Transcript
Yeah. Hey, whoa. I mean, you got energy. I'm is Drury. Yeah, baby. All right, bring it because I'm I'm sleeping live from your CEOs, golden parachute. It's yeah. Another manic Monday edition of business pants. Joined by analysts old. Matt Mascari. Yeah, that's me. Yeah. Okay. In today's faulty wiring called September 25th 2023. The Arbiter of how much should I give a shit stops by? That's you, Matt. I don't know this orbiters of things and Daughter of enough things, Matt's, best BMS of the week is that, what were you doing? Best board member of the week? Best board? What are you up to this week? So this week I was told that we're too negative. Well it's by like obvious and kind of are not your mom though. This wasn't your mom telling me this and that we should focus on the positive. So I did a quick You know, version of filtering, our data to show who's what the best team all best team might look like, and you're not. And if you're an ESG person, which you're not You won't like it. Well I've then I feel bad for the game of created today for if we're too negative because the game is, is how is rate, how much I should give a shit between one and ten? So that's everything a 10, maybe, like, if everything in 10. You see that music started off very positive. It ended on a decidedly negative side effects. We can't get away from it. Our show today is being sponsored by free flow analytics. The only ESG data platform to measure real board influence. That sounds good. Correct? That sound cool. That's sounds awesome. All right, so here it is. Right? How much I should give a ship to one in? So, These are just headlines. Matt from Friday until now, okay? All the headlines after our Friday show and I just want you to know like they seem kind of Quasi important, a lot of them and I want to know like how much we really give a shit Okay, all right. I know it's every one of these games is pointless, so, it's not that hard. Okay, here we go. Lego ditches oil-free brick in sustainability, setbacks. So let Lego has abandoned its highest profile effort to ditch oil-based Plastics from its bricks after finding that it's new material led to higher carbon emissions. Wow. And that's because that's because according to CEO Neil's Christensen which is really the best CEO name for a Scandinavian CEO. Right? Neil, does it get more? Because he's saying that that process would have led to higher carbon emissions because it would have required new equipment. But I don't know if I how I feel about that. I mean, yeah, can't you just sell the new equipment one day? Or I don't know, I mean, is that real? I don't really kind of understand that but Matt, before you answer how much I should give it about this, The current process takes it needs about two kilograms of petroleum to make one kilogram of plastic. If Um, so first of all, would the oil-free bricks have hurt less to step on. That's as a parent that might be concerned. I would hope not. Because isn't that sort of rite of passage apparently that it really vulgar emission that comes out of you and stepping on a Lego an errands like oh last night lights out down stairs. Just trying to walk across a room cursing. The entire way, look, I think this is a big is deal. Mostly because the, the goal that they set was not, it was an oil-free brick goal, right? It wasn't. There's one way to make an oil free brick. That requires buying certain you know, machines that cost several different. What you should do is not ditch the idea but say we need to figure out this idea and innovate to make it possible. Instead of ditching it. So I think we should give a shit mostly because Legos are everywhere all over my floor. And if, and if a company that wants me to innovate in building things with little bricks, doesn't innovate to create those bricks. And what do we talk about here? I'm going to give this one a seven, that's what I'm gonna give. My question is Is this like when companies start you know, when the first big company does a big round of layoffs, then everyone jumps on it. The bandwagon is, are they kind of jumping on the like, oh, everyone hates, he is G. Now bandwagon like Chevron and and black and they're like, let's just like nobody's gonna care. I feels like the the like, well, we haven't figured out how to not use oil. So let's just all use it for now on anyway, right? Like, it does feel like that and but it's worse than that to me because this isn't a question of like, band, wagony, anti-esg, anti-carbon East stuff. This is like a massive, excuse, making by every single company, why they can't, they're not going to figure it. We're just not gonna try to figure this out. It's basically what everyone's saying, we're not gonna figure, which I thought what I thought, that's what 2050 was for. I thought that you write that fake gold stops of years in the future. We're not, if we're gonna make goals. Seven years from now and then still say, 27 years. Before the goal that we're not going to figure this out. What do we even making the goals for just? Don't even bother. Just say we don't care about the Earth. We don't care about anything just say it. How about this one electric? I think you're right, Matt. Well, I mean, obviously electric vehicles are a climate solution with a pollution problem and that is Tire particles. So, according to research, from from a group called emissions analytics, they found that a single car sheds, almost nine pounds of Tire particles a year, which is a toxic slurry of microplastics, volatile organic compounds, blah, blah, blah blah. This is really a story made for Jesse. Now, the point is here is that EVS electric vehicles tend to be significantly heavier than gas cars there. But therefore are emitting a ton more tired particles which they, which are said to be responsible for five to ten percent of ocmic micro plastic pollution in 37% of airborne. Pollution the same way. So okay, how many more particles are like? Well relative to regular cars that we talked about like sorry about seven more particles. We're talking about 20, 200 billion more particle. What are we talking about here? because framing the headline as EVS are climate solution with a pollution problem without saying, well, if we don't do EVS, if we just skip them entirely Isn't that a much larger climate problem than seven particles of Tire plastic? Yes, we have to do something. This is All these headlines, make it sound like, oh, well, if you're gonna change its you're gonna just have some other problem. And it's like, okay, let's call excuse-making do something. Idiot to be fair to the author. This is from Grist. This is a Paul Krantz. That's the author. He, the the sub. The subtitle to this article is the tiny fragments that tires released into the environment, are yet another reason to reduce car use. So they're, they're pushing more for a public transportation solution to this. And I asked the same question that I, I was gonna ask for Lego, is that, is that the question that nobody's asking is notice that what Lego CEO didn't pose? Is why are we making so many freaking Legos in the first place? Like, That's never really a part of. The equation you're talking about a whole other philosophical god-given right to consume and to sell yes you're talking about create your talking about make less live more responsibility and with because a whole different thing is really think about it. Matt we're talking about the rite of passage of Lego stepping right? But what this means is that there are generations of families that buy tons of Legos. Their kids get older and move out of the house. What happens to the Legos? Yeah, correct right. Well I can tell you what happened to with our Legos because 87% of our Legos are either mine or my wife's. Well, you upcycled, your Legos which is what should be part of the solution to this problem but that was what. Yeah, Legos still fit together. But we're not talking about Lego anymore. We're talking about the tire particles. How much should we give a shit about Tire particles? Look, I think we need to, I think we need to like pick our battles here. I would much rather. More people were riding in EVs and I was in choking to death on air pollution. Sure. And have seven more entire particles. I'm going to give this a four. You're right. But I like this element of the Grist article which is we need to find other. We need to we need to stop this obsession with car on. I would love that. I would love that, but tell that to somebody and I Iowa who's got to drive time, I don't know miles to go to a local, you know, like to get a piece of pizza, right? They don't call me anymore. So, I'm gonna have a problem. Number three in the world's favorite game, show the new World's new favorite game called. How much should I give a shit? Yeah. It's in and Purdue our facing child. Labor investigations, is that in New York Times, labor department has opened inquiries into whether Margaret children were working inside. Slaughterhouses owned by the poultry processing, Giants children, as young as 13 were using acid and pressure hoses to scour blood grease and feathers from industrial machines. Now, before you answer how much I give a shit about this, One thing that's interesting about both Purdue and Tyson both family-owned. Firms family-controlled. Yeah, that's correct. And one of the families had has broken into someone's house left in their bed and well, we don't know that the other family hasn't, so let's be fair to the Paducah family. That's true. We don't know that that's true. That has been reported. Look, I think the, I think this is interesting mostly because there's currently a conservative movement to remove child labor laws in this Midwest specialty in the Midwest for this kind of stuff, right? Like they're basically using it as a solution for not having enough people to work in things like slaughterhouses. And I I can't get over the irony of the fact that the child labor laws were put in place because of children. Operating in slaughterhouses. Was that? Like part of the thing, like that was like the original labor. Did Sinclair's the jungle talked a lot about slaughterhouses in Chicago. Yeah, this sense of like the fact that it's progressed to not have a 13 year old using acid to scour blood off of an industrial machine. We don't think it's progress that maybe they don't do that until they're older. And, or that we're leveraging, migrant workers specifically where we know that Tyson had a massive covid problem because all of their signs that said, like, wear a mask and distance, we're in English. And they were not designed to speak to a migrant worker at all. Much less a migrant 13 year old worker. Yeah, I'm gonna say we should give a shit because because this is because it's gross. It's gross. This should be an nine out of town. Wow, what is it 12? My kid is 12. I don't want my child to like their only thing in life to be, you know, we want migrant we basically want migrants out of this. Country. For some reason, we want somebody who's an undocumented migrant or a documented migrant, we're still trying to kick them out. We want to build walls and yet we also want to put them to work scouring blood off of industrial machines. It seems like it's all gross. All you're going up, you're going up. What I want to know is why won't let go get involved with this? What about taking that blood? Grease and feathers and kind of compacting it into a brick size toy. Could we do that? Yes, I think again. How about this one? The death of carbon neutrality. I don't even know if I go much more into this one, really? When you said it was a negative show at the top you weren't flying, how much? Yeah, this is this is from the financial times talking about. Well they're wondering Have we ever reached a point the death of carbon neutrality? Um well it depends because if you're talking about the carbon credit Market which is I'm guessing in part, at least what they're talking about, right? Yes. Then then yes, that was sort of a big, mostly fake not entirely fake Market to begin with, right? Like it was a lot of double counting. There are a lot of problems and you were overshooting it. Anyway, so in that way yes, but if we're saying that carbon neutrality is a concept is dead. That's very very bad. No. This is based on the this is the EU. Basically trying to get rid of the greenwashing about these fake climate neutral claims. Why, you know what I'm what I'm curious about? I was thinking about this over the weekend. The policing around like green and sustainable and all that stuff is in almost entirely about what you say and not what you do. Why is that? Why are we so obsessed? Easier says green. Yeah. I but like you can just abandon it and it's fine, right? Like yeah, I guess because it's more difficult to measure action because it's as of yet not disclosed, is that part of it? I almost think. Like, if you said green on all your stuff like, so all the green washers, then it's not you, you're not allowed to revoke that, you actually then have to do it, right? Like so, if you said, you're a carbon neutral fund for instance, and now carbon neutral is not cool. You still have to be a carbon neutral fund. You just have to figure out how to be a carbon neutral fund for realsies. That's, that's what it is. Maybe so no more fakes, maybe part of the problem is that they're these are regulate regulatory bodies with a salary of, you know, probably have like a staff that makes 500,000 dollars a year. Fighting not fighting know it's worse than that. It's a regulator's, are being Either highly prescriptive or they have no idea what they're doing and they're just doing it right? Like because you want to know why? I know this, because I've gotten zero calls from a regulator to ask how these like, how like ESG ratings work or ESG data, what it looks like. None of them have seen the ESG data points. But to my point, it's probably understand. Know, they're probably understaffed compared to like Chevron and Exxon I'm donating my time. I'm free, just send me an email. What's the what should we give a shit about the death of carbon neutrality? I think we should, but like we have other we have we have to deal with the stepping on Legos problem. So I'm gonna give this a six in a similar vein. This is based on data at a Morning Star, Yes, Morning Star, Black Rock State Street among money. Managers closing ESG funds, according to Morningstar data, more us, sustainable funds. Have closed in 2023 than the prior. Three years combined. Should we give a shit about this? I don't know branding or what is this. I think, you know, like, look, if this is this gets back to the, you can be held liable because you're not doing the thing, right? I said, like a while ago that everybody who shuts down a fund, you know, stops, you know, using ESG. We're basically exposing everyone who is a fraud in the market to begin with, right? So now we just know that there is a huge amount of sort of fraud. I don't like the suggestion that this is the ESG bubble popping, which is what I've been political backlash. Yeah, based on like all these pressures against ESG, the pressures against the companies, the SEC and Regulatory pressure. Yes, she's a data set. That doesn't pop. It doesn't go anywhere it's products. Anything it grows know, it grows right. So, so this is weeding out the bullshit in the market like this year, to find the stuff, that might not be, that will never be the narrative. And he's Meteor reports though, right? But that's, but for, for this story, like, should I give a shit? This was a two for me. Like, I have stopped this is a headline, grabby, click-baity thing, but not be that real. Let's get to some dystopian fun. Oh, we weren't there yet. This is from the guardian out of the Guardian. The headline is capitalism, is dead. Now, we have something much worse. Oh, this is from a new book from Giannis Vera. Very Focus. Oh Giannis. Farah focus is no. He was like he was like three prime minister or grease write Anonymous Maverick Economist. This is a new book, on the tyranny of big Tech and his new book called techno feudalism. He says, it's no longer the global Finance system that shape us. But the fifth dimensions of tech firms, he goes on to say that we are now in server to the Fife, Toms of our new Global Masters, Lord Zuckerberg of face landia and Sir musk of the rotten borough of x. Wow, first of all, your crops to the name, why are they applauding this? This sounds a little bit. Like, what some of the stuff that we talk about these like these cities, these future cities created by Tech CEOs. Essentially, this was your obsession like two years ago. It's still is, this is part of the reason why I covered this because and why we talk about it so much is that, you know, he's on to something. These are dictatorships that are all sort of started to control Humanity. It seems. Well, that's the question I want to ask you if Facebook was not dual class, would Zuckerberg still be CEO? He would think especially with the the Cambridge analytica and some of this, the misinformation over covid. Some of the misinformation with the political the elections. You would think that there would have been a Breaking Point and the true CEO Sheryl. Sandberg probably would have stepped up and taken the role so right because that Rob, that would have been a great. Probably, the greatest glass Cliffs CEO scenario, ever, write Sheryl, Sandberg taking over taking over at meta what she said because she was usually the one who would go to Congress and apologize. So that, yes, I think it would have been a time to remove Mark so if but if you play that string out, right, there's they're not spending 12 billion a year on the like the the metaverse or or AI, right? Like Samberg is highly unlikely to spend the money on that at least immediately, they spent a lot more time and energy cleaning up so that they're not quite the fight them. I don't think he's wrong. I I do think I do. I am left with a like. Okay, but now, you know, like because, you know already but because I already knew this right, like, yeah, we talked about it all the time. So, but but I'm also stuck with now, what? Because we do have musk, who is so who can't even get voted off his own board because no one will do it right. Like yeah, every time we look at how investors and Tesla. Every time we talk about how investors vote, they just don't yeah, just don't care, right? So so really the apathy is not about like our our Tech firm Masters. The apathy is investors who don't care about who runs the companies, as long as they make money I got a how much would you give a shit about? I'm gonna give this a seven because I know it's a problem Theory. I don't know what to do. All right, now we just get weird. This is the next one. I reporting from the Atlantic, a big deep dive from the Atlantic. Here's the headline. This is just crazy bear with me. I have a lot of nonsense to say but this is just nuts. Elon musk's grandfather. Belong to a political party that believed the world should be governed by technology. Okay, this is a, this is back in the 1920s and 30s. I believe he was a Canadian chiropractor, he was a radical conspiracy theorist part of a group known as technocracy Incorporated. This is back in the 1920s. Grandfather this group believed that the world should be run by a totalitarian regime of Engineers and scientists based in North America and that these Tech overlords would solve all of society's problems. Okay, okay. The organization referred to its people as numbers and sometimes added exes to their names. Whoa, yeah. So ultimately Canada, arrested him and this group was known as basically a fascist movement and following this Elon Musk grandfather, moved back to South Africa, to support the cause of apartheid of all things. Yes, he also continued writing while in South Africa, about International conspiracies of world domination from a group of elite. So. Oh man. This, I mean, the very thing that we talk about with like Elon Musk Rupert Murdoch blah, blah, blah. What's happening? Exactly. A hundred years ago with the Elon Musk grandfather in, in Canada and California, this is just crazy to me, I'm sorry, but this, yeah, I'm just floored by the overlap here. But the difference is in 1920s. None of those people were billionaires. Exactly. That is right. Very good. Yes. So, so then it was like a cute stupid thing of a tin foil crazy. Now, the tin foil crazy, Has several hundreds of billions of dollars. It is because of their equity and nonsense. Their their cemented in power like as you said with a Tesla board, you can't even get rid of the crazy. Yeah, yeah. Forget get rid of right crazy. You can't now you can't stop them from getting everywhere. They're in AI, doesn't because it's only because of equity based wealth. Right? It's not actually even about actual cash. You just Equity based what a Founder wealth. That's it. Yeah, and yeah. It's um, so, um, I find I just kind of blew my mind. This one, if you take the last one about the tyranny of that's why I, that's why I ordered this way. Yeah, that's why. Yeah, then you should be sufficiently terrified. But I still like I don't give a shit specifically about Elon Musk grandfather being part of technocracy Incorporated. How much do you give this a one? I'm gonna give it a one because I'm so tired of caring about anything that moron like his family. A bunch of crazies. He was bullied as a kid. He's got. You have hundreds of billions of dollars. Get the fuck over it. You have to get it under control. You can't you you can't ruin Humanity because you're a big diaper, baby. Just get over yourself. I don't care about all those things. What I care about is what you do with your hundreds of billions of dollars. Oh, you are the one who forced the UN to justify feeding hungry people, right? Like that was you don't tell me your grandfather because he was a conspiracy theorist that made you want. And that justifies, it get over. It. Don't forget all. So, a huge support of a part-time Yeah. Oh well that's that's just the icing. That's just the gravy. It's just the grave. The next headline out of the Wall Street Journal, meta, speaking of Zuck meta to push for younger users, with new AI chatbot characters, Yeah, we didn't already have a problem with users, too. Young and body dysmorphia and stuff. Let's go. Younger meta is planning to develop dozens of AI personality chop Bots. They're also working on a product that would allow celebrities and creators to use their own AI chatbots to interact with fans and followers. I don't like the sound of that among among the bots in the works. Is one called Bob the robot a self-described. Sass Master General, with Superior intellect sharp wit and biting sarcasm, blah blah, blah. I don't like many of you. This was just this weekend, how much horrible know I? I was very diligent about this, the fact that to make sure that it was only our headlines, dated September 22nd and later. Yes, just this is an insane amount of horrible over one week about this. Look, I mean, Already broken everything. I don't know that this is going to be like the thing that you know, breaks the camel's back. But it is one of those things that like I like that, where everybody seems to be focused on how young can we go before it does? Can we do 10 year olds, who are using acid to, you know, scrape blood off of industrial machines? Can we get six year, olds talking to fake celebrities and SAS Masters? So that they can have. What is the goal here like to get the like, why don't we just when they're in the womb? Put a neuralink chip in and some control over how dare you? I mean, that's coming. I mean, this is all horrible. I don't know what to think of it as I, it's like I simultaneously and apathetic and horrified. So I'm gonna give this advice which is about right? I think that thing that gets me is that this same group of CEO is going to Congress, begging them to regulate them. But yet we have, you know, again we had these five Dums, we're no one can control. The founders and CEOs of these Enterprise's because they have, they have no actual counterbalance, so their power none. None. None which segues into your next one. Sorry here we go. Number nine, Elon Musk weighs in on CEO pay again, this is a good one for us. This is a good corporate governance. ESG, nerdy one this time. He's taking aim at General Motors, Mary baer's salary. So Elon was responding to a post on Twitter or ask whatever you call it. That said she has created zero value for GM shareholders over her entire tenure a CEO. Why is she worth 20 million dollars a year if she's worth if she's worth 20 million dollars a year? No shit. The blue collars want more money. That that was what the user said Elon Musk responded. Corporate compensation should be proportionate to success just like it is for Pro Sports. Now this is kind of an our territory. No. I mean not only is this our territory but I love that. He doesn't get the irony of any of course. I mean of course not his brothers on the board he pays himself whatever he wants. He stays out of public markets because he wants to have as much money and Equity as he possibly can get. And when he's in public markets he complains about it. Well and no know how he attacked Mary Barra. Yeah. Not the CEO of Ford who also made 20 million dollars. Who's also part of the strikes, he went for the one female CEO in the entire industry. He's talking about, right? This is just classic bulshit say something about someone else and hope that and don't care that. Like what your situation is, you know, what gets me to is that the, you know, we were dealing with these constant anti ESG attacks and yet The arguments and other side are there. So simplistic that the argument is that somehow she has created zero value for GM shareholders because I guess they're just talking about the share price, right? Like, that's the only thing they're focusing. But, but yeah, we don't know how long a typical shareholder is invested in the company. They might be invested for 50 years. How do we know the actual value of what Mary Berra has created there? I mean, it is so, so simplistic to me though, really that focus on this one data point. Yes, she we've been talking about forever that CEOs have been making more and more and more and more money. The only reason why you have a CEO pay ratio disclosure is in part because the G crowd in the ESG push for it after the 2008 financial crisis, right? That was part of the point and the fact is Elon Musk got paid for. He broke every every model for compensation. He broke Is pay package broke and he can justify it because his share price went up, just the share price went up. How much value did he actually create not only that every other CEO is now just using his pay package as their comp, they all are doing the exact same thing. Mary Berra is making too much money, and everybody else is making way too much money. What are we talking about here? This is so much bulshit and so much. This is like classic musky and like I'm just gonna weigh in because I'm a billionaire, and whatever I say matters. Shut up. I will say, shut up. If they do believe this and this is a great billboard for our work because what we have done is that we have rated directors. We give them an actual average based on the earnings of their responsible for, and the TSR the total sure has tracked. So then you should, then you should believe in what you're saying and you should look at our data and you should Be voting out directors with high or high earnings and low TSR, right? Because the data is right there. We've we've created right there for you to use which is why I'm going to give this a self-serving 10 on the you should give a shit scale because if you want to treat Executives and Boards as sports teams, Free flow, analytics.com already did that. And then you should look at that and say, oh well it turns out, not many people, create not just shareholder value but there are metrics about who pays their CEOs more. How much debt they take on, how much BuyBacks and dividends they do. There's all sorts of how much carbon they spew all sorts of metrics there. You can in fact treat these, these people like Pro Sports and you'd be shocked to find that Elon Musk is not the master of the universe himself, maybe he should give voted off his own board based on that. Finally, in how much should I give a shit? Is that what it's called? Who knows. No, I don't know if I should learn Murdock, he's the new, you know. CEO I guess he's the new CEO of Fox Corporation, Fox News but Rupert is still alive. He's chairman emeritus. I don't know who still making the decisions, but he is. Yeah. So is one of his first moves after taking over Fox was backing the nomination of two new board. Members one is former Australian. Prime Minister, Tony Abbott and the other is the CEO of magically Peggy Johnson and let's remind the audience that the former Prime Minister. Tony Abbott called climate change science, absolute crap, but I want you away in about this, how much should we give a shit about these board changes over there at Fox It's still, I mean, stop me if I'm wrong. It's still a family controlled Empire with the patriarch for now. Yeah, for now. But I will, I will say that that the interesting thing about Fox is that when Rupert Murdoch dies, his four children will decide about the actual future, succession of the company. And it, in that case. In my actually end up being a non-family member, it's possible, they all have one equal vote. But isn't they all do? But isn't it going to be the case that Lachlan as the CEO is going to accrue Equity between now and the death? Which means he needs. One, other family member to agree with him and it's, he's over 50%. Yeah, not not to mention that. What he's already doing is, he's putting his own people on the board, so he's, he's also acquiring board votes. No, right? So effectively what's happening, is what you would see in succession, which is consolidation of Power with one family member again. And like, I don't should we are we shocked that they put on a PM who said climate change was crap. Like, you know, we're talking we are talking about Fox. Yeah, and don't forget that Rupert Murdoch is Australian and he has in the past, praise Tony Abbott greatly. So I mean, who's decision was this real? I mean, does that question? Yeah, it doesn't get here without keyboard. Yeah, yeah. And get put them on the board, right? Like so I think we give a shit zero about this. I I well do you give a shit that the next The Other Board member is the CEO of an augmented reality company? Should you care about? Should you care? If Fox News is suddenly in the augmented reality game, although there's more if we're gonna be in that anywhere there, that wasn't gonna be that they're gonna be in that. So we're gonna see Tucker Carlson's like radiated balls in our VR goggles soon enough. So I think what you're saying is at my game show ended on a dud. There it is. It, that's it. Now, let's do something more uplifting than that, but I can't help myself. I'll be the judge of that. I'll be the judge of that. It's all. I can't help me uplifting. So, um, this is the more positive spin on on a team. So, this is your assemble Avengers version of VM of the week, all I did. Um, all I did was set some criteria. This criteria can change, depending on what you like. Free flow to analytics has all the data, but I picked this. So, okay, that way to find this particular version of good, I wanted a positive gender power Gap, that which which means you already eliminated like 85% of the Universe. I eliminated a lot of companies, just gender power Gap, it is when the women have more power than their representation effectively write 30% women on the board, but they have more than 30% of the power of the board. I wanted less than a third of the board to be insiders, so, it's not just a bunch of insiders, and that also means, Dual-class dictatorships, right? Like I don't, I don't want the Zuckerberg board because that's fake. Those are fake super teams, right? This is one guy first. I wanted less than a third of the board to be connected to one another, right? So not just all best friends golfers. Yeah. No, no! Fist bump economy here. And I wanted the entire board to be above 600, which is above average batting. Average on earnings and TSR oh well, right, they perform well for a shareholder. They perform well and I'm as stunned as you are to tell you that the winning company. Yeah, was Altria oh, Altria the tobacco company. That's right. Now you can't judge the company output and we're just looking at the super team that runs the board, right? Okay, so don't say oh they're tobacco, they should have been eliminated. That's not really how we're playing this game playing this game. So play a different game. Here's what the team evaluation looks like. The members of the team are an airport. Authority exec Consumer Credit exec chemical exec, mutual fund partner, wine, and beer exec, a railroad exec Treasury Department exec. This is a highly Diversified Group of executive types right? Gambling, Medtech energy and and and and PNG household products, right? Basically what it boils down to is Algeria, managed to find every possible sin and put it on. So, if you don't like sin stocks, this is not the board for you because excess, travel excess credit chemicals. Sure, Leo, gambling, alcohol, oil like it's all there. It's all rep there, okay? 71% of the board are phds mbas or went to Elite schools, okay? 64% of the influence is on one committee. You want to know what that committee is. Sure, it's the audit committee have you. I've never that almost never happens where the majority of influence on the board is, are the people who are worried about like regulations, well, maintaining or share. I would think that's a very appropriate in the tobacco industry. Know, I just fascinating that that's what's happening fighting for their lives inside or influences only 17%, they have a plus, 15% diversity, Gap in a plus, 12%, power, gender. Diversity. Wow. So, both types of diversity winning and they're super effective. 50% of the board, gets bats over 900 on earnings. Okay. 50% of the board, their history, not over 900. Um, two of the board members six are over, 600 on TSR 100% of the board members bat over 500 on carbon and a third of them over 700 on carbon less than half of the group is interconnected in any way that I can find and they have a perfect, rookie veteran, balance, they've got 15% veterans and 15% rookies. So it sounds like they, they know how to build a good board, they know, corporate governance. They clearly know something, I will say, I'm just peeking a msci. They all consider their board to be best in class and then look, look, you don't have to like Ultra, but they did do a good job of putting together the perfect board for them. I think I actually in the end, this is, this was my takeaway. And I don't know if you have deep thoughts about this. Otherwise, I'll play us out while I do this takeaway. Well, how I mean, you didn't even give me a chance to Say if I have deep thoughts or not? No, I'm just gonna play us out. This is the, this is that my takeaway. This is the Miami Heat of boards. You may hate how they play. But they just keep winning. They just get to the finals. Sure. They're good. And, and one board member in particular. Deborah Kelly. Ennis, yes, she is. Kicking everyone's ass, a good 803, earnings 519 TSR 7208 carbon. She's not overboard, she's got 14 years of cumulative, tenure on all the boards, she she is like, you know, high class professional. That's what I think. You got any last thoughts before I signed us on quickly? Looking up the the last vote on the directors to see if shareholders agree with you, but 96% agreement, these things that's what he's six percent agreement day like everybody. That's all we got. For that was. Already too much. You're right. The shareholders, love their directors over there. Oh, I love these directors. Yeah, that's, that's all we got time for that. Stadium, Ross. I am your animal Soul. Matt McCarty. We are free float. If you like this, come back on Wednesday. We're gonna do more of it for woke Wednesday, but also the show is sponsored by free. Float, analytics.com go there. Get the data you can build your own super bored. Don't do it if you build a super bored email at to us, tell us who you like and we will talk about it on this show and tell when's day good.