WOKE WEDNESDAY EXPERT EDITION: JON LUKOMNIK JOINS THE SHOW!!!

Not live. Not live because we're not lived on this October 24th 2023. It's a fancy expert business pants. I'm your analyst told Matt miscarry Damien rawlas is in the studio with me today is episode doesn't suck because we have a special woke Wednesday with arguably, the fanciest expert we've ever had on business pants, Mr. John, Luke comic, John is the founder of Sinclair capital in the host of the outside in with John, Luke comic podcast, he's written three books more than 50 articles dealing with investing Theory and governance and future beta all sorts of stuff. He's a High Meadows Institute, fellow a professor at Columbia. He was an executive director at IRC for almost a decade and he started his career in the Comptroller's office of New York City in the 90s, which means if it's been done, John Cena. Now, we have a long conversation, we hit like a lot of stuff, but we going to cut it down for what Wednesday, just to focus in on the ante. And we're gonna do a little governance game at the end. Here's John Luc amnic talking about fancy stuff. So one of the things that struck me about and you spent 10 years at, you know, IRC you've been all over the place, but at the Comptroller's office, I'm thinking about the fact that you are in a democratic government. So like taking not Progressive stance, but like because I think politics or like, you know, the view of politics in investing was very different in 1998 than it is today. But I'm wondering how much how different it is. Like then versus now, when we're seeing, like, in Texas and Oklahoma on Louisiana and, you know, South Carolina and where they're effectively using like, like, what is a data set on environment as a cudgel against asset managers somehow because these estimate managers are lemming conventionally failing on something like carbon because none of them are taking like big future views. They're basically just doing what everybody else is doing. It wasn't different than it is. Now were you under pressure then? To do things that were politically motivated at all? Or is that like, is this a newer phenomenon and it's pretty specific to the anti ESG crowd at this point? I could unpack that into a really big. Set of questions because I think that there are a bunch of assumptions built into your question. I do that for terrible interviews, systems level investing now, at The Graduate School, the school of central public official Columbia and one of the things I say is for an issue, To have an effect on. the environmental social and financial systems on which our Capital markets rely because let's face it value and risk of creating the real world really price to the financial markets. It has to be big enough. Right? Like whether or not I paint the office at General Motors purple, or blue, or pink, or orange is the big enough issue, right? Whether I discriminate against women is a big issue whether I deal with carbon changes, a big issue income and equality is big into microbial, which is all the sort of systemic things that we deal with. Once you're a big enough issue, there are going to be political views because it plays out, it has to be big enough to affect society in the economy. So they're gonna be politicians. So they're always politicians alone. What's different now. Is. when you were told to figure it out, From a fiduciary. Viewpoint of what's best and worst. For the beneficiaries and we were allowed to go where we want. It's a little bit like how for years Republicans have said you're not allowed to compile statistic the federal government as well as the capacitance statistics on gun violence because they had a political view. And so they didn't allow it. So for instance you mentioned Texas or as I call it the United Soviet Socialist, Republic of Texas. I find it sassy. I'll give you a little story a year ago. The Texas General land office rights to the sake of Troller gentleman named Glenn hegar. Yeah. Who is keeping the the Christmas list of good children and bad children? I see. Yeah, that's my favorite list. Yeah, and obviously black rock is a bad child in their view because they believe black rock is boycotting, oily, gas and the Texas general led offices. We have these private Equity foots for Black Rock. and, You know. We don't have to divest from them. What do you think and Mr? Hagar says well you really should rethink what you're doing because it's Black Rock. Now, do you know what those private Equity Funds were? They were oily infrastructure funds, right? So when I see the Soviet Socialist Republic, let's go through this. What the Soviet Union did was say here going to be our favorite and disfavored sector of the economy, okay? Texas does that they say we want to favor, Royal a guess. Then they say, here are the players who are doing well and poorly in that and now we have our favorite apparat chicks of the people. We're going to make cobras of the Soviet party, or this case, the Texas Republican party. And then, at some point you forget the rationale, you're doing this to begin with and you just have people who favored people, you just favor and so Mr. Hagar is saying, yeah, you're gonna get rid of your oil and gas because we want to protect the wheel and gas and that sort of political irrationality didn't exist. Well, I'm glad I actually didn't know that there's been some progress, right? I mean this great progress. Look, it took a bunch of left-wing order Kratts, you know, 70 years to reach that state, the Soviet Union, it took Texas, 10 months, so there's great productivity in being autocratic and stupid. They've gotten much better at it. I can't, I still can't get over the, the tremendous irony that in order to create their good children, bad children list, they went and bought data from msci. And we only know that because msci had to reduce their fee under the, you know, the threshold that that Texas had set for Above This threshold. It has to be audited and and they bought ESG data and then used it in reverse, which brings me to the question of is what they're doing really? That different from the ESG side it's kind Of a form of beta activism obey its stupider, but they're using a data set to make a decision about a portfolio. Decision is They may be using that methodology. but they have decided ex-ante what the answer is when you and they're working backwards, they're saying we know that you should be doing well and guess we know you should by the way at the same time they're taking Tens of billions of dollars in Ira money to build solar farms in a bunch of other things. Yeah, yeah. That's different issue and and so it's sort of like this. We are going to tell you Galileo that the sun revolves around the earth whether or not you have the evidence. And I think that what ESG people at least Hopefully try to do and I will admit their people who start from the sky is falling. We have to save planet Earth, and therefore everything fits within our Paradigm. But what, I think, intelligent ESG people try to do is say here's the data, here's the extrapolation. What's the logical conclusion as opposed to? Here's the conclusion, how do we make the data fit? So while they both use data, One is using it to argue from a conclusion. When is using to reach a conclusion? I think those are two very different things. Except that there's a branch of ESG data in particular, that deals with sort of morality, right? Like which in which there is a predetermined conclusion that, you know, abortion is bad or like whatever. The religious reason a moral reason and they're using that data for that same reason and there are Pension funds who are invested. When you look at the constituent indexes the SG, indexes one of the underlying, you know, things in those indexes, in the methodology is they almost always Ex tobacco X like, you know, some form of arms like usually cluster bombs or something like that, because clients have asked for it, but it means it's pre-built in. There's a moral pre-built. Into a lot of these indexes not all, but I don't know that the Pension funds know that that's built in there, but the fact is on both sides. There are sort of, you know, it's it seems like two legs at the same stool in as much as they have a conclusion there then using the data to backtrack it into their portfolio. The downside in Texas being there actually, it would be like, you know, if I'm, you know, anti-abortion or anti-women's health rights, if I went out and said like all right, remove that from my portfolio and at the same time, added all, you know, Women's Health rights providers into my portfolio because there are acting oil and saying they discriminate against soil. It makes no sense. You know, you raise a good point at first off, if you're not a fiduciary, feel free to invest according to your values, right? You've invested your own money, you want to invest only in Coal, fire power plants. You know, I think you're Making a mistake, but that's fine. When you're someone else's fiduciary, you have an obligation to make sure that your personal political views, don't get the way you can consider them. You can think about them. But ultimately, you're a fiduciary and But there, but that's not as that's sort of where most people's conventional discussion stops. I'm going to go step further. How does something become material? Right. And there are Values and morals built into that discussion because the two ways Things become material that were in previously, it'll give you a great example in a second. Is either scientific knowledge evolves. The reason that climate change was it an issue that I teach we know? Was it true or morals evolved? So let me ask you what was the single largest source of collateral for the London bank loan Market in the early 19th century? George Soros. He wanted to live and thank you. Thanks. But but the lives of black southern slaves. Right into the early 19th century, was the lives of Southern slaves. They were viewed as collateral. They were property. They write clearly as the morality of slavery. Became obvious or the immorality of slavery became obvious, despite Rod desantis's new curriculum in Florida as the immorality of slavery became obvious, that became a much riskier and therefore material to the loan Market issue. And so over time some of those values Or values personal values become real value. Market moving price issues and it's tends to go in someone raises an issue, anything gets traction or does it? Then there's reputational risk. Then there's regulates and so it's not as simple as saying. Statically at this moment we're talking about future beta and future things statically. At this moment. This is a material risk, you may be right? But I think you have an obligation depending on your time frame to say, could it become if so, when how do I deal with it? Well the SEC would not agree with your definition of materiality because they basically say any piece of information or SEC know it was a Supreme Court Supreme Court would. Well this is interesting tension there too. So the Supreme Court definition of materiality is a piece of information which is the totality would cause a reasonable investor to think differently. But what's interesting there if you think about is the determinant of what's material is the reasonable investor. Yeah. But the determinant of the disclosure of what they think is material is a company and so you have this tension and I think it's now being played out shareholder, Commons, which disclosure about the board of raises this all the time that if a portfolio investor What your company does. To the environmental system matters. But it may not matter for your company in terms of maximizing Enterprise Value. So this is tension and I think we're right at this phase where that's going to be worked out over the next 15, 20 years. What does what's material in terms of affecting the systems on which the health of the capital markets rely as opposed to the Enterprise value of the individual company? That's making the determination of what to disclose. So there's a there's a weird thing so I'm not sure that the Supreme Court would disagree with them saying they would say if you're reasonable investor and that's why I said the process of going through it and documenting it and bring people along. They will give deference to a reasonable investors decision, not a company's decision. I don't know if Brett Kavanaugh would I don't? I I mean, I'm not, I don't know. Him personally lawyer for the council institutional investors at what point was he really right? Sarah, Sarah, who was the first executive director hired him at what point in and when he was under attack wrote a defense of him which I miss guided, but yeah. There is, you know. Yeah, it was a gig. I I have like a side question here because it does seem like in when we're talking about, you know, the the rational investor. It's The Prudent man Theory, right? Like, and it's the man part that I'm interested in. Because the anti-esg crowd, the anti woke crowd. This is called a awkward segue, but I want to get into the question of whether or not like it seems like there's two factors playing out with all of like Vivica ramaswami and strive Asset Management. On one hand, which is like quietly anti-woman and people of color like that, that just seems when you look like the voting record of strive, for instance, they are voting over almost at a two to one ratio women out, even though, like, all the directors still stay in because they don't have any sway, but they're voting against female directors at a two-to-one ratio and then there's the oil and gas slash, you know, like the as you call it like The Communist sort of approach. I, I don't know how to gel those things, except that, it's just all political opportunism, but why I can't make sense of this because it does seem like now. And we did a segment on the show yesterday. I'm defending, all the companies that I hate, right? Like, I am out there saying, like, BlackRock isn't the enemy here. Like, I don't understand. I spent 10 years saying BlackRock doesn't do anything for real. They vote every director and they vote against every proxy. And now I'm saying, like wait a minute, black rocks capitalists, they are what they they are. Why we saying that they're woke. I I don't Can you actually maybe make me feel better about myself? Good luck with the sensor? Um, again multiple questions. So let me take the first one first of the second was a bigger one. The first one and I think you've even mentioning. Strive. A capital Market Force, you inflate their influence, they have virtually no assets. Oh yeah, they're nobody was swelling much. What was on our show? I want to see, I know he was on your show and you know he's he has great teeth and you've giving him much more credibility than I think there's but that's okay. It was supposed to be nice guy and I actually know people who work for striving there nice too. So if you're listening to this Vivek or Laura or anyone else remember it's business come on the show again snarky. So yeah, ignoring her emails. Yeah, come back. But the reality is I think that what a lot of the anti-wolf is remember I said, they're arguing from a Conclusion. And when you trace it back, a lot of it. And the reality is it's a combination of two things. Number one, A Feeling by a large percentage of the traditional power base population, which is sort of That that the elites Coastal Elites are imposing a value system. And there's, you know, I'm not unsympathetic to that view but it's resulted in a lashing out. and they the reason that BlackRock or others were chosen, is because For the First Time, actually, things were changing and people did have power and BlackRock was Voting more at a certain way. And so it was a new front open in a war of Traditional Values and quote versus Coastal Elites. And that's why, you know, the anti gender diversity. Um, plays into that because when you think of it as an anti-elite battle, and by the way, what's more Elite than having a lot of money? So that fits well, led by a Harvard to Harvard grads, and Yale? And it was, you know, not as rich as he thinks he is. But certainly well, he and you know and yes we could go on and you know, and Ron DeSantis went to Yale and so you're not asking, are you asking for consistency here? I mean, if you know, I guess not which is not a finance thing, which is your breakdown There's a, there's a group that rates whether you live in or autocracy, a terrorist State illiberal democracy, or liberal democracy and the percentage of the world that lives in a liberal democracy is decreased under 30%. Right from what? What was from? What number it was in the 60s? Oh, actually, it was, it was in the 40s. But it's only like, not making me feel better, right? And then you have not his job part of me. Yeah. We're just saying, I just not making me feel better, and Damian said, it's not what he explained. It, I mean, so I can explain I I, you know, I believe in As much as I could do it fact-based. Noises. This is the difference. When you get back to your people know, I'm not arguing from a conclusion. Are you from? This is what's going on you guys? Stink at making me feel better anymore. These questions I came up to be snarky and have fun not to have a serious discussion about the end of well, let's have fun. Well, my game is not fun. My game is not fun. Damien, do you have a do you have a five-minute game? We can play around my kids in dirty nerdy agree or disagree corporate governance game. How about that? Yeah, well we can make that fun by being already and okay, good. Well, you're supposed to like, play it up. You thoroughly depressed. Me today. Oh look. I don't know what to tell you. I didn't have enough coffee. I don't know what's going on. John, when I come on your pod, we all I'll be more fun. I'll be ridiculous but is a serious Must listen. Look interesting. People pod. You know, I may withdraw the invitation. I'm not sure this podcast is fact-based snark and sometimes we are what we say. We are sad snark. Yeah, Damien. Let's play a quick game. We got what do you got? Five questions. Agree. Or disagree, 6.7 6.7 question. Yes, no no. Yes. Maybe there you go wins. Go ahead. Let's go question. Your question quickly, quick. This spring voting. Right. Should be effectively banned once your one vote for all. I am for it. I will. That's so that's once you go public. That is, I should be conditioned. Again, I live in the real world. I am willing to go with the, you're allowed to go public with uneven. Ideally, it should be windshield, you know, Matt wants I was nuanced here. I was thinking about you talking about the rise of, like, autocratic Nations. Does it parallel? The the rides like autocratic CEOs here in the United States Tech? Absolutely, because the reality is the argument for unequal voting rights, is that Mr? And I will yield to bat here, it's usually Mr. Founder is so unique and so wonderful that no one can replace the wisdom and the flexibility of insulating Mr. Onederful from the marketplace, the problem of course is you're not always wonderful. You reach a stage, the founders should give up. And if you don't, you reach the height who is the guy cable television, I can see him in my mind and when he was asked George Soros, they Blame him for everything. I don't know, right? Sells Ted Turner ish. That's it. Talk about Rupert Murdoch. Know he's dead. He's dead. Oh but he died. He didn't plan it. That's what he said. Yeah. Damien next question. Controlled companies are not public companies and should be considered private like like X for instance, your beloved Elon Do you really want to give up whatever measure of societal impact you have on X? By letting the be considered totally private? That's what we talked about a lot, right? Like there, that's the risk, right? And letting some of these companies go private is that we no longer control companies and they are in their own special area, and that there should be extra protections for the You know, they are a difficult breed. And I think that Okay, this Matt, you're you have a disgruntled side there? No, I just don't. I keep thinking about why ex isn't on an index anymore but like, you know, like dual class controlled companies are on indexes and it's like, what's the fucking point? What is the point is, those indexes want those companies on their index. That's the point, you know, you're looking at, what's the purpose of it? Index. So that's a whole other podcast. You well, that we do a lot of cover that. Yeah, that would be. That would be. That's the snarky fun one. Yeah, the one about index instruction. Next question is multi-layered. It'll keep going depending on how you answer. Let's start with the overall question management management should be excluded from Boards of directors. No Management on boards. Know Insiders How interesting question. Um, I am pausing because obviously the US Standard is sort of. You have one, maybe, two insiders of the board. That is not the standard around the rest of the world. And it's not even the standard for a couple of the well-governed companies here. And, and to me, it is one of those things where it's a cultural issue. I went to a conversation with in factors of my podcast, the CEO of Henry Schein Henry, Schein is a Fortune 500 company, Medical Dental product distribution and I think they have four or five Insiders on their board. And I was posting your question and his answer to me, was you have to understand the culture of the board. By having those people, there are people who know every bit as much as I do about what's going on. And they can inform the other board members and the other board members have the independent board members have an open door policy to any of those people, they don't have to let me know they're in the building, they can call them, they can check me out. And so in his case he was looking at it and as a check and balance the CEO, I think that only works with a very particular type of culture, so I generally prefer fewer Executives. I It to me it doesn't matter if the CEOs on the board or not the CEO is going to be present and presenting. I'm on the board of a mutual fund. We actually didn't have any management operatives We were totally. Independent, and we changed it and put the CEO of the company on the board. Because we wow his ass to have the same legal threat. Interesting. The rest of us and the same responsibility as a board member, which is different than just being a CEO. So I'm comfortable with the destructive. I haven't heard before I like that answer. Yeah, I'm comfortable with the US rule that says one or doesn't say no, it doesn't rule. It's not a regulation. Yeah. Right common state of one. Most two All right, then, let me jump to the and on the one then by your answer should CEOs. Be disqualified to be board chairs. Then should they absolutely? Yeah. That is a different role. I Much prefer. Having a separate chair independent chair and see. Something we talked about on our show. Yesterday directors should not be appointed to boards directly without an initial shareholder vote. So, we have this The way the mechanism seems to work at American companies at is that the board is allowed to appoint a director, right? Directly to the board who then waits for the next annual meeting to get approval from the shareholders. But we're making the case that you know, why? Why is this allowed to happen? Why isn't why aren't they facing an admission up on stage? Having debates like presidential candidates at agms like well no that candidates said they'll do this. But I promise to do that, I want. Like if it's Democratic make a democratic, if it's an appointed position, make it a point to position. Why are we having like a middle ground? This weird Middle, Ground is confusing. Steven Davis. Of things this area. I've written two books with Stephen. Initially wanted to have an hour-long call for every board nominee and I pointed out with if you own a portfolio of you know a couple hundred or a couple of thousand stocks and there's an average of Trustees, you've used your entire year just to listen to board calls and I said well so you know, I SS or glass Lewis or something to be very well, we'll have to summarize, I said great. Now we're giving these people more power, right? And so the answer for you, oh, your question. Um, I think they're, you know, there are still things were a lot of companies were directors. Don't get do, come on with the annual. It does happen that does happen. It also happens the way you described it. I think the question is why right if someone's retiring or resigning or is incapacitated and you replace it? The problem is more this I heard of them. Yeah. Oh that's information about directors and For anyone who's not in the boardroom to understand. Yeah, it was a good director who's not, or, even to know who the directors are. I mean, I you guys are in the business. Can you tell me every director of largest company in the Microsoft? Can you tell me everything? No, I couldn't tell you redirector of Microsoft, but but it's human nature to want to know and to wano evaluate right into into want to create these assessments, right? I mean, this is not human nature. I'm just saying that. Again, reality based, if you've got an average of 9 directors, it even if you have a 100 stock portfolio, that's 900 directors and it's really hard to understand them. And so we do we rely on intermediaries and data providers like free, right? Or Issa or whatever to get it done. So I'm not sure that the question you asked You know, I can give you an ideological judgment, which is, yes, of course, they should have to stand for election. Sure. But in reality deserve do, I think? It makes that much of a difference. It doesn't know. Wow. And but it doesn't, but according to the data anyway, doesn't matter. Anyway, they'll be voted in, 96 percent of this. Yeah. Special. Real. Yeah. Really. Care the directors, that then I'll go. How about that magic land? That's how about competing slates of directors, how about instead of, just putting up a directors, the worst problem. Okay. Actually agrees with you. So you're probably, this is a dirty podcast episode. For those of you who are not aware of it, it's weird. We'll just leave it at that and it has troubled history. It was a proposed rule that it was judicially. Overturned in the New Yorker, that created a natural experiment. I don't know if you guys are weird. There's actually an academic paper. One of the people was at Economist from the SEC. That's said The mere announcement of proxy access. Created a 52 basis. Point access return. So, the market even agrees with you, I like that, there should be more choice and more attention paid to directors. I'm just saying given the current state of the market is not, you know, how often is proxy access can be used? Sure. Yeah. Well, we're yeah, we're nothing but aspirational over here so this. Yeah. Okay, how about one more last one? American boards should include at least one employee representative. That's an easy one. How about that? That's your favorite one. Yeah, that's my favorite. Well, I had this, you know, I would like to change the system in a way that we could Define instead of defining materiality and all that boring stuff, because no one's ever gonna agree on that. Because it's my case that everything is material, especially in the long-term because how the hell can you predict whether it will be everything security for it and everything's material? Yeah, I think actually it's funny because you were talking about like doesn't matter what color GM. Paints its room, purple, pink whatever I could read demons mine and he was like I absolutely want to know if it's like that. To me what the generation coming? They have a whole they can't even afford mortgages and they can't afford their rent. So they're probably gonna care what the color of the paint is in their workplace, right? Because they have no where to go after work, Damon's dream, just contextualize, this is a screen that has a scrolling salary of everyone who works at every company. In the lobby, and that everybody in the company has to do a five minute stand up routine every single year because it's the most undressed. I think that could possibly have I came of age in the governance under Bob Monks at the corporate library and we, you know, disclosures King, I don't know. I mean, I think sunlight is the best, disinfectant, you know, let's let's get at it. Let's a lot of something. Yeah. So You answer your personal expected? I am a problem with constituency directors. I am a problem. I don't want a director. Who's the cybersecurity guy? I don't or woman. I don't want undirected. Who's the medical person out of pharmaceutical? I don't want and the I I want directors with that knowledge and similarly about employees. It's sounds good. But what happens is the other directors defer to that director around that issue and don't feel they have to become okay. Oh and so I want employee issues in the boardroom. I don't in some cases it may be the way to get them. There is to have an employee representative but in other cases I'm not sure it is. And then you get into and I worked with, you know, these Pension funds. The boards are half employee union leaders. They have City officials and so I have no problem with them being the employee representative. But when you make it and for them that was the appropriate way to get the employee voice, heard of those boards. if you're at, Some multinational manufacturing plant company. Does having? Even if it's a union leader from the US. Deal with your employees in Vietnam, does it deal with your employees at a different journey in the US? And so I want to have employees, you know, for every company that says our most valuable asset is our workers of the treats of like shit. Oh, I would like them to actually believe that and have that information, whether it is a place that's actually surveys Aiello writes a whole host of things. Discussed in the boardroom. But when you say, this is an easy one for me, it's not easy one. Because I don't know that in every circumstance having maintaining employee representative answers. The question, like the other directors, to whistle takes a responsibility for it. Could it could it have like the inverse effect of the presence of management on the board in this sense that the presence of Insiders on the board is must have a kind of overwhelming Effect on the, on the outsiders, right? I mean, there must be a pressure to could there be a pressure exerted the other way to have an employee representative in the room to hear these discussions to be on the inside that? Right. Absolutely. And I think getting the viewpoint Of employees. And again, I don't want to create artificial barriers with Arnold getting the Viewpoint of employees into the board of directors is critical. The only question we're discussing is what is the mechanism for doing that, right? Okay. So I can see if I am. You know, on the board of a car company, I want I want to talk to Sean, I want to hear what he's saying in the, I don't know that I need my UAW rep in the at every board meeting. You know where, but I want to, I want to at least, you know, periodically. Once you hear me annually, have some sort of systemic systematic, way of gathering. What are the issues of the employees are feeling? How we doing competitively with employees, a whole host of things? Um, and by the way, that's why I think it's important for whenever I've been on a board of directors, you know, I always want to have employee dinners and go at least two levels down from the CEO and knows around part of its succession planning. But part of it's also just You start getting a feel of what's right? And what's wrong here? So I have to, we're gonna wrap up the Pod here, I have to apologize because you're you're way far too interesting for me to have allowed you to be more snarky. So we're gonna have to do a follow up like we because we can have you on to a live show where we play the good game and then it's all like, ridiculous silliness, you know, but but I had far too many questions like I I and I told you before we hit record that I remember from like 15 years ago sitting in a meeting with you and you said one thing that stuck with me for the last 15 years, I've been thinking about future beta and that concept. So I've had like 15 years of built up questions and I didn't get a chance to ask you about like, you know what, Ron desantis's favorite color should be and fun things like that but I want to thank you for coming on the show. John Lucas, the great John McCormack the Governance expert of governance experts. I don't know that seems because of governance, experts. That's seems productive almost out, doesn't? It doesn't seem like it's enough, credibility, but thank you for coming on the show and and and, and putting up with our questions. Thank you for your sports feather. Two ways to get the whole thing to be, really sure. I'm playing or to be around for a long time, which is what I actually, thanks. Either one, you're in the Hall of Fame. You don't look back and say, you know like how you got there. It's just that you made the bar. That's it. John Luke comic. Thank you so much. Thanks, that's it. If you don't follow John, it outside in his podcast, go do that. Especially because I'm gonna be on it as if you can't get enough listening to me, talk, like everyone in my office right now is rolling their eyes. Big, thanks to John for showing up here. Otherwise we'll be back as a full crew on Friday to wrap the week until then goodbye.