Transcript
Live. Yeah, don't press the buttons. Oh sorry. The button. You screwed. Like you screwed the whole thing up. Don't press anything. Now, I know I never touched that live from a Qantas flavored cheese. Doodle. It's the ESG Industries. Only weakly woke data podcast. Featuring analyst whole map mascardi. Yeah. We have to talk about Qantas again. And today's Bedazzled ESG, necktie called September 27th. 2023 random ESG headlines. And anti-wolf Roundup from your favorite analysts hole and a word from the great Paul Hutchinson from escapes. Wow. And why is Paulson giving us a word again? Because because our show today is being sponsored by skager ESG Data Solutions provider. Although I think it was in the contract, I can't speak that quickly. When I say the sponsorship, so you had to say very slowly stopping by later to talk about gender pay Equity. That sounds good Equity is that the beginning of a joke, unfortunately, Okay. Yeah, I'm not I'm not feeling it today. I don't know about you. I'm just Out on today. Yeah, don't say that. Don't tell the audience that I mean, let's get excited. Here we go. This first story. I'm only including because I basically made this prediction and I just want to point out that how smart I am. Is that we've been pointing out the craziness of the new CEO at Qantas, Vanessa, Hudson apologizing, for the Misty of the departing CEO Alan Joyce. And I always suggesting that soon, they're going to pay her through the coals for this apology. And this headline, latest headline, new Qantas CEO, Hudson, grilled by lawmakers over raft of scandals. Vanessa, Hudson was grilled rebuked and chided by a military, right? I was coming. I knew they were gonna rip into her for for nothing that she CEO for eight minutes. And, and as we discussed, yeah, I think we just discussed to see their Friday or blast last week. She makes about half of what the prior CEO made the contract that she got. Like what is what is the upside for her? She's a she's a Qantas life for your role. So it's like becoming Manager of a really crappy baseball team, sometimes you just gotta do it. Does she ever get to go anywhere and proudly say that she was the CEO of something? She had a, she's got a big turnaround product. Look, she's either a hero or she just continues to be a glass Cliffy woman, right? I mean, but, but like, she gets like she has to prove herself. Again. This is another one of those situations where like a woman needs a PhD and like had needs a job for 60 years before. She gets a shot to be the CEO shot to be a CEO at a company that is crapping the bed. And then the entire country hates over the company that no one, no one likes. And you then have to prove that you're good at anything. Because if in three years, she hasn't like somehow mystically magically using unicorn powder and Lucky Charms. Managed to turn this company around from a shit show that it's been for a decade. She hasn't turned it around and like 27 seconds. Do shareholders voter out supposed It's even worse too, because I'm hearing that on top of the, the fact that they illegally fired 1700 workers that they illegally marketed canceled flight and that they, I guess mismanaged their return to operations after covid. Supposedly, there's even more, which is why Alan Joyce ran to the, you know, ran up the hills two months early, because he was supposed to step down, November 3rd, but he got the hell out of there. Hey, congrats to Richard goiter, though. All right, let's talk about ordering there and doing nothing. So, finally Australians are listening to our show because we were calling out, Richard, goiter vociferously. As it turns out, everyone agrees with us. Rachel Waterhouse CEO of the Australian shareholders Association said in an interview that chair. Richard, goiter ought to step down by the end of the year and join us on the show and Qantas Pilots are pissed. They actually said a cooling letter calling for chairman Richard. Reuter to step down. And they also claimed that the dude's tone deaf because as I think you pointed out last week he got he took 100,000 Dollar pay raise this year. She did. Yeah, that's correct. A very good correct. That's actually the sound of Richard goiter right now. Laughing to, Oh, all the way to the bank. That was that was live. That was live footage of Richard goiter laughing. I have a question though. We need. I think we need to get our friend, Rachel Alan Bacchus back on the show. Back on the show, has she ever been on the show? I she's been on the show. Once I don't recall back in the Emma days she was on the show, so I don't know, but we need to get our back on the show in order to talk about quality going on, Quantus. Rachel, if you're listening and Rachel Waterhouse Rachel Allen back, it's either one of you call my call my executive assistant, And we'll set this up, you wanted. You send a, a page to my burner. Send a damning letter to my executive assistant and let's get you on the show, all right. Moving on. Luckily I don't have a lot today. Matt usually, I have like 40 500 lines. Well that's okay. I think Paul's actually set up a tent outside so he's gonna be here for a while. How about this? The president everybody hates keeps doing cool. Things, President Biden's Auto Workers on picket line in Michigan. The first sitting president to join a picket line. The first is never happened. How's this possible? Never, I mean it does look never, or if we're a bit honest here, a bit honest it looks a little like like it's very politically know, he's always been pro-union. This guy's always saying he's not, I'm just saying he's Amtrak Joe. The reason why like sitting presidents don't join picket lines is because it no. Like that's the reason that don't care. Let's be honest, they don't they're not on the side of the workers CEOs. That's they do care very much because the unions can produce vote. So like okay like like so they don't care. It's just that the Optics of it often don't look great. Although, after he does this apparently Trump is all so announced, he's going to like visit Michigan and discuss. He's definitely pro-worker. Yeah, I know Trump. Trump should settle it. That's should, that should be the end of it. We'll be fine now but this is a story that nobody wants to talk about. There's no there's a few stories that nobody wants to talk about for some reason, Lina Khan FTC She's brought her antitrust case against Amazon yesterday. Nobody the business news. Doesn't care about that. They think the business I think actually she's undercut herself with the Microsoft Activision thing. I think when your first big case, okay, he's a bunch of fucking like idiot Gamers like complaining. That one company is going to own one idiot game and that is like a big deal. It's not just about gaming though, it's about Microsoft's like just overall power know I guess with what Call of Duty that's called Duty and and they have clippy for Microsoft Word, I take it back. It's all about Clippy, JP Morgan. Chase settles case over his ties to pedophile. Jeffrey Epstein for 75 million dollars saying it deeply regrets and he association with this man. This is like One of these weird stories that the business isn't really known how to cover properly like that, they don't because they had a way in, on mobile and gross, and then I think they just don't want to. I just don't want to touch it. I suppose, I don't know, I would say everything. They'll tell you the type of cereal that Elon Musk eats but they won't. They don't want to like weigh into this one too much. I will say this, I don't know like that I totally believe. It's JP. Morgan's job to know. Jeffrey Epstein was a horrible. Horrible disgusting. Human I thought the point was that it was no no already though. Sure. But here's what like this is this is the the pincer move, right? Because on one hand you've got authorities saying JPMorgan should have should have taken this into account and known and not dealt with Jeffrey Epstein. And and I think JP Morgan has a bunch of information that they Probably didn't share in his right, okay. And on the other side you have the conservatives. Now saying if you don't give a loan to somebody who's strapped themselves in grenades and said they want to blow up, you know, black people that you're discriminating against them for having Weaponry like JP Morgan now. They have to know every client and make a decision based on what they know, but also not discriminate against any clients for their religious beliefs or their decisions. I mean, I it's really impossible that to think that like JP Morgan is going to get this, all right and or all wrong, I don't. So here's I don't, here's the part that bugs me. Yeah, but bugs me, is that I feel a very, very slight, like 1%, sympathy for JPMorgan and I feel one percent doesn't sound like a lot of sympathy. Let's be real. Well, it's when you're talking about Jeffrey Epstein, it does feel like a lot. Here's the part that bugs me. JP Morgan. Also reached a confidential agreement with former executive just Staley. who was the, he was the CEO of Barclays and I think he was the head of He was 30. He spent 34 years at JP Morgan. He was never CEO there though, right? No, yeah, no. I think he was one of their investment over. Yeah. But he resigned a regulatory probe into this into I guess what they're saying whether he mischaracterized his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. But here's what bugs me is that JP Morgan reached a confidential agreement with Staley to resolved firms against him. So again we're not privy to this information despite being a publicly traded company. In one of the biggest scandals in corporate history, we don't get to know about this, right? I mean we're I mean, why? Tell us yeah, look I don't I don't like this. The whole Jeffrey Epstein thing feels like one giant horrible graphed and like we just stopped. Can we just stop confidential agreements at publicly Credit Corporation which is stop? It God, wouldn't it be funny if we know I wanted like I have very over five years. I've very much come over to your side where I want to know like their inseam length and like I want to know like yeah you're going to like our next story. Matt I want to know all the things because they feel like it all becomes relevant something that you're gonna you know you're gonna love this next story then. Ready for this one. This is like a perfect guy for us. Verizon CEO. We don't actually, we never talked about Verizon CEO. It's a man named Hans vestberg. Could you even have named him already out on him? Yeah, this is like this is the best ESG data ever. I was saying I could get access to this, I will say I could have named him because they screwed up my wife's phone for like, you know, anyway, well I hope we can get access to this data. I hope this becomes. I hope that the SEC pushes for the state for all CEOs of publicly traded companies. CEO of Verizon, tons of best because it's been tracking his mood out of one to 10 in a spreadsheet every day. Since 2009, I want this information. I want. This is like the good game. This is like the CEO good game. Wow, that feels very material. I'm sorry. Yes, the takeaway here is that if he gives himself less than a three, he decides to work alone that day. I'm sorry. You can't what? Wait, yeah. Well, if you're like a bricklayer and you're feeling less than a three, which would probably be every other day, was every morning because you're hungover. Probably every morning because it's just feels horrible to spend all day like crouched, over laying brick. You can't just work alone. I like that. That's, that's the story. Here's the scoring system, ready? Yeah. One, two. Yeah. This is all verified. He's, this is Percy NBC okay? If you trust CNBC, which I I do, because they get a direct from him. Is this like, what did he share the spreadsheet? Yeah. Well, I don't think they should share the spirit. She be scored. He's shared the scoring method and I get, I think shareholders should know how many days out of the year. He's a one or two. Shouldn't there here ready? Yeah. There's a methodology just makes me happy one to two means that he was I in the right headspace to work with other people and should stay in his office and work alone. Oh, wow, what does it mean? Like he's, he's either like mopey and crying. Like an emo Rockstar or he's angry and he's gonna yell at everyone, what? No. It's just like it says it's tracking his mood. So could be any mood and it the dark Moby or anger? Yeah, it's mangri three to seven is I guess this is the ideal scorer and usually when he's at his best because he's energized and productive. So already, I don't understand the CEO. So he three to seven is his ideal score. Look, I think this is look, this is it, this is, this is epic is what this is because right now, we're constantly talking about how like, you know, yes, G scores don't mean anything and this guy's taking him to score like of himself. Yes. Every day with an arbitrary methodology that has actually incredibly useful and all his meeting. And to all the perspective clients who are Angry at us for attempting to rape individual people like directors. They're doing it to themselves. So, yeah. And finally, the score between 8 to 10 means that he quote has so much energy that people get tired of, oh, so, He's a little, he's got a little, bipolar know. He's saying that whenever you're in a feeling you know, that's true. That's true. I get it could be bad. I respect that. I like that. All right, so I have two questions related to Hans vestberg. Okay. What do you think his mood was on the day? This may when he, when he realized that 30% of shareholders told him that he should not be both 30% shareholders voted against him and said that he should separate the roles of CEO and chair. What do you think his mood? Was that day? No, I think you need to flip it. I think if he was a nine, he would have said, 70%. Do want me here? That's right. That's the correct answer. Or what do you think is mood? Was on the day that when he realized that he gets paid 350,000 dollars a year to sit on black rocks board. Despite the fact that he doesn't really have to be there in the first place. Matt, there are 15 other directors and we including the founder chair and CEO, Larry Fink, and we calculated his total influence on that board to be 0.8%. Yeah, well, so how do you think how is mood wasn't he realized that he's getting 300 dollars for doing nothing? That would make me a solid nine? I don't sufferable, I think you're wrong because I think he'd be Since 3 to 7, is where he's at his best. I think he'd be in that range. I think he'd be like, oh no, no, I think he'd be insufferable. I think he'd be like running around. High-fiving people. All right, hands. If you're listening reach out, we want you on the show. I want all that data hands join us. I would like talking about. That would make my life better. It may be a seven finally to bring your mood back down. Speaking your rating things, what do you think about these two 2030 headlines? I think 2030 might be the new 2015 man. Oh I have seen a lot of 2030. This is true. Let's play a mini good game with these 2030 headlines. Nissan says it will go, all of electric by 2030, despite this, this band, this Patrol band of Lego going on the UK where they're saying that they're postponing is 2030 band on the sale of new patrol, cars, 2, 2035. And by Patrol, I mean gas, okay, this sounds nice. What do you think? You know, here's what I like about 2030. The average board member sits on the board for seven years, which means the newest board member, oh, Nissan. He's gonna have to be there, right? Like, won't they have to be there? I gotta say, I, I like this. 20 30 seems like a reasonable goal to me. That does seem like a reasonable goal. Like, good, good for someone having like seven years is better than 27, which is where everyone else is setting their goals. At the same time, France announced its plan to cut emissions. 55% by 2030. Does that sound like that one 55% by 230? Sure. Wow. Okay, so your mood is a six. Yeah, it's time for me to give you a short and I will round up. There's one big thing in the one. Funny thing that I found first up, like conservatives in the house of a morons that is our house of representatives in the United States of moronica, um, they like they, are they passed three sneaky rules out of committee to change a rules. Okay. Dept of Labor, erisa rules. These are like retirement plans, right? So good. Yeah. So, the, the headline here is actually not that is more inflammatory than it seems to be anti. ESG 401K, investing measures it by house committee everything. It's like when anybody does anything anymore, they just frame it as anti-time. Right? Like it's anti. This is not, it doesn't accomplish a thing. It's just anti-something else, okay? Yeah. What this really hinges on is one word that we've talked about here? But now is like there were really just getting on. Don't say it's gonna be one of two words. Yeah it is pecuniary. Yeah. And he's gonna be that or materiality. I knew it was one of those. Guess what materiality is in there? So don't worry. From the Trump 2020 Department of Labor rules. Yeah, of a pecuniary thing is a factor that a fiduciary. Prudently determines is expected to have a material. There's the word material effect on risk and return of an investment based on appropriate investment Horizons, consistent with the plans investment objectives and fundamental healthy pursuant to blah, blah blah blah. Yeah, so kuneri, when you look at up is actually just pertaining to money, okay? And a fiduciary is just someone who uses someone else's money and has a duty to that person and then material. Well, there's also the word prudent in here. There is something called The Prudent man Theory, okay? And it does say, man, it's not women because I think they're all theories started with men, they assumed that women were never prudent, which is the great irony. Is there much more men and women don't have time to think they were busy? No, they were busy. But here's the A line of this whole thing. Okay, these new rules have passed in the house and, and effectively, they're making you justify anything. Any investment that you do. That could be not pecuniary. They want you to justify having done. They want less proxy voting and that sounds like new anti-choice rules really, that sounds like anti-abortion, so that Justify Your Existence just really are at is justification for everything because they want your proxy. If you're, if you're a woman or black or generally, is that anything that isn't immediately Financial? There are actually saying that you shouldn't vote on and again, not to get belabor a point. But what is, an isn't financial is a complete mystery to me. And yeah, well because it's it's whatever you think. In fact, the definition of material Financial it, according to the Supreme Court is quote, a substantial likelihood that the fact would have been viewed by a reasonable investor. As having significantly altered, the total mix of information of made available. Meaning this if you knew something, It would have changed the decision that you made later on, okay? Can you think of knowing Hans vestberg mood? You know, totally would have changed my opinion of a lot of things, right? So you can make a case that anything is material. Well again, like let's let's take the departure of bpc CEO Bernard Looney, right? That's it. Wasn't based on any pecuniary evidence. No, it was based on inappropriately relationships with employees. Yeah. So according to the new Zeitgeist that shouldn't happen, he shouldn't be fired for that, right? He shouldn't resign for that, right? According to really to this world that we're talking about, like well that depends whether I can think of a material cost. So that's what I know. But that's where I get lost and all this is like everything could be eventually be a material cost to accompany it. I mean, anyway, that's correct. You're correct. You're 100% correct. And but here's where they get really like, if he, they actually want you to have less choices in your 401ks. They, they are adding transparency rules around something that Is an alternative investment in your 401k. So you want to like, add something that's not typically in your brokerage package, you have to now show like this chart, that shows how much money you could make under certain scenarios and say things like making this investment might be bad for your, you know, your your children's health and the last best one here that they passed and it was four like little edits to rules that they passed, is they wanted to add This phrase that they want to add effectively that as part of choosing your Investments, that you cannot preclude, you can't say, you can't do anything because of race gender or religion or national origin. They are trying to add this non-discrimination thing in there, but here's the and I don't even. Yeah, tell me the effect is, if you want to invest in a fund that focuses on diversity because you think that matters to the outcomes of the company, can't do that. Can't do that anymore because that now is discriminatory because you are making an investment based on race or whatever. Also, if I, if I were to buy like a Chinese ETF, I think I'm discriminating based on national origin so now I can't even buy something from space but on the country but that's okay because we hate the Chinese right? Well, who knows? So I'm confused what we hate what don't hate basically what these rules, hurt are impact investors, ladies and black people, anybody who like thinks that that matters thinks that like You know, you know, using your full talent pool, Matter's or leveraging talent that is under leveraged or whatever that you're out, religious investors actually get hurt because you can't discriminate based on religion, which means if you bought a fun that was like a Catholic fund, doesn't that mean you just discriminated against Jewish funds or supposed? I don't know anymore, I don't know, like the just trying they're just they're just become trolls know. I mean I, I is, I don't honestly know what the what is the intended outcome here? Nobody knows exactly, Catholic, yes, pecuniary can I get off of this boat? Um, last but not least, it helps humans who plan it doesn't help. It hurts. Actually. Humans who plan on living more than seven years because they frame this all around. Like, the long-term, like the objectives of the portfolio, the portfolio, right? Which a long-term investment tends to be more than seven years, but something peculiares seven years out is not something peculiar to today. And there there's a mismatch here, which means if I had to vote on something today, like a report, is that pecuniary for seven years from now, I would have to prove that. Yeah. Like, so the whole thing's bananas, it does help ironically ESG ratings, why? Because all they do is talk about materiality. That's the only thing they talk about anymore, right? So it helps them, I think, arguably, Um so yeah, this is just an FYI that in this country. They want to make sure that you have no choices with what you do. They basically just want to they just don't want you to make investment decisions, based on what you think should be. They don't want you to make investments decisions. They don't want you to make. Yeah, they don't want you. They don't want you to have control over what you want to do. So under these new rules, I'm pretty sure that Hans vestberg mood chart would be outlawed. Would be banned. You couldn't use it for any reason whatsoever. That's Story. Number one, story number two here and this is just for fun as a way to end the show on something other than like Downer, although Paul is going to talk about Downer stuff. I think now, Is getting angry at stuff. We just found out about continued. I don't know. If you remember, we had a segment on this and back and I think July, yeah, where conservatives is started getting angry at everything, they just found out about years and years later. Yes. Well, here's the headline, a missed. Taylor Swift rumors woke, Travis Kelce, taking a knee, during a 2017 game goes overall. So here's what just happened. Yeah, conservatives finding out that, and this is on the back of this headline, Will Taylor Swift. Make Travis Kelce woke. So here your takeaways okay. Travis Kelce thinks, Taylor Swift is hot and white. But first of all, why is she woke exactly? She's a billionaire? What is about her? She's a woman. Is that it, you know, I think it's pretty much that she's got lady parts that we don't like. Um, but Travis Kelce thinks she saw they they start maybe dating maybe just hanging out. Nobody really knows. I don't really care but as soon as they're linked, there's one picture of Taylor Swift the largest pop star on the world and Travis Kelce, a tight end place for the American Football National Football League. Ironically wasn't this, the guy the Bud Light using ads to prove that they're not. Whoa, yes. He just very He's a manly Burly bearded dude from like the most like one of the most racist teams in the midwest. Yeah, so not only that but the ad is him. Basically going like sitting and going. Oh and that's the whole acting like. Yeah grunting. It's the grunting is the big anti-walk statement. Yeah. Now the right in this country has gone bananas because Megan Kelly is said that. Yeah Kelsey is obviously super woke because not only Super Bowl, Super Bowl, not easy with Taylor Swift, who is now. Super woke, he endorsed Bud Light. All right, by being in that, yeah, he didn't take any money for that. That was pro bono and he's pushing the Pfizer vaccine. Oh, No, Just pro bono. Yeah, no way. He's taking any money from Anheuser Busch or Pfizer and they said because he's taking money now. He's taking money for what causes now. It's woke up. Capital. I don't know. I don't know how I feel now, I don't know. Meanwhile, the merchandise sales for Kelsey's Jersey after being viewed with Taylor Swift spiked 400%. Well, yeah. Okay, I would think I, I would think that this is, I mean, this is a gold mine for the NFL know. I mean, the amount of I'm just male fans that they might be acquiring here just because of this connection, if you thought being woke was confusing, you're now it's even more confusing because all you got to do is be seen next to Taylor Swift for 40 seconds. And all the sudden Taylor Swift is transformed you into a woke social justice warrior in this country. That's all it takes. That's all I got. Let's let's bring in Paul. Yeah and we're gonna wrap this up. Poor Paul's been sitting on the couch for how many it's it's your turn now. Here you go. Hello there. Pull Hudson with ESG statistic of the week. And as promised, we are going to look at gender pay Equity now, sketch collects, gender, pay Equity data from us filings. So, while there is comprehensive disclosure of both adjusted and unadjusted pay equity in the UK. What we're looking at is us or worldwide disclosure. And it's pretty vanishingly small. So, just to Define terms a little bit before we get going here, an adjusted gender pay. Gap is a gender pay Gap that is for same employees, same, same work. Rather, whether you're female or male, so it's position equivalent. And an unadjusted gender, pay Gap discloses? What the median or average figure is for all female employees and for all male employees, Now, one of the reasons people are asking for that unadjusted pay Gap, is that it discloses? Something about the companies? efforts to Employ women in senior roles rather than just Junior roles, if your pay Gap is wide for that as an unadjusted calculation, then it shows that there are far more men in better paid and more senior roles than they're all women. And that's a piece of information that, but both shareholders and probably employees would like to know. So we're going to look at this for the whole Russell 3000, and then we're going to compare the Russell 3000 and the S&P 500. So this is the adjusted gender. Pay Gap analysis for either us or worldwide workforces and the number of companies that are conducting, an analysis has been increasing, but haven't disclosed the results as 21%. In 2023, that's up from 7.4% in 2021. So no analysis conducted, so no disclosure and no analysis is at 65.9% this year and it was 88.5% in 2021. So things are slowly getting better but they're just not telling us about them in terms of analysis actually disclosed for an adjusted gender, pay Gap. There is 11.6% of the whole Russell 3000 making that disclosure, which is up considerably from 3.6 percent in 2021. Now, if we're comparing the S&P 500 with the Russell 3000, then there is more disclosure. So we're we're looking at, for example, analysis, conducted but results, not disclosed, Is 28.9% in the S&P 500 Atmos. It's 21%. In the Russell 3000 and adjusted gender. Pay Gap. Actually, disclosed is it 22.9% in the S&P 500 compared to the 11.6% that we saw for the whole whistle 3000. So the only it's I mean it's actually less than half of the S&P 500, doesn't conduct any kind of adjusted pay Gap analysis at all. So that's that. So let's have a look at the unadjusted pay Gap. So for the whole Russell 3000, it's 97% no disclosure 1.5% disclosure and for the S&P 500, it's 95.5%, no disclosure and 2.4% disclosure. So it's it's a pretty vanishingly small number of companies. Despite all the successful shareholder resolutions calling on companies to do this and a few high-profile companies agreeing to do this. Like visa for example have agreed to make those unadjusted pay Gap. Disclosures it really has not caught on here at all. And if we're just looking at the S&P 500, there's been a small decrease over time. Just to look at the look at the time sequence here, from 199.2 percent had, no analysis at all in 2021, in his down to 97% now. So there's some, some analysis conducted, but Results. Not just 1.3%. And then the 1.5%. As I said, for the whole Russell, 3,000. Actually disclosing that. So now you would think for example, that since companies have to actually disclose this information, In the UK by law, they have to disclose it in the UK that companies, who are disclosing it in the UK would also include those disclosures in their us filings. But if we look at that, and just compare the statistics only 12.1% of us companies, make that disclosure, that they've already calculated that they've already put together. For the UK. Only 12.1% of them make that disclosure in the US in 2023. Now, it's up from 6.4% in 2021, but it's it's still a very, very small number and actually not that much more than making the disclosure for all of their employees as well. So, again, I'm thinking to myself, hmm. What are they trying to hide? Just the thought. So this is Paul Hodgson signing off with ESG statistic of the week. Ominous sign off. Yeah. Ominous. What are they hiding? Like the chuckles that's Paul Hodgson from s gauge. Your ESG Data Solutions, provider. I am khurana, soulmate muscari, as Damon rawlas we are free. Float show is also brought to you by free flow and lyrics.com. I don't know why you haven't signed up like, it seems stupid at this point. It's just stupid not to be on there if you like this show will be back on Friday to wrap the week until then good. Bye.