Business Pants – 2023-07-12

You get an intro us or what you like, poured coffee. You live from the ISS snacks closet. Ooh. A lot of good snacks in here. It's the ESG Industries. Only weakly woke data podcast. Featuring BS man. Matt mascardi. In today's edgy, sappy glue called July 12th 2023 headlines, the alternative democracy and ESG month. Yay, that's where that's where I was going. That's where I like, That's what and that look I know. It sounds self-serving that's not us saying it, that's actually what the conservatives the Republicans in America have coined July. Yes, she I'm just mad that. I tried to mute myself to clear my throat and I screwed up. So ESG month is even affecting me. Yeah, I know it's hard. It's rattling me. You're getting choked. Our show today is being sponsored by skier. ESG Data Solutions provider. Yes, s gauge. S gauge. If you go to free float analytics.com, I'm there right now. You can sign up for free. There's a little button underneath the login that says, don't have an account sign up. Just click on that, sign up for free. You get data on every director, their power, and influence and their performance. A lot of it is it's it's almost all free at this point and a lot of that is escaped data. The people that ask a good people at SK, do good work, good headlines up here too. Like this one European Union. Lawmakers back a major Bill to protect nature and fight, climate change. Yeah, well, let's you think the that this data platform is boring? We actually made it look like almost like a sports platform like like You know, like your login of see your favorite teams, you got all the news, you got all the shows, you got Talking Heads, and then you got baseball card, directors and their stats Lina. Khan is taking on the world's biggest tech companies in losing Oh, that's actually one of our stories today, ready? Come on, let's get the headlines. Yeah, let's do it. I'll let you Let's start with Lina Khan. That was one of Emma Larkin's, favorites Lina Khan. Head of the FTC. Microsoft Activision, deal moves, closer as judge. Denies FTC injunction requests. You know what? Last night, was that the deal was moving through? We're still not even there yet. Still like another step towards the deal. Why do people care about this? Why does Lena I like Lena? But why is she focusing on this one doing this? I don't know the right answer. Like, like seven people playing break up metals. For crazy sake, the guy just killed Twitter. I mean, one guy owns all the social media and we're worried about seven kids who played Call of Duty. I mean, come on, Microsoft, already owned sex box. They're getting a, they're gonna acquire a gaming company. It's not like that. PlayStation, Sony Nintendo, that there's a lot of other competitors out there. I'm just not worried about this one. Here's another thing. Don't play video game so much or break up meta. Adam Newman says his new company flow. which, as we pointed out here, got the biggest ever handout from Anderson, what are they called? Andresen andreesen Horowitz, 350 million dollars. They got 350 million dollars. He says that they have only two choices either compete with wework or partner with it. Can you imagine after all that? He's now his new company is now threatening to compete with the old company. I mean, talk about an extra Fu a few years later to everybody there, who put in all that hard work to build a partner with them. Like, can you imagine the people who are like excited to partner with Adam Neumann? We were, but it's like an ultimate it's like a weird thready ultimatum too. It doesn't even it's not even a company yet. They hasn't he not said anything about what they do. Here's what made me laugh. Is that November? There was a conference where he refused to really say what it does. And then yesterday, There was an article in Fortune, July 11th. The article says the flow, founder has not shared much about what the new company will actually do or look like look like as of yet. Newman said that the business model for flow, broadly is a vertically integrated system of owning and operating the buildings as well as Building Technology and a community. Oh, come on. You got another 350 million dollars. The all-time poster child for CEO. Founder failure. we're just parading ourselves now, like I will say this that he also shared two key lessons, he learned from weworks to crash, And one of them is really kind of backing up what we do here, he said, surround yourself with smart people who will tell you what they really think. So he is arguing for a democratic board, Matt. He is except for are those smart people and recent Horowitz who gave him 350 million dollars, they're gonna well they're gonna put like four directors on that board. So there will be no joke counterbalance ESG controversies. This is at a Clarity AI ESG. Controversies led to a two to five percent stock underperformance after six months going to a new study. Wow, that's is that, that's Rebecca's firm. I know Rebecca she's the CEO there, the founder there. And in fact, if the controversy is related to a topic that is material To the industry that the company operates in. That that involvement in such activities exceeds that of the average of all similar instances. For all companies, the difference is significant. So what they're saying is that it There's what there's basically saying. unlike the anti-esg crowd is that this shit could matter, Well wait a minute who decides what's material? That's the real question. Well, there are example was for example, the environmental topic for the mining industry or corporate governance topics for the Consumer Finance and no come on. We all know environmental topics in mining, don't matter. wow, that's You get that guy out of here. Why was he even invited? By the way, I saw him earlier he was making me uncomfortable. He's still going. How about this one? The United Airlines, CEO Scott Kirby blames climate change for flight delays. Oh, another, another instance where were ESG, I use an air quotes. My have a material effect on your company. How about that? I mean. The quote here is brilliant, right? Like the quote here is, I think a regular operation of events are going to be more likely to occur as the climate, warms more heat. The atmosphere thermodynamics 101. We're going to have more thunderstorms I thought, but and yet, are we not? We're not set on lowering carbon emissions by 2050 anymore beyond that all abandon that, everyone abandoned beyond that. This would suggest that shareholder proposals that fall into the E category of ESG actually might be relevant to something. My actually indicate a potential long-term risk for your company or even immediate short term risk. Just say United has set a target of 100%. Reduction emissions by 2050. So we'll see how that goes Vivek ramaswamy. He's not really a friend to the show. What is he? He's the anti ESG crusader. He was on our show. He was a ex guest. You know, Vivint. We launched his presidential campaign. He launched it basically here. I know we announced it on Tucker Carlson but he launched it here. In fact, there was an article that that I read, that said, Vivic will not turn down a media appearance. He just says, yes to everything. That is not true for us anymore. He did say yes to us. Once he will not, come back, doesn't come back. Out of the New York Times, vivix Investments seem at odds, with his position, on woke culture to no one's surprise Of course, nobody's surprise statement and said, he didn't know about it, okay? They made the financial disclosure, I'm gonna get to that, I like that. So among his Investments include the, the absolute ESG. Darling. I talk about all the time which is Microsoft. Yeah, his Val, his Holdings are valued between 1 to 5 million other examples of companies that adhere to ESG principles that New York Times listed were Home Depot, Lockheed Martin, waste management. And as you said, Matt a senior adviser to Vivic said that he does not manage his own stock portfolio. Of course right? Why? Okay. All right. No one. Does the first. I love this. The first time Vivek. Learned these positions was, when he saw this financial disclosure report Okay, so no zero due diligence. There you go. Wouldn't it be funny? Or if like they don't have to say this in the disclosures but wouldn't it be funny if he bought an ice shell BlackRock? I shares, S&P 500 ETF and that was just the Holdings in it and now he can be like I didn't know, I even had black rock in there, how dare they, and then he goes on a crusade against his own third party, who really invest in? Do we think the New York Times also list? Vivek owned up to 25 million dollars investment in Rumble. The video platform that Styles itself a refuge for right-wing. Commentators shunned elsewhere. That at least is on brand. Okay, rumpel, Maracas Lee is a, is a publicly traded company? Is it really lists on NASDAQ and according to rumbles proxy one of its board members that they have a board of directors diversity Matrix. First of all right, well, they have to now NASDAQ is mandated that they have to. So I that's fine but they don't have to list on NASDAQ. So I mean, I'm just saying like, you know, and and pivot could be in control of his own Financial Holdings too. He doesn't have to pretend ignorance about everything, but I'm gonna just say this about Rumble. One of their six directors, seems to identify is either lgbtq plus and or non-binary. Oh, so this is, this just seems like a step too far. I think needs to pull out of this immediately. No, no, he's Pro. Excellent, he's not anti. Wouldn't this suggests non-binary, you know, defy. But that's I think that's what he did say that. But wouldn't that also suggests a non-merit based higher? I don't understand how he can allow this in a company, so heavily invested in, It's, it's unclear, it's unclear. All right. Moving on to the alternative democracy. I have three quick reports. First of all, the Kroger company. Oh, do we care about the Kroger first? There was a that your favorite, the national Center for Public Policy research. They had a proposal about eeo policy risks. That's a well, you know what? That is equal Point, equal employment. I do, I do know what EO? Yeah, they suggested there's ample evidence that individuals with the conservative. Viewpoints May face discrimination at Kroger. That one fails, miserably 1.9%. Yes. One point nine percent. At the same time a report on racial and gender pay gaps brought by our original capital. Arjuna or June? Well, sorry the spelling here is, are you? Jay and a? I am always saying that wrong. I don't know what it is. Maybe, I type. Know I look at it. 52%. Yes, it passed. oh, surprised by that. No. Are you? So Arjun is good? And, and frankly. We know that matters, right? if you pay a bunch of people less than you pay other people to do the same exact job, Then don't you limit the pool of people who would apply to work at Kroger? Right. Well let me ask you this and maybe this. This what? You can answer this later in your segment, should shareholders have the right to weigh in on this? Um, correct. They should I should. Okay, a CarMax wanted to point this at a CarMax say on pay 31% know, yet the entire page the entire pay committee average 4% know what's that misalignment about, what's going on ISS, Is that ISS? What is ISS? Think is blame them for everything. I'm going to blame him for everything who do they think is making the pay policy? If not the pay committee? Is Carmax like that? That's a good question, are they? A totalitarian company. Are you looking it up in our database right now? For looking it up, as we talked apparently is an oligarchy. Tom Foley yard is 24% of the influence. And Bill Nash, just 15% of the influence. It does not look like an oligarchy. So yeah, they would have some say and if I look at the names you got Blalock, he's got 15% influence, he's on the committee 6% now Cholla 9% influence, she got 2%. No and steam Rod. 4% know for steam Rod 7% influence so these are like These people might have some power. And finally Biogen, we talked about Biogen last month, but to refresh your memory by Biogen announced after speaking to its shareholders at three directors would immediately step down and that they nominated a new director and that is one of the departing directors girlfriend. Yeah, that was plastic, which is for this world that we cover here. Highly unusual. Just pointing it out. I'm not, I'm not mocking the situation. I'm just saying it's an aberration. Now liar. Yeah, the vote results are in Matt. All do we need a, we need a drum roll, I guess. 54% of shareholders shareholders said yeah, okay sure. Actually, that's not that many. I will say this, this, here's an oddity, you're for whatever reason, you are allowed to have your, you can vote. Yes, you can vote. No, we can, or you can register an abstention. Right. Yeah, yeah abstention, yeah. The seven other directors received a total of about a million of extensions between the seven of them. The girlfriend got about eight and a half million obsessions just alone. So, what is that like, our people too afraid to. What is that mean, why would you not just vote? Yes or no? What is your problem? Isn't that? Isn't that literally, I don't know what to do here. This is crazy. This is just make a decision. Oh, this that's hiding behind. I have no idea. No. Like and I wish just in case. Just in case you have some level of concern. What was the name of the girlfriend? Again, her name was Susan, Langer. Susan, Langer, she does not hear up here. On the the vote for strive. It says there are two, there are three directors that it's not applicable. She may be one of those because she's not, she's not well. She was a, she was a part of an amended proxy so they put out their proxy in April and a few months later, they amended it and to announce that they had spoken with shareholders from the June vote. Right? That, you know, but it was part of the regular annual meeting vote. So it may be strive just is not caught up on its male. Maybe they don't check their mail, maybe they didn't listen to this show as much as we hope they do. Actually, they should listen to our show because they could just do the opposite of everything that we think. I mean he's just say stuff and they won't do that. Yeah, because you know you're still doing you're still You're in the ESG industry. You're doing, you're just doing it differently. You just have a different. Do you have different background that has a masculine? You had made you angry at the world. We don't have that. Yeah. But they have, they're using the ESG data to show how angry they are. That's really. All right, that's the point. All right. It's my turn. And I have a quick Roundup for you. And by quick, I mean horrible. It is ESG month this month. And the reason why it's ESG month this month, the house Financial Services subcommittee on Capital markets is holding four or five days of hearings today tomorrow. In fact, tomorrow, you and I are going to live stream where ourselves which on Twitch, we're gonna go on Twitch. No one will be able to find that, so don't even know. Don't worry? It'll be on my LinkedIn feed too but on Twitch and Linkedin. You'll be able to listen to us live stream Mystery Science Theater. 3,000 style commentary on tomorrow hearing. Yeah. Don't expect us to do like deep like analysis. We are literally going to be making fun of probably everything that they say because or getting horribly horribly angry, which is what I spent all morning doing There having four or five days of hearings day of dubbed. It ESG month and they've released a slew of a month's and new laws and proposals. It's all in proposal for him to reign in the ESG, really the Liberals in the stock market. Okay. Did you know that the stock market is full of liberals like it's chock full of them? Yeah we had no idea. Yeah. It's we're all the Bernie Bros hang out. So, in order to prep you, for the next few shows in which we're going to inevitably be covering a lot of this. I'm going to walk you through the Staggering 18 proposals, oh, that they're holding hearings on, it's all Kabuki theater. Because what they do is they have the proposal for a new law or an amendment or something, then you hold to hearing to get information about whether or not you should adjust it. You know, like rejigger kill the amendment because it's not that useful. But what the house, conservatives have figured out is if you hold the hearing and only invite your friends at the American Enterprise Institute, or the Manhattan Project or like conservative think tanks then everything's Justified, right? Like, oh, you got to do is have the hearing, make it public, make it sound, you know, like you're doing the smartest thing in the world. So act like you're doing business. Pretend like you is your ESG month. Proposal Roundup. You ready? I suppose. You're not ready? Rule number one. Wait I want. I need some sort of drum roll for every single role because they're slow and painful. Rule number one, You can't ask twice in five years rule, huh? This is a rule for proxy. Proposals it, it makes illegal Any substantially similar proxies within a five-year period? What's the rationale there? They don't give rationale, it's just the rules. So they're just trying to rule is they're trying to stifle the process to which we as a people kind of learn things. So every single year they used to be that like in individual can't do the same company like twice in a row, right? And you need to meet minimums and things like that. But now if like, you go to JPMorgan every year JPMorgan, there's a rule on the proxy that says we want to separate the CEO chair rolls. We want to do that because she much power is Consolidated in one person Jamie dimon. And we think you should have an independent chair. Yeah. Take the shareholder about Eight seconds to read that sentence and decide. Yes or no? Yes, there's no real thought that needs to go into it. Except I agree or just specially since they've seen that proposal many times before. So it's actually less than eight seconds. It's like 5.1 research well every single year that's on the ballot. Not anymore. You cannot have it on the ballot within five years, if it's substantially similar. So their idea of bolstering shareholder, democracy and shareholder voice is by stifling shareholder democracy and her voice. It's not stifling, You Had Your Shot. That's you. Okay. And Lord help you. If anything different happens, within five years, because there is no exception for if there's a material event, you can, you can submit the same proposal, there's no exception for that, it's just know, you can't ask him, we apply that rule to the presidential election, maybe so that Donald Trump cannot run. Again. Do you think they know that that can't be applied? He did actually win a second variation of the UK asked twice. They actually were so excited about that idea. They, they did it twice the proposals. It's just a variation of the same thing. You ready for your third rule? This one's one of my favorites. A straight-up banned on anything rule, huh? If the issuer decides to an exclude, a proxy, It's up to them basically. It says, quote exclusion of shareholder proposals, from proxy or consent, solicitation material. If the subject matter of the shareholder proposal is environmental, social or political So okay, how do you define political by the way, the issuer defines it. The company then, say the company giving day, they're giving the company authority to say, no, to any proposal they want any proposal that they say is environmental social or political, but any of the subject matter? Now, I want you to think hard about any proposal that doesn't have some sort of environmental social, even the content. Even the question of whether to separate the roles of chair. Could be considered a political decision. I mean, we're talking about power, right? Or social workers like the if there's the same person, then they're two friendly. Yeah, right. Like so that's seems social to me. So basically, we're, we're stripping the rights of shareholders, right? That's what we're doing. Oh, we've just started. Okay, are you ready for her number four? Yeah. Why don't we just went to Republicans. Make it make it easier and say all shareholders vote. Are worth point. Oh oh oh. Oh. One vote per share. And this should be called the Zuckerberg. Yeah and this stupid hearing that's it. Vote on that. but they didn't do that instead, here's the fifth role a ban on Any social policy issues in the proxy quote, even if there's significant. So now know they've called out. One piece. They've already banned it right there. Is that an issue? Where can exclude a social proxy but now they've also said no. Not only can they ban it if it's like a social issue, but they can bend it even if it's significant. Here's the whole text, even if it's material. Here's the entirety of the text, okay? Quote, and issuer makes glue to shareholder proposal without regard to whether such hear all puzzle relates to a significant social policy issue. So, yes, so unlike text unlike, what Clarity AI is and saying, they can just say no to whatever they want they can just say no they can say like oh Is there a mass migration due to climate change? That could affect us. So again I think I'm onto something. What they really want to do is dilute shareholder voting power. Just just dilute it just take a strip the right take away. This one vote, one share thing. As if I was done ready? Yeah. For six. real, or did Jimmy's up. These. Oh, Tear, there will be on our website. All right, number six is a ban on the sec's ability to even allow a proposal. Oh, so just know only management. Proposals the SEC may not quote, compel an issuer to include quote, any shareholder proposal or quote, any discussion of a proposal. So why don't we just start with that one? And have that be the only proposals. And, but why is, we've been building up like a steady sleep is proposal number seven just called fuck you. Is that is that one? No, but note that we're on seven of eight. Oh God. He's still have a lot more. Actually number seven is less. These this is, this is coming from the Republican Party. The pro capitalists the proxies, the capitalist, tell their the capitalists. They're basically formation. They want to make these blanket rules basically. Silencing shareholder voice? Yeah. That's correct. Oh, but they're not calling it shake cool. Then I calling a shareholder voice. Here's number six. It is a study on ISS in glass Lewis. It's just a study. Just want to study. They want to study the nurse. They want to study every five years about study the Nerds. Yes. Studies in the proxy. Globalists the financial, the proxy globalists. And then here's what else they want to do, ready? They won. A registration for proxy. Yeah, I know. I'm getting concerned. Yeah. Ostensibly to monitor their behavior. It would include. I read the entire people. This one's more like 10 or 12 Pages. Yeah, I read the entire thing. It includes. They, what details on the work of experience of anyone? Researching proxies to make sure that they're qualified, they want It they want the expertise of the people who are by qualified individuals, what does that mean? You have to have a oh they didn't say that. They just said you have to disclose in the registration, what your qualification are the qualifications, right? Ostensibly. So that if you don't comply if like in the registration process they can deny your registration. If they think the people are not qualified enough or you could just not if you don't like ISS you don't have to do business with them. Oh, or if I just gives you certain recommendations you could do the opposite or you. Can do your own due diligence, and make your own decisions or you could hire out the people that you think are qualified to make these boys decisions for yourself. We need to register these people instead of qualified, instead of getting rid of one's ability to to propose something you could just vote no on that proposal. What stop it? All right, not only that. So at this point, I'm on number eight, we have exhausted. Gutted, the ability basically issuers will choose, whatever goes on the proxy from now on. Okay? Let's say all this passes, you doesn't matter. If this is a significant social event does, nobody can ask. I don't know why you'd even make a rule that says, you can't ask for something twice in five years. When there's a rule that says an issue, where it can deny any proposal. Yeah, no. I know that's the build up. I don't understand here. What's the point? Like you just said they don't have to do anything anyway. So now the issue is that all the power to choose. It's on the proxy for the most part. And now we're going to study and let's attack and study. The people who actually read the proxies and whose job it is to make recommendations on how to vote. We've got to study on them, a registration on them. And number eight, we are going to create liability. Or any advice that is considered a quote material, misstatement without mentioning what material is. So you can argue anything was a material, what does it matter? If it doesn't even matter before if it was significant or not, I'm gonna see now I'm starting to get confused now. It's the proxy. Advisors, right. So now, like, glass Lewis and ISS have gone out and they've said, okay, well there's like five proxies left. It's just like voting for board members, but there's no point to that because it's, I don't know. So now you've got like this proxy and, and they're going out, and they're gonna be like giving advice, but let's say you like Bob Smith a lot. Yeah, and you've got all this data on Bob Smith. You went out and this is this this commentary is brought to you by freefloat analytics.com. Go sign up for. Oh, you've got out and you've got free float, analytics.com data. You looked at Bob Smith, you said, wow, he's high influence. He's a terrible performer, he's highly interconnected with the board. I want him off my board, I'm done with this. My advice is off the board. Now, you go out and you say, we think Bob Smith we like Bob's not not suited to be on the board, any longer? We recommend a vote Uno. Now, what if Some any investor Vivek Rama Swami strife. buys ISS or glass Lewis's data says, hey, We voted against Bob Smith but you left out the fact that Bob Smith is a Republican and we think that's important, that's a material. Misstatement you omitted something that would have changed our minds. Now we can sue you and the law says you're liable for that. No longer is it like a shield like, it's my opinion. You're liable for any material. Then why? Why not just regulate those businesses out of business? Then why not? We, when we just take away their ability to do business. What? Why do the next thing? Yeah, which is number nine, which is Making a law that any investor using a proxy advisor has to disclose. The percentage of times they voted with them, how they thought about them and all of their thoughts and feelings. Oh my God. They're making the investors who buy it by law. Yeah. Disclose everything they do with it and how they vote. Why, here's what I'm getting lost, why? What is that game? What's the end game here? They don't exist. There is no ISS. There is no glass Lewis so you're not even allowed. To have a perspective either way or are they trying to root out a certain perspective? I don't I just don't really get what's the what's the point about last one? Well, it's it's because if you're an investor and you buy ISS, But you bet you've already vetted ISS to in order to make that decision on signing that those contracts are not cheap. No, of course you've vetted them but they don't care about what you've done to vet them. They now want to know every time you vote with them or vote against them. What your process was to determine, why not that vote is in line with, you know, like you need, like all that you you there like now forces the investors to disclose everything about the proxy. So they just want more and more. Yes, she data. Essentially, I don't know what they want. I don't know what they want, either. I don't even know. I'm actually lost now. What else? Well wait, wait, yeah. What else? We're about to wonder further to the deep dark Forest. Proxies, I'm on number 10 now, proxies must be voted entirely by the will of the investors in the passive funds. So they are mandating pass through investigating and that's our proxy voting right? So if you're black rock and you have a passive fund, they are effectively saying that you cannot vote your proxies if it goes against what the investors in your fund want. Yeah. Okay. But they also are saying that you have to disclose like using ISS anywhere else, so now they're making it so that you don't use. It's impossible to use a a proxy advisor. right, and you have to pass the vote down to the retail investors in case is where it's a retail fund and You're going to add to that. Number 11, a total ban on Robo vote's. So now you're not even allowed to take information from the investor, use data and vote the proxies automatically based on that date, you have to ask them every single time. So current thoughts and feelings, are this is all to reverse a decade's long process that has been promised. So, extremely Pro company Pro issuer, program management. And its entirety. This is in order to this, they're trying to reverse that like Oh they're they're trying to stop the liberal agenda, right? But what I'm saying is that from all the evidence All of these votes. The end result has been overwhelmingly pro issuer pro management. Is that overwhelmingly? It's only, right? So there's no. So what do they think that? What do they think? They're trying to reverse? Exactly, they're just trying to kill the discussion that Dei. Okay, I just don't know what they're trying to prevent are they just what do they think? Do they at least before they present these, you know, at least present evidence of what they think that this, this has affected like what they think I will say, I will say in the, in the hearing that I listened to today. One of the comments was how these proxies have been incredibly onerous to management to deal with and how, what is the evidence behind that they've said? And they did not present like a paper on this or they said management has had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every single year 100s of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars. These are companies that make billions and billions of dollars and the owner is lift. Yeah. According to the own testimony of their own people is like 100,000 bucks. Yeah. Well gosh to like write it. What I didn't cover about this nude, Nick Chris pavlovski who was the CEO chair and founder of Rumble. That company that Vivic is invested in, you know, For this is for where, right? Wing competitors who've been shunned elsewhere, can go and hide. He not only, he gets 16 million dollars in Pay last year. But he already owns 34 million stock options with an exercise price of three cents which are currently valued at 300 million dollars. So who he and he controls 85% of the outstanding voting power of this company. So the, so the burden is on, so, these hundreds of thousands of dollars on this, is his burden that he can't deal with, it's hard. Yeah, okay. I mean, confused and look, and just in case you're confused, I'm gonna make you more confused. Because guess how strive voted for every single director at Rumble this past year, June of this year? Yeah, go ahead and tell me four 100% for in fact, I never see 100% for out of stride. Even voted for the one woman on the board because that was probably enough to diversity what the non-binary. There was that? That let's get over that. Yeah. All right. I'm on number 12. When does this end? Yeah, keep going. They are asking for another study. Except for this study, just very woke for more study, all these studies, kind of, they are studying Europe's mandatory disclosures and how it will negatively impact US Government. Well, I'm going to tell you on this one alone like you guys. You're not smart enough to study anything going on Europe. So, just one strike this. I love that they're now. So, now, the next few are dealing with like their desperate fear of Europe because, you know, is A law mandating that no regulator in the United States and enter any agreement with International Regulators without the express consent of Congress. Okay? Now we're just getting weird. Again, we're getting like globalist weird, they're really worried that like and they've mentioned by name, the corporate sustainability to disclosures act and in Europe which mandates ESG data disclosures and now we're getting like format and now there's nothing like yeah, build agree to that. No can't do that. Isolation is build the wall, kind of talk and now, I think what they're setting up for because it's not here, but they're setting up for this. This maybe it is here. Maybe it's the next one. Number 14. No. Rule can be made by the SEC. unless, The issuer thinks its material, no rule. I'm not kidding, but no oversight. So we're getting rid of all oversight, the SEC regulation additional disclosure, the issuer has to agree to it. Yeah. So why don't we just kill the SEC? Well, I mean what we've killed so far if we're going backwards. Shareholder first, killed proxy, voting, oh Choice, rights entirely. Then we killed the proxy. Advisors I mean, if there's no proxies to vote on what do we need? The advisory for any way we killed. The listening exchanges ability to interact with non-american entities know. Now we've killed the ability of any regulator or anyone to make any sort of agreement with another regulator somewhere else. It without congress's approval, that also actually, that would affect the department of treasury's, ability to bail out the banks in the financial crisis. They would not be able to make an agreement with another regulator in a global system without the express consent of Congress. So is bringing back prayer to the public schools that in here too. What about get that far along all abortions. That in here, I only this is only the first 17, or 8, only the first 17. Yeah, so we're working on good thing that the Republican party is not believe in big government, I'm glad about that. Well, next up is, I mean, this one, I don't totally understand either because if we've made a rule that says the SEC cannot make a disclosure Rule with the issuer base effectively agreeing. This rule is the SEC has to form an advisory committee made up only of issuers to Lobby directly about every single rule, like this. Basically what they're saying is they want to set up a committee. Yeah, made up of issuers. Representatives from issuers, that will give them direction and, you know, feedback and kind of like the Business Roundtable. You sort of like that only, they speak directly to the SEC, right? And only be like Rumble, and like bullet coffee, what's that coffee? But rifle coffee rifle cup. Black Rifle and so maybe some strip joint in Houston. Like they'll be only them. Yeah, it'll, it'll be Mark's husband's favorites. Yes, that one. Yeah, yeah. I don't remember it's called now, okay? But now we're just getting in the weeds and I'm just really confused. Yeah, well, the last two world, go quick ready. The last two are and they feel very random. It feels like addendums, a study showing whether how Municipal Bond disclosures, talk about climate. I don't know where that one came from. Despite the fact that the CEO of one of the most major airlines in the world is now basically saying that climate change affects their daily operations, he's correct. Yeah, it doesn't make it a difference. Now we want to know, municipal bonds, and whether they say the word climate anywhere, and then finally, because they couldn't help themselves, no Bank discrimination against a business, no matter how terrible you think that business is they can only use empirical data to determine. So you discriminate against and that's like a, like a few weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that you can discriminate against know, they want to keep you can discriminate against gay websites, okay? Cannot discriminate means did you And cannot discriminate against any person that they think is not credit worthy and non-empirical ways. This is this is extra distressing slashing and what it means is like you know JP Morgan's got to go out and collect tons of TNT and numbers of bullets that their customers have so that they have empirical data relating to potential credit worthiness because they can't do it now. Like you can't stop Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber from getting a bank account because you don't like his universe If he's got a credit score that's like a 700, you got to give them a loan, but can a local bank founded on religious principles, can they refuse business to a gay couple? Because it's because it's against their religion games. That was terrible. I told you his terrible. These are the hearing that I'm forced to listen to say about this. I don't know. I want to be an optimist and say that all this Tom Ford is only gonna shoot themselves in the foot because it's so unserious. It's so it's such political theater that I don't know that anyone could take this seriously. Well, we just did I get? Well, I didn't really like 30 straight and we actually well somewhere on that cover. This no one else drum rolling. So it's kind of a joke. That's all we got it. This is why we're number 19. The best businesses podcast, we go there. This anywhere else, I'm full of BS. We are free float. This show was brought to you by ESG age. You're ESG Data Solutions provider. And a world that wants to know, ESG data. Apparently they're the, they're the provider of it. We love it. We use it. Also brought to you by free. Float, analytics.com, go there. Sign up for free baseball cards of your favorite company go now because it's all there. We'll be back tomorrow live streaming. Yeah. Until then.