter and our average debt to equity ratio during the quarter was 0.66 times. Overall, this was a quarter where we started with low financial leverage and had limited activity related fees and yet we were still able to generate a 10% annualized ROE on net investment income and overearned our quarterly based dividend.
Inclusing -- inclusive of the post quarter-end net funding that Bo discussed, we estimate our leverage today stands at 0.83 times. Given our portfolio activity to date and the strength of our investment pipeline, we expect our average leverage to increase for Q2, which drives ROE expansion even in the absence of activity related fees. More on this later. Turning to our presentation materials, Slide 8 contains an NAV bridge for the quarter, walking through the various components. We added $0.41 per share from net investment income against the base dividend of $0.39 per share. A tightening of credit spreads resulted in a positive $0.11 per share impact on the valuation of our portfolios and there was a positive $0.05 per share impact to NAV from unrealized mark-to-market gains on the interest rate swaps on our fixed rate debt. Other changes, primarily net unrealized gains from portfolio company specific events, resulted in a positive $0.03 per share impact.
Moving to the income statement on Slide 9. Total investment income was $52.5 million, down from $74.7 million in the prior quarter primarily due to the elevated level of activity related fees earned during Q4. Interest from dividend income was $49.5 million, down $2.5 million from the previous quarter given a slight decrease in the average size of our investment portfolio. Other fees, which consist of prepayment fees and accelerated amortization of upfront fees from unscheduled paydowns, were $0.8 million compared to $21.2 million in the prior quarter which experienced record high repayment levels. Other income was $2.1 million compared to $1.5 million in the prior quarter. Net expenses were $25.5 million, down from $29.7 million the prior quarter primarily due to lower management and incentive fees.
The weighted average interest rate on average debt outstanding was 4.7%, up 20 basis points from the prior quarter due to an increase in the average effective LIBOR across our debt instruments and a higher unsecured funding mix. Note that there's effectively a one quarter timing lag on the LIBOR reset date for our interest rate swaps and therefore the beneficial impact of this quarter's LIBOR decrease on our interest rate swaps will roll through next quarter's cost of debt. Further, if we're able to continue revamping the portfolio at the measured pace that we have today, we would expect the weighted average spread on average debt outstanding to decrease given high utilization of our lower cost revolver funding. Regarding our liability structure, on our last call we indicated that with respect to the upcoming maturity of our $115 million convertible notes, our base case scenario is to repay those notes given the liquidity and low marginal cost of funding available under our revolver.
This continues to be the case. Taking into account post quarter-end net fundings, we currently have significant liquidity with approximately $714 million of undrawn revolver capacity. Nevertheless, we continue to monitor the debt capital markets and would look to issue new unsecured notes if we're able to do so at a swap adjusted price that results in minimal pro forma drag on our ROE. Before passing it back to Josh, I'd like to provide a quick review of our ROE metrics. In Q1 we generated an annualized ROE based on net income of 14.5% compared to 5.3% in the prior quarter and an annualized ROE based on net investment income of 10% compared to 16.4% in the prior quarter. The quarter-over-quarter swing in ROE on net income was primarily driven by the fair value impact of our valuation and risk management practices, namely incorporating credit spread movements in the fair value of our debt portfolio and implementing interest rate swaps on our fixed rate liabilities to match the floating rate nature of our assets.
The quarter-over-quarter change in ROE on net investment income was primarily driven by lower activity related fee income in Q1 given fee income in the prior quarter was elevated. Over the trailing 12-month period, we've generated an ROE on net income of 11.7% with an average balance sheet leverage of 0.79 times. We've added Slide 16 into our presentation material this quarter to isolate the impact of balance sheet leverage on the earnings power of our business. The table at the top of the page shows our unit economics based on annualized results for the first quarter. Below that, the sensitivity table illustrates for -- that for each asset level yield holding constant operating expense ratio, an increase in financial leverage corresponds to an increase in ROE. We know that this concept is relatively intuitive so the sensitivity table is really meant to help people calibrate the magnitude of leverage on ROE for our business.
Looking ahead to Q2, based on the increase in our leverage from an average of 0.66 times in Q1 to our estimate of 0.83 times today, we would expect to experience approximately 70 basis points of annual ROE expansion even if we assume the same low level of activity related fees and asset yields as Q1. Note that we generally wouldn't expect low repayment activity to persist even in high spread environments given idiosyncratic events for our borrowers, which drives portfolio repayments. As I've articulated on our last call, based on our expectations over the intermediate term for net asset level yields, cost of funds, and balance sheet leverage; we expect to target an annualized return on equity of 11% to 11.5% which corresponds to a range of $1.77 to $1.85 for full-year 2019 net investment income per share. Again if the market environment allows us to operate at the higher end of our target leverage range for sustained periods of time -- of time, we would expect to drive up to approximately 250 basis points of incremental ROEs for our shareholders.
With that, I'd like to turn it back to Josh for concluding remarks.
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Thank you, Ian. To wrap up, we had a solid Q1 with strong momentum building through the second quarter. As some may know, this March marked our fifth anniversary of our IPO. In our first five years as a publicly traded company, we delivered a total return of 99% for our shareholders which represents an outperformance of 80 percentage points versus the Wells Fargo BDC Index, an outperformance of 79 percentage points versus the leveraged loan index, and an outperformance of 32 percentage points versus the S&P 500. We're humbled by the ongoing support of our shareholder base and will continue to focus on delivering the best possible shareholder experience. Given our long-term shareholder orientation, we care deeply about the sustainability of the BDC sector. In that regard, we believe our sector is faced with a number of structural impediments that act as a constraint to effective corporate governance.
These include the 3% Rule, Acquired Fund Fees and Expense Rule, and certain 40 Act voting and quorum requirements; which together have limited the ability of shareholders to see change in the underperforming external management arrangements resulting in persistent shareholder value disruption. Earlier this week we formally responded to the SECs request for comments on the proposed modifications to the 3% Rule. In short, we believe the SEC's new proposal continues to mute effective corporate governance given the voting restrictions on any shares owned above 3%. The price of an equity security reflects the economic value of the security plus the value of governance and therefore there's limited incentive to acquire incremental shares above the 3% limit if the right of governance is not included. Our recommendation to the SEC we believe allow effective corporate governance while porting the investor protections as originally intended by the 3% Rule.
Unfortunately, we understand that why external managers of persistently underperforming BDCs would want to preserve the existing 3% ownership and voting limitations because these limitations effectively serve as a (inaudible) change, which we have seen across the sector. Our letter to the SEC along with the presentation laying out our perspectives are posted to the Investor Resources section of our website. We welcome anyone with comments or questions to reach out to me or our Investor Relations team.
With that, I'd like to thank you for your continued interest and for your time today. Operator, please open the line for questions.
Questions and Answers:
Operator
(Operator Instructions) And our first question comes from the line of Leslie Vandegrift with Raymond James. Your line is now open.
Leslie Shea Vandegrift -- Raymond James & Associates, Inc. -- Analyst
Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. Just first in the prepared remarks, you discussed the M&A market in the first quarter was slower than fourth and we saw that in the level of repayments and you wouldn't expect it to stay that low over the long term. But just in the near term, what's your outlook there?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Hey Leslie, good morning. I'll turn it over to Bo. I think generally when there's a lot of volatility, M&A takes a pause given that sellers and buyers have a hard time kind of reaching a price agreement. So, you expect as we're in a lower kind of volatility environment or have been in Q1 and Q2, you would see that M&A starts picking back up. Bo, do you have anything to add?
Robert Stanley -- President
Yes, that's exactly right. We saw a pause in late Q4 with the volatility that carried on into early Q1. We saw a marked pickup in mid Q1 and that's continued into Q2.
Leslie Shea Vandegrift -- Raymond James & Associates, Inc. -- Analyst
Okay. Thank you. And then on couple of the portfolio investment. First, IRGSE, just there's a revolver there. I mean it's small, it's not a large investment, but there's a revolver there that keeps popping back on to the scheduled investments. Is that something -- Is there a reason the repetitive need for that or why it keeps one quarter it's there, one quarter it's not?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Hey Leslie. So yes, look we continue to make -- obviously after one of the investments have struggled, we've continued to make investments in the business including a driving school. So, there's been net investment in the business as we continue to kind of evolve that business plan and continue to kind of drive what we hope to be a good investment although it's taking longer and it's been harder than we expected.
Leslie Shea Vandegrift -- Raymond James & Associates, Inc. -- Analyst
Okay. And on the Transform SR Holdings, the new Sears' name, you went -- you got through the process with a $25 million debt and now it's a $75 million ABL. Can you talk to me about kind of the investment thesis there? Where do you see the value going forward with Sears and the structure you have on that?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yes. So, it's the same thesis with -- specifically with Sears and generally with all asset-based loans, which is quite frankly, this doesn't say anything about the prospects of any of our retail asset based loans, but we underwrite them to liquidation value. I think our last dollar is 80% of NOLV of the liquidation value of the inventory, which what was -- which hold up very very well when most of the stores were liquidated in the old Sears format. So, again this is not commenting on Sears' specific prospects. We continue to believe that all brick and mortar retailers is extremely challenged, but you would expect -- we underwrite these transactions to a liquidation given the secular challenges and the volatility of earnings and the fixed cost structure that exists in our brick and mortar retail. So, it's actually very similar on a structure basis with the same protections and borrowing base mechanism that you had -- and advance rate that you had in the last year.
Leslie Shea Vandegrift -- Raymond James & Associates, Inc. -- Analyst
Okay. Thank you. And on the comment letter to the SEC that you mentioned, I don't see it on there. But is it -- do you have that? Is that out on the public forum for SEC or is that one of the private submissions?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
So first of all, it's on our website. There's two pieces of material, you should read it. It's a great read if I have to say so myself. It is -- there's a comment letter and there's a presentation, both of those were submitted to the SEC. Both are available on the -- publicly on the SEC's website. It was posted yesterday and then it is also on our website in the Investor Resources section presentations -- on top of the presentation. So, both the letter and the presentation.
Leslie Shea Vandegrift -- Raymond James & Associates, Inc. -- Analyst
Okay. Thank you. And then just on -- the last question here on the repurchase plan on the change to go from being able to buy back shares at under $1.05 NAV. So I guess my question, first of all what prompted the need for this? I mean since IPO I think 11 days you traded below $1.05 NAV. So, what was the push for that and also what do you think your stock does if it creates interim NAV volatility?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yes. So, here's how we think about it. So I don't think anybody asks JPMorgan quite frankly why are you buying back stock above book value. I think BDCs -- given the regulatory framework have massively changed, that book value is less meaningful versus kind of what's accretive or dilutive to return on equity -- and on ROE of the business and what are the payback periods. And so I think over the last kind of six or seven months we've been talking about it at the Group and we tend to think -- we tend to approach things in a very intellectual kind of honest and rigorous framework. And if -- we said to ourselves look if we thought the right price was at book value and the earnings -- the earnings power of a business is structurally changed, shouldn't we think about making an adjustment to the purchase price on the 10b5-1 program. And quite frankly, people in the space have not bought back shares even if it's massively below book value because management teams don't want to forego the opportunity for fees for the external manager.
That is the only reason quite frankly -- maybe I'm cynical, but it's the only reason why I can think of why they did not do that. And our view is forget about the fees -- the possible fees to the external manager, keep on driving ROEs, keep investing in the business, create an efficient capital structure and the payback periods are very very short. I think the payback periods are seven months, which anybody if you said there was a seven month payback period on investment would think it's very short, where the additional ROE accretion given the change in both funding mix and leverage offsets the de minimis dilution to net asset value. So, I think we continue to push ourselves to think about the appropriate capital allocation framework for our shareholders. And so you're exactly right where the stock has traded maybe it doesn't matter, but at some point it will matter or might matter and we should be -- we should put our shareholders in the position to benefit by being proactive and having frameworks -- having a framework that proactively creates value for our shareholders. Is that helpful?
Leslie Shea Vandegrift -- Raymond James & Associates, Inc. -- Analyst
Yes. Thank you. And I guess just last one, I missed it in the prepared remarks. What was the spillover income at the end of the quarter?
Ian Simmonds -- Chief Financial Officer
Sure. Hey Leslie, it's Ian. It's $1.19 per share. And I know through prior questions that you've had, you always focused on the components of that and the distributable earnings and there's some helpful disclosure that the team has put into Note 12 in our Q and you'll find that on Page 42.
Leslie Shea Vandegrift -- Raymond James & Associates, Inc. -- Analyst
Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you for taking my questions.
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Thanks, Leslie.
Operator
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Rick Shane with JP Morgan. Your line is now open.
Richard Shane -- JP Morgan Chase & Co -- Analyst
Hey guys, thanks. I just have one quick question. When we're looking -- when you're talking about the converts maturing, it sounds like the strategy is just to pay that down on the revolver for now. I'm curious how the rating agencies look at that and the opportunity to extend your maturities through future unsecured note offerings instead?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Ian?
Ian Simmonds -- Chief Financial Officer
Sure. Hey, Rick. I think we had had conversations with the rating agencies last year around what our range of unsecured versus secured mix is going forward. And as you saw us delever through the end of 2018, that mix shifted dramatically toward unsecured so we're probably at the high end of where we thought our unsecured mix would be. As we relever through this year and even if we do end up refinancing the 2019 notes through our secured facility, we're still going to be well within the range that we talked about with the rating agencies. But your question is well crafted because it's something that we do focus on. I think that Joshua's -- one of the comments in Joshua's prepared remarks, we're not just going to go out to the market and take a transaction that's available. We want to make sure it's not going to impose significant ROE dilution as a result of changing the mix of funding. So, it's something that we basically balance and I think even in our prepared remarks we talked about being opportunistic on the funding side as it relates to unsecured debt.
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yes, I guess that's exactly right. Two other comments. One is that we have rating agency reviews throughout the year including in the first quarter. We -- the comments we made on our Q -- on our Q4 earnings call and this earnings call are pretty consistent. So the rating agencies, you can rest assured we've had discussions with the rating agencies regarding this issue and I would expect no adverse change because a, we've obviously continued our dialog with them and b, is consistent with our historical policies and what's communicated to them. The second thing I would say which is the -- we said this before -- reissuing a unsecured convert is very difficult in my mind for us. I think as the earnings power -- the convert market typically looks at the historical ball and the historical ball and the historical ball I think it's going to be lower than the future ball because the earnings power have structurally changed across the sector.
So, you will not get the benefit of that in the coupon. And so put it another way, I think what we've said is if you issue -- if we get to the 1.25 times debt to equity ratio which I'm not saying we're going to get there anytime soon, earnings per share is in kind of that $2.25 to $2.35 range and if multiples hold, it seems like you're giving a pretty valuable option that didn't exist in the -- prior to the regulatory change. And so I think what we're really -- unless that perspective changes in the convert market, we'll really focus on the unsecured market versus the revolver market and the impact on ROEs and we feel very good about our -- retaining and keeping our IG ratings given the performance of the business.
Richard Shane -- JP Morgan Chase & Co -- Analyst
Great. Very helpful, guys. Thank you.
Ian Simmonds -- Chief Financial Officer
Thanks, Rick.
Operator
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Ryan Lynch with KBW. Your line is now open.
Ryan Lynch -- Keefe, Bruyette & Woods -- Analyst
Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. First one, I just wanted to follow back on the buyback commentary. So, just wanted to get a little more thoughts around why you set the buyback at 1.05 times of book. You mentioned the small bit of dilution which would create a seven month sort of payback period based on the earnings growth. So if that's the case, why not set it at a higher level at 1.10 times of book value when I think all it would really do is would be the same amount of accretion or the same amount of earnings accretion, but a little bit more book value dilution and just extend that payback period a little bit. So, why not set it higher, number one?
And then also why have it as a programmatic program? Why not have it maybe more opportunistic? And just wanted to get your thoughts behind that because in an environment where you're trading -- where TSLX is trading closer to book value, I would assume that that's going to be a very distressed environment given the nature of how your stock price has traded historically, which would also mean it's probably a very attractive environment for deploying capital. So, the second part would just be why is it a programmatic one versus maybe a more opportunistic one where you guys can have some discretion?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
So, let me answer the second question first because I think it's easier or it's on top of my mind. Why not discretion versus programmatic? You can only look to the sector and see on the discretionary ones, how much actually people have bought back stock. The open window periods for us given our conservative nature about three weeks and so the idea that we can actually -- we open up our open window four days post -- three days post quarter earnings and close it three weeks thereafter. The idea that we're going to kind of hit -- be lucky enough to hit the window and do something inside for our shareholders I think is -- the probability is very very low. So, did I answer that question?
Ryan Lynch -- Keefe, Bruyette & Woods -- Analyst
Yes. That makes sense.
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
And then as it relates to that -- I think your point regarding the correlation between where the stock is trading and the opportunity -- the opportunity for reinvestment spreads I think is a good one. And so how much are we foregoing when there's volatility -- when the 10b5-1 program is getting hit, how much are we foregoing to invest in reinvestment -- to invest in a higher reinvestment spread environment? That got into the exact sizing of the program. And so, we don't think we're giving up that much flexibility at a $50 million program. If we had a $300 million program on, we'd obviously be giving up a lot of flexibility and giving up a tool to create ROEs in a higher reinvestment spread environment. The -- why not 1.10 times versus 1.05 times? The answer is quite frankly the payback periods are shorter at 1.05 times.
We thought we needed to walk before we ran for this marketplace. We're a little bit of an odd duck compared to the sector in general because people don't even buyback stock below book value. And so, we just thought that it was a good idea of walking -- and over time we'll evolve it to find -- to optimize the right -- again the right capital allocation policy for our shareholders. My guess is if I would have came on -- came on today and said great news, one can buyback diluting shareholders. We -- some of you may applaud us for being innovative and thoughtful in putting shareholders first and some of you might have thought we were -- that we spent too much time in San Francisco, which we are in today, and doing things that we shouldn't be doing. But I think that is -- it's a measured framework.
Ryan Lynch -- Keefe, Bruyette & Woods -- Analyst
Yes, that makes sense. I really appreciate that commentary. Thanks for taking my questions today.
Operator
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Terry Ma with Barclays. Your line is now open.
Terry Ma -- Barclays -- Analyst
Hey, good morning. So just looking at the additional fee income component in your unit economics, it's been pretty consistent historically. But I guess just looking out as you ramp your leverage and grow your asset base, would you still be able to generate the same level of fee income?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yes. I mean look, I think what you had was you had -- if you take a step back and kind of think about the big picture, Q4 we had a lot of fee income. We pulled forward future earnings, delevered the book, and then we happened to be -- and that happened early in the quarter. And then in Q -- at the end of Q4 you had a point of volatility that where you didn't have any churn in the book and that churn usually creates fee income. At the same time, we started off with a lower leverage rate ratio. And so we would expect -- I think fee income was about 60 basis points, this quarter typically is 1.8 -- 180 basis points so it is about third of what historically has since our IPO.
So I would expect that as volatility flows, we'll find the right -- the business will find the right equilibrium between growing into leverage and some natural churn in our books. But as the quarter stands today, we've made a lot of progress on net fundings. We've had about $150 million of net fundings, I think on Monday we'll have $180 million of net fundings. My guess is we'll see some churn in the quarter, but we really haven't seen any yet. And so, we'll at some point get the right -- we're pretty close to feel like getting the right kind of equilibrium between portfolio growth and churn. I think when you take a look back, this was the lowest level of payoff in the last five years.
Terry Ma -- Barclays -- Analyst
Got it. That's helpful. Thank you.
Operator
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Christopher Testa with National Securities. Your line is now open.
Christopher Testa -- National Securities -- Analyst
Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Just wanted to talk a bit about ABL, obviously it's been an area of much success for you guys. With all the retail bankruptcies in the first quarter being larger than all of last year, I'm just wondering if the environment ever gets so bad that it can't give you any pause about getting more heavy into the space?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Hey, Chris. Look, what really matters is how we think the inventory will liquidate as it compares to where we're winning against it. And so what we've seen is that given that the consumer is in very good health -- like don't complain that the consumer's not in good health versus what's happened in retail. That's historically been the correlation. Retail goes as well as the consumer. That is not the core -- that's not what's happening here, right. Consumer's in good health, there Is a business model issue and a structural issue with retail -- with retail brick and mortar stores given the fixed cost base and given the disremediation of both kind of fast brands and plus Amazon and omnichannel business models.
And so it's really the liquidation value of the inventory and the liquidation value of the inventory has held up great. So, we continue -- not that we're rooting against our clients, but we continue to hope for a decent amount of structural change so we can provide capital and provide -- be a solution provider into that space. And quite frankly the liquidation values have continued to hold up very, very well. And you are exactly right. I think you've had more unit closings year to date than you had of all last year and that was mostly driven by I think our client, which was Payless.
Christopher Testa -- National Securities -- Analyst
Got it. Okay. Now that's helpful, Josh. And kind of sticking with the theme on ABL. If that stress does continue at kind of the pace that it's been at, do you think that that actually pertains to maybe actually higher spread that you're able to achieve or is that something that you think is going to stay in the L plus 7, L plus 8 range where you guys typically have been making any loans?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yes. I mean so we should -- we should -- the answer is there will continue to be some competition in capital formation and so I don't see spreads massively increasing. But there is a massive difference between spreads and total returns given how the asset class behaves, given call protection, given upfront fees, given duration of the asset class. And so I think our retail -- and people can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think our retail ABL strategy has generated close to 20% IRR, 22% IRR since -- you didn't correct since inception. And so obviously we haven't been charging LIBOR 1,800 spreads, right. The other thing I would say is that look this is -- this is a very tough business model for the manager of the GP, which -- is just to frame it for people, which is you -- if you can give up the business model and if the panacea is that I can put out $100 of capital that stays out for five years and I continue to grow my business even if it's at 10% IRR, that's very good for the manager. If I put out $100 in capital, 20% IRRs for 18 months; that is not very good for the manager, but very good for the shareholder and we continue to do things that are very good for the shareholder.
Christopher Testa -- National Securities -- Analyst
Got it. No argument there. And I know you had mentioned in the prepared remarks too that a lot of your financial services composition is kind of B2B and a lot of technology. Given that banks are investing more and more in technology especially as they deal with some really high efficiency ratios, just wondering if you're seeing the opportunity set there kind of to expand, to be more kind of FinTech sort of investments and things that directly serve banks?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yes. So -- and I'll turn this over to Bo because he's kind of our FinTech guy. We have a -- you're right, our portfolio -- our financial services portfolio is really FinTech oriented and it's really integrated with a combination of payments plus software predominantly on the B2B side. And we continue to like that area, we continue to be very very deep into that sector. I know that sector quite frankly very very well where we -- that allows us to add -- allows us to add value to the ecosystem and the sponsors that we do -- that we do stuff in that business, we do stuff in that sector. But Bo, anything to add?
Robert Stanley -- President
No. As Josh mentioned, this has been a thematic focus of ours over the last three to five years I think long before people started to focus on it. And the thesis was B2B payments and the intersection of software and B2B payments specifically was a decade behind where the consumer was from the adoption standpoint on the payment side. So, there's a tremendous amount of embedded growth and very resilient business models that we can lend to. So we've become thought leaders in the space, continue to focus on direct outreach to companies and when that intersects with our sponsor effort, it's been a tremendous amount of flow for us. I think we put out $1 billion in the theme across the platform over the last five years and it will be continued -- it will continue to be a focus. And you're exactly right, banks are more and more focused in the space which is creating opportunities as well.
Christopher Testa -- National Securities -- Analyst
Got it. Thanks for that detail guys. And Ian, I just wanted to double check something -- my phone might have cut off. What was the difference in prepayment income this quarter compared to last?
Ian Simmonds -- Chief Financial Officer
Prepayment income last quarter was about $21.2 million and it was about $1 million this year -- this quarter. So, it was significant.
Christopher Testa -- National Securities -- Analyst
Got it, OK. And that includes the fees and the (inaudible) acceleration, right?
Ian Simmonds -- Chief Financial Officer
That's right.
Christopher Testa -- National Securities -- Analyst
Okay. And last one for me and I'll hop back in the queue. Just more of a general question. Are you guys seeing more and more of the kind of port firms and sort of trapdoors creep into the core middle market from what used to be just confined to this broadly syndicated market and the upper tier of the middle market? Are you seeing that same sort of stuff cut wide or collateral dilution creep into say $50 million EBITDA companies and the like?.
Robert Stanley -- President
Yes. That trend has continued. I think it's a continuation of sort of poor underwriting standards and poor documentation standards as different managers, you have different experiences. And so, that trend has continued. I wouldn't say that it's accelerated over the last couple of quarters, but it has definitely continued.
Christopher Testa -- National Securities -- Analyst
Got it. Okay, appreciate your time this morning. Those are all my questions. Thank you.
Robert Stanley -- President
Great. Thanks, Chris.
Operator
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Chris York with JMP Securities. Your line is now open.
Tom Wenk -- JMP Securities -- Analyst
Hey guys. Tom Wenk in for Chris York this morning. Just one question for Josh or Bo regarding your investment opportunity set. You guys have been successful sourcing and underwriting special situations and unique investments that come with a bit of complexity. So given the focus or given the success, we ask you guys whether you have any interest or if you've ever really thought about extending financing solutions to companies in the expanding cannabis industry?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yes, it's a great question. I can never sitting here in San Francisco. The answer is I don't think we're willing to take that reputation or regulatory risk. I think it's still a Schedule 1 -- and by the way we've been approached. I think it's still a Schedule 1 drug on a federal basis and there are interstate commerce issues. The second is that quite frankly, we have a large private fund complex that I think would probably take a view on this. And so the answer is we've been approached, we have passed and we're -- it's probably not something for us. I don't have a view on the sector and quite frankly I don't have a -- I'm obviously not a user of the product. So, I don't have a view on if it's an investable sector from a unit economic basis. I do have a view that is not investable from a reputational standpoint.
Tom Wenk -- JMP Securities -- Analyst
Got it. Alright, understood. That's it for me guys. Thanks.
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Alright. Tell Chris -- I think Chris is out doing some public service stuff. So, please we wish him well on that and thank him for his efforts.
Tom Wenk -- JMP Securities -- Analyst
You got it. Beautiful. Thanks, guys.
Operator
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Finian O'Shea with Wells Fargo Securities. Your line is now open.
Finian O'Shea -- Wells Fargo Securities -- Analyst
Hi, guys. Thanks. Good morning. Can you talk about the origination mix this quarter on sponsor M&A, new money deals looks pretty down a fair way, (technical difficulty). Is this kind of one off -- are these kind of one-offs where you saw good risk adjusted return or does this maybe represent more of what you'll see as you lever up higher?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yes. Look, so Vitabrid Co. obviously is that should be a footnoted investment so the return is much higher. So as you know how our schedule investment works, there are some where there's a small revolver or first out piece and there is a -- there is subject to skin. And so, I think that you're not seeing the total economics there. And then Finn, you were breaking up a lot. I think you also asked us on the sponsor side. I would say post quarter end there has been a decent amount of non-sponsor business including what's been out in the public which is including our investment in Barneys, our investment in a specialty pharma company, and so it's been -- it's been a mix of non-sponsor and sponsor business and post quarter end, there's been a decent amount of non-sponsor business. (inaudible), it's really hard to hear.
Finian O'Shea -- Wells Fargo Securities -- Analyst
Sorry about that. I hope you hear me better on this one maybe, but I'll just ask one more on your fundraising trends and activity outside of the BDC. Are you raising more in direct lending capital?
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yes. So, it's a great question. We don't really raise any capital on direct lending capital or have done so historically so just to get people -- which we think is a huge benefit to the platform. We have a direct middle market lending fund in Europe. As people may or may not know, it's hard to do non-US borrowers of both from a regulatory standpoint and from a tax standpoint in the BDC. Non-US investors have withholding tax as it relates to income where they don't -- for non-US domiciled companies, which they don't have withholding tax on the core business. And so the only really separately dedicated focused direct middle market lending fund is in Europe. We have a multi-strat credit fund that co-invest on bigger opportunities with TSLX. That co-invest is subject to TSLX getting whatever it wants on a deal first and so it's not programmatic and so it gives the flex up, but not subject to the flex down for TSLX shareholders.
And then the last thing is we have raised a kind of a structure more down the capital structure fund to provide capital to middle market companies that's deeper down the capital structure and typically have a large non-cash pay permit that would not be appropriate for TSLX shareholders given that we view the dividend as a -- as effectively a fixed charge in liability. But we don't -- we view -- we kind of think about the world in two ways, which we think scale is the enemy of returns because you're competing against the high yielding leverage loan market, but we do need scale because on occasion there's a great opportunity like Ferrellgas or other opportunities where you need capital and scale. And so we've historically done that through our private funds, but those private funds are not dedicated direct lending funds and come behind TSLX in their allocation process.
Finian O'Shea -- Wells Fargo Securities -- Analyst
Thank you, guys.
Operator
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Derek Hewett with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Your line is now open.
Derek Hewett -- Bank of America Merrill Lynch -- Analyst
Good morning, everyone. I guess first, I find the revised buyback policy actually quite refreshing so I think -- so congrats on putting a spotlight on that issue. That said, I guess this would be for either Josh or Bo. I think given that pro forma leverage, I think you guys said it was about 0.83 times at this point, what do you think you'd need to see to increase leverage to the kind of that 0.9 to 1.25 target range that was called out following regulatory reform?.
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Yes, great question. I think it feels like -- look, things can change. It feels like we're on our way. I don't think we'll be at 1.25 by the end of the year, but it feels like we're on a way and directionally headed that way. It feels like we're a little bit better situated than we were in Q4 and that the sense is that if there is churn and financial leverage, we'll have an increase in fee income that supports ROE. I mean the good news and the bad news about this quarter quite frankly is -- the good news is that with no fee income and low financial leverage, we overearned our dividend and we had a 10% ROE and a 14.5% ROE on a net income basis. There is a lot of latent earnings in the book as we grow leverage given where we are. So that -- I think that's the good news as well. The bad news is obviously it's as good as a headline quarter you might have had previously, but I think the good news is there's a lot of latency in the earnings. Bo, anything there?
Robert Stanley -- President
No, I think that's exactly right.
Derek Hewett -- Bank of America Merrill Lynch -- Analyst
Great. That's it for me. Thank you.
Operator
Thank you. And that concludes today's question-and-answer session. So with that, I'd like to turn the conference back over to the CEO, Mr. Josh Easterly, for closing remarks.
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Great. Thank you so much. First of all, thanks everybody for the time and interest. And we're a couple of weeks before Mother's Day. Lucy was a new mother last year, she missed this call. So hopefully last -- hopefully this year has been a great year for you, Lucy. And to everybody out there, hopefully they enjoy -- enjoy the family time on Mother's Day. I will speak to you in the summer.
Robert Stanley -- President
Thanks, everyone. Thank you.
Operator
Ladies and gentlemen thank you for participating in today's conference. This does conclude the program and you may all disconnect. Everyone, have a wonderful day.
Duration: 60 minutes
Call participants:
Joshua Easterly -- Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Robert Stanley -- President
Ian Simmonds -- Chief Financial Officer
Leslie Shea Vandegrift -- Raymond James & Associates, Inc. -- Analyst
Richard Shane -- JP Morgan Chase & Co -- Analyst
Ryan Lynch -- Keefe, Bruyette & Woods -- Analyst
Terry Ma -- Barclays -- Analyst
Christopher Testa -- National Securities -- Analyst
Tom Wenk -- JMP Securities -- Analyst
Finian O'Shea -- Wells Fargo Securities -- Analyst
Derek Hewett -- Bank of America Merrill Lynch -- Analyst
Transcript powered by AlphaStreet
This article is a transcript of this conference call produced for The Motley Fool. While we strive for our Foolish Best, there may be errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in this transcript. As with all our articles, The Motley Fool does not assume any responsibility for your use of this content, and we strongly encourage you to do your own research, including listening to the call yourself and reading the company's SEC filings. Please see our Terms and Conditions for additional details, including our Obligatory Capitalized Disclaimers of Liability.
