Business Pants – 2022-01-18

Live. From Larry Fink scroll. Written by candlelight with peacock quill. It's your dump of stakeholder nuggets. I don't like that. We're dumb bear in mind. I'm dumb. I'm not riding these anymore, so you can't blame me joined as always by Emma laughing stock, lurking. Oh, how dare you and mostly imaginary mascardi. Oh, here's hoping for fully imaginary. I'm the Black Ink of stakeholder capitalism. That's absolutely. Correct today. In our not woke paraffin covered bag of nuggets called January 18th, 2022, watching tennis is for losers. No, it's not your new boss hates you. Think speaks, yes. And weekers may or may not be important. Hmm, I like a question mark there. Today is a rips, right? Get going, let's just say that for for all of you people who fall business pants. How dare you? I don't know what you're up to, but for 41 new, this really is like a Hallmark day for our Enterprise. This is the most What tingly ESG explosion of our favorite stories and our favorite things. I'd like literally I do not feel tingly. And I'm gonna, these are a no particular order. So I'm not this is not to say that this is what's most important, but I'm just gonna, I'm gonna we're gonna go with how they, how they hit, a, how they came out. I don't know. The first one, I have ESG, pins and needles. I know the first one I have is a very corporate governing governance one. This could this be our first covid resignation, our first executive covid recording resignation this first story. Here we go. Chairman of Credit, Suisse resigns after an inquiry into his pandemic condom. Matt was so excited about this, he sent to over the weekend. And we I work over the typically we're governed by French law, you know, allowed to work over the weekend. Or send text after work hours after less than a year on the job and after pledging, to develop a culture of personal accountability at the Swiss bank falling with string of scandals. Remember, we reported on all of them spying on Executives to billion dollar investment losses, new board chair. Antonio is going bye-bye. oh, I miss him so it is first annual meeting last. May he said our processes and organization are being reviewed to put a stronger, focus on individual responsibility and accountability. Oops. After resigning, his spokesperson said, he would not be speaking to the media shocker. To be fair. He kept his pledge. This is the like, he's like, the only pledge keeper. It's the pledge that killed him, unfortunately, but he kept his pledge, he was forced to resign after barely eight months, and office for flouting Court. Coronavirus quarantine rules in both Britain and Switzerland to be fair. He also said at the AGM, I wish everyone good health and look forward to meeting many more of you soon, so maybe that combination of meeting you and soon and health was cold for f your quarantine, let's just hang out. So maybe he announced it he was wishing you had good health but would be meeting with you soon, right to spread coronavirus so he's not like he didn't lie just days after promising to clean out the bank by creating a sense of responsibility. He flew to London on a private jet to attend the Wimbledon Tennis finals. Breaking. Britain's coronavirus quarantine rules in the process and it's time for a covid coincidence alert. Anti-vax hero Novak Djokovic. Emma's favorite one that Wimbledon tournament. See Wow. It's like all, it's like all the worlds because, like the planets aligned stars and stuff, the former chair essentially, blamed, his staff and said he was unaware, he had to get the business waiver for British ruled, blah, blah, blah. Funny side note, he had intended to take Credit. Suisse clients to the tennis tournament but ended up giving the tickets to his children instead. When why did he give him to the probably? Because the clients were stuck in quarantine is my guests. Oh, looks and internal investigation. Also found that he used. That to drop him off in the Maldives on the way back from business trip and Asia whatever dude I mean come on now. It's no big deal. That's come on, that's not nothing. Considering a simmering War among credit suisse's, senior Executives in a power struggle with CEO Thomas gottstein. Maybe this was the wrong eight months to act like a giant ass. Just saying. Yeah. Credit Suisse declined to comment on whether they're a Rifts between the former chair and the executive board, including the CEO. That means there were definitely riffs. Yeah, there were riffs, I was Thrifty the new chair, Axel Axel. Well, I like that Layman is likely to see a return to a more traditional chairman CEO relationship. He has already insisted in an interview with Reuters that there will be no change to strategy and that the existing management team will remain in place. Oh, you gotta love another day. One pledge Credit, Suisse the gift that keeps giving I love it. Speaking of gifts that keep giving Larry Fink the letter, the annual stakeholder capitalism. Let her drop like a bomb on the taint of capitalism. That's right. Our boy think Rock let loose the stakeholder. Crack in tackling every woke issue from climate change to human capital to voting rights to Net Zero just Just please don't call it woke. Quote. Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not woke. I don't know what that means. That's what he said in the left. I don't get it. Tell me not what, don't call it that. So Larry, can I call you Larry? After all these years of me, criticizing your stupid letters. I feel like I can call you Larry. What is stakeholder capitalism? If not woke. He answers, quote, stakeholder capitalism is all about delivering long-term durable returns for shareholders. There we go. There it is folks. Every year since 2018, Larry in the Business Roundtable has been writing about stakeholder capitalism, capitalism, that takes into account employees and the environment and stuff. And you doped thought they meant caring for the stakeholders know, what they really meant all along is stakeholders need to deliver value to shareholders. Do you want to understand? That's what stakeholder capitalism is. Look, the rich can't get rich without stakeholders. Propping them up full you ever see a mansion build by a bunch of rich white guys? Nah, it's the stakeholder's banging in the nails, so the Mansion gets built for those shareholders to live in. That's what we're talking about it all so explains why Larry letter word cloud 2000 which I ran his letter through this year. Found the words companies Capital shareholders and capitalism all ranked over stakeholders. Bang, those Nails you fools. You got it. I know, wait a minute, let me back up. He dropped the word durable in there. Like, he's pressing, our woke buttons, then slipping in adjectives, to suggest, companies should, in fact, gently caress, their snowflake stakeholders as a means of a profitable end. That's he dropped the word in durable. Larry actually devotes a huge swath of black ink made from Oak Galls, which is an actual thing from medieval times two. Yeah. Oh calls. They're like wasp nest. That's where they got the black from say wasps. Yeah. This is this is a learning our two. He actually devotes up a huge swath of ink too. Employees themselves. Company should be paying attention to things. Like mental health working from home, Rising pay. These are actually what he calls features of capitalism. Not problems. Quote, our research shows that companies, who forged strong bonds with their employees have seen lower levels of turnover and higher returns, through the pandemic truly, truly epic. Plagiarism of a report I wrote in 2015, where I said, quote strong human capital strategies May limit down turns and employee output, during times of high turnover. No joke, I actually wrote. Okay, but 2015, but you wrote it for a company that's owned by him basically. Yeah, he's our biggest apparently. Well, I mean, I guess finally, the low level Stooges. A Black Rock did read my report, six years later. That's what I'm telling myself. Oh level. That's what I want to tell myself. Larry also said that CEO should be judicious with their non-woke benevolent. God like authority over their employees, quote. They don't want to hear us as CEOs, opine on every issue of the day, but they do need to know where we stand on societal issues, intrinsic to our company's long-term success. I want to hear them just as a side, I want to hear them every day, just like as a press conference after, like the Celtics play the Bucks, I want them to sit at a table sweaty and and answer a bunch of nonsensical questions. Agree. I would like a scroll at the bottom of my computer screen with quotes about what they think of every issue as it appears in real time, that would be great. I mean, we have bounds, I think this is a little bit more important. But just to be clear your overlords the Amazon employees. I know you're reading this letter every single year with bated breath. Your overload said, there is no pea bottle problem. High P, output is just a perk of strong, human Capital Management strategies. That's what that means. Larry did address what I think will be the theme for Blackrock in 2022. The dark heart of governance hypocrisy. Number one, no, BlackRock will not be divesting from the burners of fossil fuel that are lighting the world on fire. They will be engaging. Number two, black rock won't be engaging as much as empowering its clients to quote participate in the proxy voting process if they choose. And number three by empowering clients in the second dimension of alternative democracy quote. We believe this could bring more democracy and more voices to capitalism every investor deserves the right to be heard except for dual-class companies which make up the majority of the top 10 companies in the world. Congratulations passing the buck on to clients to not vote at companies where you would wish you could. But I want to end on my favorite part of annual Larry palooza with this Trifecta of zingers and a little game. That I want the two of you to play called rate. The Zinger are you ready to play with? These are these are from the letter. They're sort of zingers. Okay, you will see. These are, which singer is better? The three. You choose the top? No. A Elon Musk blowjob quote. In a few short years, we have all watched innovators reimagine the Auto industry, really? I'm pretty sure. We're just talking about Elon Musk, right? Okay, it's not other ones. Here, you're going there. Number two, the Google Zuckerberg get owned Zinger. Quote, the next 1000 unicorns won't be search engines or social media companies. They'll be sustainable scalable innovators, okay. And number three, the capital T. This is my truth threat quote Access to Capital is not a right. It is a privilege. I don't understand that owned capitalism. Which one do you feel like was the truth bomb? He set free. Oh, you just The one that feels like you play, I'm not playing because the one, the one that simply feels best to me, must be option C. But access to Capital is not a, right. It's a privilege. That's really something because in order for him to say that he is talking about the investment world, no. And yeah, he is. Yeah, yeah, so Mr. Not woke over. There is acknowledging his privilege. That's very interesting. Are we gonna are we gonna stay around and talk about this after the show? Where we go? Yes. Let's okay, let's talk about it. You still have to pick one right now. The one that said Zuckerberg Got it. That's what happened in Larry pulls you today. That's all Larry. Say the mic and wrap it up. You need to wrap up that story. All right, I need to wrap up the segment because I want to get into the next. Keep going this so much to report on. It is ridiculous. Usually, just one of these would be like, the major, like a hole that the world's biggest ESG Bello. It's gotta be the most famous. Oh my God ESG. Bello ever. Okay, let's take this in order first yesterday. The reporting was that Activision Blizzard pushes out dozens of employees over workplace misconduct that they fired or pushed out about 40 people since July, as part of efforts to address allegations of sexual harassment that we've been covering for months. Um, a summary of those Personnel actions was scheduled to be released before the winter holidays, but CEO Bobby kotick sat on them for really unknown reasons, right? I mean, why not release them? The summary also says, the Activision had collected about 700 reports of employee concern, over misconduct since July. Okay, that's the big news yesterday today, right? When we're starting our pre-production, here's the headline Microsoft to buy in battled Call of Duty publisher. Activision Blizzard in 64. Cash bail. I like how they have to describe them by calling them Call of Duty publisher? I don't even know what the hell call duty. That's so important. That's like their most important, okay. But that has to be an adjective in that sentence Call of Duty published. Anyway, I like him. I want to focus on a 68 billion. Yes, that's what I want to focus. So this is Microsoft's largest ever acquisition, the largest video game acquisition ever in history. Here we go. The price value is Activision stock at 95.00 per share, which it's been nowhere near that. Since July, when the news of the harassment, broke Microsoft will not only acquire game franchises, like Call Duty World of Warcraft and Candy Crush, but it will also acquire active, Visions deplorable, culture issues, including claims that CEO, Bobby, kotik knew for years, about a variety of claims of sexual harassment and rape at his company and did little to fix the problems. Kotick will continue on, with the company and will report to Xbox leader, Phil, Spencer, when the deal closes. Wait, who is Phil Spencer, again? He's the dude who said in November that he was Disturbed in deeply troubled by the horrific events in action to Activision and that he intended to take action. And that this type of behavior has no place in our industry at the time. Phil did not say how he would take action. But now it is clear by buying their dumb asses. This is what Phil was cooking up. Unfortunately, Phil might be stuck with Bobby because if Bobby is terminated after a change in control, which is what this is, He's entitled to about 300 million dollars. That'll teach him. So what I'm wondering is this is turning into a Office Space. Situation whereby, he's gonna be shoved to the basement with like a red stapler I mean what is that what's gonna happen is Bobby gonna stay gonna get rid. I mean what's this is crazy to me, it's crazy that he'll he'll stay but anyway, remember Just last year 78% of shareholders at Microsoft said, hell yes to a resolution calling on the company to review the policies. It hadn't place for its employees to protect them against abuse and unwanted sexual advances. And last Thursday, the New York Times reported that Microsoft selected a law firm to review at sexual harassment and gender discrimination policies. So game on Activision, the blizzard is now. No. Well, let's do some quick populist Matthew If they get rid of Bobby coat, Dickies oh, 300 million for change of control. By paying 95 dollars a share. The the company was trading at 65 dollars, a share the day before this was in. So yes, yesterday and even today it's not up at 95, it's at 82 so and like, the market doesn't think it's worth as much as Microsoft. So like let's just say well you know, property is worth that, I think there's saying but the culture obviously is not Well, apparently didn't have much of a discount Factor because they're paying a whole lot of money, 50% increase over the trade was trading. Yeah, I guess they're really fun because they're fun games but kotak gets 300 million for change of control. He has four point eight million shares which are now worth 95 dollars, a share. According to this almost that's million four hundred and fifty six million dollars kotak by Creating the rapiest culture, he could possibly think of earned himself. 750 million dollars overnight, talk about an ESG Bell. This is really amazing. That's the weird thing about all, this is that when once you have ownership, there's nothing anyone can ever do about that, right? I mean you can fire someone but you can't take away their shares. I wonder how Larry Fink's going to vote for the the acquisition. You think they, how do you vote for? This is gonna go to a shareholder vote. We can only hope, let's come back to it in the discussion because this is just so awesome. Here, Emma, Get us out of it. I'm so sorry to give you one more thing to discuss but there is another like relatively large thing that happened this week. So my story actually my story requires two headlines. So here's headline number one Billionaire, investor chamath Pali, apatia says, nobody cares about uyghur genocide in China. So what I don't care about it in China or they don't care or they don't care about it. Wagers. Full. Okay, the weirdest side. Is China. Not the Chinese people carrying about the weaker genocide. Okay, I said it too many times. Anyway, to Mom hosts, a Tech podcast called all in with three other, entrepreneurs who mostly talk about big Tech news and poker actually poker really. Yep, they talk about poker, if you haven't listened to it, I don't really recommend it personally, it's really something. Yeah. So during last week's episode that dropped last Saturday, at the following, I'm sorry if that's a hard truth to hear, but every time I say, I'm carrying about the uyghurs, I'm really just lying if I don't really care. So I'd rather not lie to you and tell you the truth, it's not a priority. Okay. Wait so that is good. All tea tree truth or a big teachers I'm gonna, that's Small teeth for sure. Yeah, that's his tea tree, right? Yep. So do I agree with this statement. Absolutely not. Do I want him in charge of anything or to have any influence over anyone? Nope. Do I appreciate his honesty? Yeah, I kind of do this. This might be a surprise egg reaction for me, but I don't care too much about this. Portion of this story, the portal. It's borderline refreshing to hear a person who clearly cares more about profit than people say so openly. So thank you, trim off for. So clearly conveying your belief system to us. All right, moving on, two days after the episode was released and all help broke loose on Twitter. Tommy tweets. A clarifying statement that says the following, I recognize that I came across as lacking empathy, I acknowledge that entirely as a refugee, my family fled at country with its own set of Human Rights issues. So this is something that is very much a part of my lived experience to be clear. My belief is that human rights matter Whether in China the United States or elsewhere, what that's did? You hear the word weaker anywhere? I don't know. I don't know that statement's supposed to mean. Yeah, me. I didn't. I didn't hear it. You didn't hear it. That's the entirety of the statement that that's all he said. Now I'm disappointed, it's not really an apology. It's not really a retraction. It's definitely not a Maya culpa. So what is it? I'm not totally sure. But my guess is that it's a mostly a, please don't take my pressure's basketball team away from me. Gambit so Chama, Mother Teresa Polly pitia is a co-owner of the Golden State Warriors and the organization released a statement distinctly, oh, distancing themselves from his weaker commentary on the same day that he released his lazy non-apology. Maybe getting his favorite billionaire toy taken away from him with teach him a lesson about sweeping an enormous human rights crisis under the rug, but probably not. Yeah, well, he's gonna bail anyway after step retires, so he doesn't care. I know. Dad is a lot of news. I don't even know what to tell somebody here. And then we can just go, let's move on. Can we start at the end there? Can I just say that that's the equivalent of in our book tomorrow? Which shows up in our blowhard index. One of our favorite blowhards. And I think you're right. Emma, there is something. That I we all do. Consistently appreciate is his honesty. Like it makes for good ESG podcast. Well not good but it makes us talk about stuff. But I'll say this, this is the equivalent of Elon Musk announcing. He has Asperger's. It's his way of saying him saying he's a refugee, is basically his way of saying, like I can do whatever the fee want because I'm a refugee. Well, I think it was more convenient than anything else. See, but I'm just like, why did? Yeah, why did why did that have to be a part of the apology? If he still not even saying because he's didn't apologize. Oh, where was there an apology in there, right? He sound clarifying statement. I can't. Yeah, he called it a clarifying. Statement didn't call it a apology. He didn't. Okay. To be fair tomorrow. We don't care about you. So, this is fine. Let's just move on. This is not just saying, yeah. A human rights matter. To someone not for me, not I doesn't matter to me. Like I have my experience is and I don't care that. I just want to clarify, let's move, right? Okay, I love it. I love it. I love it because this is exactly what I want to scroll on my stupid like feed, right? Like I want this. From CEOs, I guess because this is what mellody Hobson's talking about when we talked about what her statement last week. What she's talking about is they have a right to their lowercase T truth but it doesn't mean it's capital T truth. Yeah, it's worried about the idiots. That's what I'm mostly worried about because it was so social media. That just idiot emboldening like I I had a sense of relief back in the early Trump days when he was just putting it out there like yeah, the right winger bunch of races jerks. I was like finally like we don't have to Play under the delusion that they're not but then I just felt like it just emboldened the generation of idiots to carry the torch. So I I'm I'm torn here now we're gonna get like a big Uh, everyone else saying, they don't care either and human rights are a joke and I don't know. Interestingly enough. On podcast. And one of his co-hosts adjacent, who is another entrepreneur, he fought back. He was like, that's really disappointing to me. Disappointing. Yeah, he was like I don't believe that that's true. Like I don't believe that you have to have a bottom line like that. He essentially was disagreeing with chamath, which was interesting, but I could not listen any farther than that, is all the information I have. I mean, he, but the reason why this is a I'll say a fun conversation to have. Yeah I'm on because Shemar yeah runs a fund sure? Called The Social Capital fund. Yes. His fund has a mission. He's the one who called ESG fraud. He runs a fun. That's about what it's sort of cathie. Wood Ishq, social capital is like the construct like, without the talks. Yeah, talks a lot about. Yeah, it's right. It's a it's it's Cathy wood without God but he's a very like, Data-driven investor, his last annual letter, he talks about the epidemic of obesity. He talks about, like, how black lives matter about systemic racism. He talks about these things and then out of the other side of the mouth, he's like, yeah, but I don't care about Other human rights. Things like you know, uyghurs well was the context of that podcast supposed to be like a broy context emmer we're like they're kind of getting drunk and playing poker or is it meant to be taking seriously? It's, it's pretty serious, at least the tone of the episode that I heard. So it's four of them and they're all investors and entrepreneurs and you know, like here bong water Rippling in the background. It's not quite The Joe Rogan Experience. I think they picked himself slightly more seriously than that. But they do talk about very, they were like arguing pretty aggressively. It's not necessarily the most friendly of tones between them, they were arguing pretty aggressively about certain. I listen to the beginning, they were talking about the Insurrection too. And one of the hosts actually David, oh sacked. Who's part of the PayPal? Mafia is one of the hosts and he was arguing about the Insurrection and he was pissed off about how much attention it was getting and about how those aren't the issues that Of the American people care about and we all just, like need to lay off. Oh God, worry about. Yeah, it was, it was it. And they were arguing about it and they all seem to have like pretty differing views on various things, but it is a very liver techie and atmosphere and did this spur, like an interesting conversation or did it kind of just get swelled up. It might be pushing it, okay? Let's I want to ask this question. Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Oh, I'm gonna quote from truths, annual letter, starting up, black lives matter in the 2020 annual letter and he says, quote, the overwhelming majority of black lives matter protests were just that peaceful statements of disapproval about the status quo. The reason is over decades. We have allowed systemic racism and unconscious bias to affect the entire class of people were treated. And he lists like where that happens. And then says in quote in no reasonable moral, worldview is this acceptable even though in the most reductionist worldview if it could happen to them, then why not to you? And then to say, Saturday that I don't care about uyghurs is I wonder why? Maybe why does he double? I love it. So why do you love it? You love it. I love it because it it's very clearly. A I care about it when when I can pinpoint, like how it affects my investments? Uyghurs are not a thing that affects my investments. It's it's not, it's it's like framing the investment conversation as moralistic when it's to your advantage and not caring. When it's not to your advantage, is the feels like the obvious thing here. And it's not different than Larry. It's like, you know, Larry basically just frames stakeholder capitalism as shareholder Capital. To be fair, it's not different than the modern world, we live in, where we're constantly navigating these type of landmines when we just try to like live our daily lives because Many of the corporations that we do business with. Face, you know, related problems. And we're constantly making decisions whether we care or don't care at that moment, right? Like the, we talk about this, every time I bring up Apple which is that, you know, we're are we complicit when we buy Apple products, and should we feel complacent and blah, blah, blah, blah? I mean this so he really is in some ways. Speaking to, I think to a modern confusion. So in that respect like I honor him airing it and but it doesn't sound like a lot of interesting conversation is coming from it, at least from him or his Bros, but With that said, no, but yeah, like the, the larger context here is stakeholder, capitalism is not accountability that, okay? That's what I was gonna, that's gonna segue with this conversation. It was a comment about ability. Is there? Can there be accountability for someone like kemoti and and and, and relate that to the story Microsoft buying Activision and right? Well, that and that's the interesting thing, right? Like because I don't care about knee jerk Twitter outrage accountability like that. To me is not real accountability. That's like that's like reactionary accountability. Not thoughtful accountability. And the thoughtful accountability is how long does it take Microsoft to assess buying Activision Blizzard while Microsoft is in the middle of announcing the fact that its conducting an investigation? How how itself handled sexual misconduct allegations about Bill Gates, and other employees inside of Microsoft? And maybe there was a bro culture there that Was instilled. It's out there negotiating with what is potentially the like the card carrying flag holding bro, culture company in in Activision for a premium that is no one. Anywhere was thinking was available. Like, in fact, if you look at the premium I don't think I don't know if I agree with that. A premium based on the post scandal Stock price, but clearly a company in its with its intellectual capital on the people that have in place, it's worth. It's worth a hell of a lot more than this culture of the Bobby kotick, okay? Right. I mean it doesn't, it does that. That's not the whole story of the coming here, what you're saying? But sometimes I have a hard time, like, painting the whole company with this brush of harassment. It's not, it's not all of those workers and all those people who have created, great work. No, but they were trading. So, what the market determined, they were trading at 95 dollars, a share in April of last year in July, of last year. News broke of this cultural problem from July until December, it dropped from 95 dollars, a share to 57 dollars a share. Sure. The market basically said the cultural problems inside this place in the governance problems inside this place are such that you had employees that were leaving. You had employees that were protesting they were talking about unionizing, the costs to operating this company. Far outweigh, the potential IP. You'd be buying with this company. They valued the company at basically nearly 50% of its high. And Microsoft swooped in and said, no, no, it's valued at 100% of its high price from last year because it seems to me, the real issue was a corporate governance issue. And that no one knew how to get rid of Bobby, right? I mean, here's a company that they said well, okay, but we don't know if he's gonna stay. And and a good way to get rid of a powerful CEO is to essentially demote him. He, you know, effectively delusion, right? I mean effectively. This is the only way you could have held him accountable, because as you pointed out many times, the board doesn't seem to care shareholders. Don't seem to care. So, let's, this is why I'm calling an ESG bailout because it's like, let's take it away from these creeps and we're gonna, we're gonna run it now. I mean, am I wrong? I have to go deal with my child but I'll leave you with this thought. Yeah, what universe is 700 million dollar payout accountability. Well he doesn't have to deal with. This is why of the actual I hear you, but I raise this point off earlier 700 million. Okay, but what do you do? How do you hold a share owner accountable? Then you can't. Is there a process to take people shares away? Like have we gotten to that point yet? No, yeah, claw backs, but not sure called like shares. All right. We meant to keep going. Or is he coming back? What are we? What do you want to do? Emma. It to me. I think that. Conversation and point. And if you see here, great, if not what I want to know is So we fully now in the culture were so woke is fully and officially a dirty word. So I think that the thing that I have never gotten to fully explain about my distaste for the word woke is that it is not there's a whole host of secondary reasons but first and foremost, it's cultural appropriation it, I believe. Okay. A b e and white people. White liberals have co-opted the word to mean something that it doesn't so in the black community when it's used it in a, a v e, okay? Next. It's that may be Emma. But is it, are you finding that isn't aren't you finding it's the right wing of the political spectrum is using the word. Do you find people that you're hanging out with using the word woke? Never right? So I'm just saying, like, But it's true that the right wing in America is mostly white people. But they're using it as a as a tool. So different way than you're kind of implying. Right. Right. So woke, it has been using it as slander. They're using as an instance, they're using it as slander. But the reason that I don't want to use it is because it is cultural appropriation from aav and white liberals. Specifically have taken that word and the original co-option of it was to mean conscious to mean socially conscious to me, you know, to it was a signal to say, hey I'm woke. I believe that black people should have rights and shouldn't be incarcerated for petty crimes and that systemic white supremacy is a bad thing. And like it it's just a signal but it was first of all. So co-opted and appropriated from aav E which is one of the reasons I don't like to use it because it meant something different for black people in the black community. It was there supposed to be stay vigilant, it was supposed to be, like, keep be aware that kind of a thing, and then it got appropriated to me. There's means The American culture has essentially been created by the minorities of black people and Jewish. I mean, like, I, I know that there are I know that's like a very generalized statement, because there are certainly a lot of other things going on with our culture. But there's so many contributions to from those minorities to the majority culture that we sort of represent here. So this to me, this is just like one of millions, I actually find to be a, I find to be a very positive thing and Matt and I were saying before the show work quite a bit older than you. So, you know, we come from a generation where that I idea is very sort of a and hopeful and you know with sort of a pro education and pro human rights and all that. So I but yeah, for the language of the term comes from, we're using it incorrectly, we use the word, we have completely turned, who was using it now other than as a insult who Was, I don't know who you. Why don't, you know? Liberals are using their words still when you paint something as what. So you label a person and Institute and you use a very who does this though, it's only the right wing, right? Do left wing. People paint things as woke. Yeah, I think they do. Okay, I'm not serious passed too years. I think that it is. It's falling more out of fashion for sure. But originally I don't know like during the summer of 2020 or whatever when businesses would put you know black lives matter. Sign up. Oh that business is now automatically woke. But if you're saying, okay this business is woke for doing this very superficial performative thing and then you just they get you get to slap a label on them as aware socially conscious. Whoa, That isn't sufficient that also isn't real, I guess in modern times, meaning now I've never heard the term being used in a positive way. So that's why that's why I'm like when you're saying it was appropriated, I'm not disagreeing, but I just I've only seen it as a weapon. I've never seen it in. Use a positively. Oh I've even Larry Fink is decision himself. From the term, right? Because I think that Larry Fink is just distancing himself from the term because of the way that more conservative populations. Use that word, not the way that, like, what you would use that word. Well, because he doesn't want to be seen as a woke from their perspective, because if he's seen as woke that he's gonna 20% of catering to the Democratic agenda, or whatever, you know, that's why he doesn't want to be associated with the word woke. He doesn't want to not be associated with that word because of the hypothetical positive connotation that it could bring, he doesn't care about that. He will signal that to the liberal, the right, whoever so different way. But if, by being seen as specifically by shirking, the term woke, he is trying to Pander to the population that don't want to be seen as catering to various, you know, socially liberal causes or whatever. I think he's making a big mistake. When we never like pedal in, you know, sound bite America, I think you're making a big mistake. I don't know why he need. To even weigh into that territory. I mean because old light white men love talking about how being woke is stupid, but they on the wrong direction and they're all so afraid of alienating, you know, the right part of the political Spectrum which we're not woke. Don't worry if you invest with us, they're not woke because we aren't either, really, it's fine. You know, your argument about appropriation aside. Like to me it is just a continuation of the term political correctness. I think people got bored of saying political correct. And I read a really good article about how woke has replaced race card in terms of cringiness. Sure, when people say the race card, it's like that's cringy. You hear you hear that? And that's cringy. And then I think the same thing is now been applied to woke when you hear people say, oh, that's woke. It feels the same level of cringiness. It's like, oh, you are painting with way too broad a brush. You don't know what you're talking about and the reason why it all irritates me because to me, they're all positive things political, even the thought of being politically correct. At least when I was educated, is a positive connotation. I mean, you're you're, you know, you're you're you're educated. You're trying to understand, you know, the boundaries between ethics and morality and law, and it's like making the politically. Correct decision is a good thing. It like represents your, you know, your your education like it's like it's just know this in like If we're talking strictly etymology of the terms, it's just feels like the terms get co-opted right? Like it feels like well woke up by Marco Rubio as a way to create a rage machine on the other side that just like race card was a term like for a conservatives, just all you're just playing the race card. All the same. Like, it's there. Like I was to Damien, not the term woke up, co-opted by the Marco Rubio's the world. But first, it got co-opted by the white liberals from aav E, who culturally approved created it from there, which means something entirely. Now that word is no longer. You don't forget, Liberals are not just, they're not just owned by the by white people. I mean, this is a distinction but this is a distinction that doesn't exist on the other side and the right wing of politics in America is that the left wing is not just white people. So I I don't completely agree that It was just co-opted by quote unquote, white liberals. I mean, there's a, there's a rainbow on the left, but there is a bigger white liberals, have a history of doing this with many terms of this, okay? But they're also have a history of forming bonds with non-white people and forming coalitions with with a diverse set of constituents. Like this is this is what we preach here. This is why, you know, playing the race card is, actually a great thing. It's showing your you showing like, you know, that diversity is a positive thing and but my bigger, but I just don't think he should have. I just think he was stupid to weigh in on a sound biting cultural War moment. He, I just think it's like, I to me a clouds, his his argument because I don't know. I don't know what he, I don't know what side he really is on, because I, well, that's that to me is, right? That's what's buried in in the text here. I mean, he answers the question, what side he's on, which is stakeholder? Capitalism is about delivering, long-term durable, returns for shareholders. he's on the same side, you're always on that and I did I copied a lot of phrases from his letter, I wanted to talk about and that was one of them and I agree that like, In some ways that's sort of the, what's most important, you know, the, the long term. What is it? The long-term? The long-term valuable returns for shareholders that you're like, overly focusing on that. I think that's okay. I mean, I don't think that's like a Without long-term value for shareholders, the companies to exist, but he is saying more than that. That's not. You're kind of there's more context of that when he builds to that line. I mean he does talk a lot about the important of the of the stakeholder constituents and in order to create long-term shareholder value and I'm and believe me, I'm not one to, I don't want to be on his side for this one, but I think you're kind of, I think you're over focusing on that. That I think there's more Nuance to it than that. I'm trying to say. You're you might be adding by one to it, right? Like, but I but I but I think look, it's like call it semantics, but the definition of the term, stakeholder capitalism to me is one in which stakeholders in joy in the benefits. That shareholders have exclusively enjoyed in, right? Like, where the, and I don't mean it in like this socialist way, where you're spreading the wealth, but in order for a company to thrive and that isn't the shareholder, like defining the company as the shareholder. Is not what I mean. I mean, like, he talks about how employees you have. Basically, he says, companies, you have to get over it. Like, the, your relationship with your employees is changed. That means it's rising pay. Its yada yada that like these are now the expectations. Effectively. He's saying like you have to pay that stakeholder. But in a way by defining the reason you have to pay it as so that I can make money as a shareholder, so that our clients can make more money. Yeah. Well, that's what they need easier to me. Is to me like, well, that's not what stakeholder capitalism is about. That's still shareholder capitalism. There's a part of that stakeholders, for sure. Those are one part of that stakeholder. Tree. Yeah, but we have shareholder capitalism. We have the shareholder, is the be-all and end-all, that's the top of that tree, but the phrase is that he's saying a company. Must create value for and be valued by its full range of stakeholders in order to deliver long-term value for a shareholders. I mean I guess, okay, now really like, like I mean he said that but in a system where if, you know where employees actually own stock, I mean this is a good thing too. That's not what he is about, you know, pension for we always talk about pension for teachers and I just want, but one of the buzz doesn't espouse that okay? That's not what he's saying. He's he's not saying that saying, your company is saying your company's. Fuck know what he's saying is very 2022. And what I think we do here is your fucked long term. If you ignore the stakeholder capitalism Revolution, I mean, right? And not an actual Revolution here. The we hear is the interesting part to me. Because it's very similar to the that Bloomberg expose a on msci, which was much of an expose a, which effectively said, msci's ESG, ratings are about risk to shareholders. It's about like it doesn't solve a stakeholder problem. It doesn't solve climate change. It's about where is shareholder risk, where are companies going to lose money? He comes in and the same view, I don't have a problem with that view per se, but I don't call that stakeholder capitalism. I would not say stakeholder. Capitalism is about furthering. The ends of shareholders. I would call stakeholder capitalism talking to, he's talking to a group of shareholders. Know, he's talking to CEOs, he's not talking to shareholders, he's talking to the letter is to CEOs of companies. Well basically saying to the CEO, a relatively novel idea too though. I mean we're not completely out of this idea that that shareholders are our king and queen, right? I mean that Well, he's saying you need to take care of your employees from me, your shareholders. I don't know, it's old news for us, but this is still pretty groundbreaking for many of the companies and see as he's talking to Right? I don't care like it's still like a like like to Emma's point about like the term woke. It's a co-option of a concept that's existed from the 70s that isn't about furthering the aims of shareholders. It's actually about repainting the purpose of a company. As not shareholders. So what he's saying is effectively at a one side of his mouth, you have to live your purpose and yada yada yada. There's a lot about purpose, in their come having a corporate purpose, but out of the other side of the lawn now saying Saying, but the purpose you do have is to is your durable returns to me and in order for you to achieve that purpose you need to pay attention to these. Well to me that's all to me. That's a win in the short term because one, one of the only reasons why I agreed to join this horrible company. Free float media. Is that the idea that joint started, the idea is that slowly, you can buy. By treating stakeholders well. Even if you can slowly, convince the market to treat shelters, stakeholders better year over year unwittingly by convincing them that it affects the bottom line of their share shares, the share return, you know what I mean? Like, because they're not going to agree to do on their own. This is where I don't agree with you guys. Is that what? What do you what replaces this? What what's the model that replaces? Because these companies CEOs are going to do nothing on their own? And as we've talked about way too many times, we're not going to get the regulation we're looking for. So what? So other scary these CEOs until like saying that the long-term shareholder value of your, company's gonna be fucked, if you don't do this, what what do you, what do you suggest? We do to get companies and CEOs a pay attention to their stakeholders? What I don't know. Look I think but I think actually, you know, weird way, I think the Business Roundtable is closer than And Larry Fink is right now because I think what like CEOs themselves should be treating shareholders as one stakeholder, Larry Fink is saying that you need to treat your other stakeholders. Well. So that shareholders benefit Larry Fink is putting shareholders at the top of a stakeholder but capitalists, right? Okay. But maybe that's right, but maybe it's like a trick of a liberal. To convince and he says, it's not a social or ideological agenda because right, like, but you have. Okay, but this is you to negotiate with idiots, you have to do it this way. You have you have you have to say, it's not woke, it's not gonna help anyone. We're Not Gonna, we don't believe in. We don't believe in labor. We don't believe in. You know, there's only two gender. Don't worry like but you know, you have to say these things. You have to say these things. Convince these people to do anything. You you can't tell these people that you're going to help anyone. Well you just doesn't work that way. You were talking about a guy who developed mortgage-backed Securities. He started the Blackstone Group. He has he basically is the definition of a capitalist for the history of his entire life. Yeah. Pulling the puppet strings of CEOs to make them woke her ideological gain. So you prefer nothing. That's what silence. So, you'd prefer silence. You'd both prefer nothing. Oh, I prefer what? I think, I don't prefer silence. I, why does he need to say that? Stakeholder capitalism is shareholder capitalism. Like that stakeholders. Walking or here old white man. Who pissed their khakis. He like they, they can't handle it. Handle it. But what, what might be better is to empower the CEOs of the company to say we are one of your stakeholders. You need to deliver value to all of your stakeholders to prosper. Why is that? How is he not saying no, he's saying stakeholder. Capitalism is about delivering returns to shareholders focusing on that one sentence. But there's a lot before the sentence. That's it. Okay. Well, is there anything wrong with that? I don't see one thing wrong with that. Yeah, he puts himself at the top of the pyramid, which is the ultimate white male privilege thing to do, first of all. But also, how is it different from the existing hierarchy? Emma, please back me up here because Damien, I feel like wants to get on the like he wishes. Larry Fink would grow a beard and turn into Jack Dorsey right now. And I think that this is I just think that a little bit of a subversion of the term. It's a co-op of the term. Stakeholder capitalism for shared older, capitalist end. Just think I just think progress is a slow trickle so I'm just I'm buying into that thought. It's a little tricky, such a like nothing statement. He's saying that but, you know, not agree with the statements, forget who he is? Did you read the letter? Did you read all the parts about about stakeholders and do not agree with that in principle? The principle that shareholder capitalism is stakeholder capitalism. Know. But there's a lot before that, it's about, like, honoring stakeholders, which is never been done before. This is new, This is new fine for this world. I don't really look, I would rather it be said than not said, but the way, there you go. That's it shows the way that he said it was so lazy and I got you. I love lowest possible tier and he basically was saying it, Because there's been all this labor movement, so he said, mental health was rarely discussed like wages weren't adjusting blah, blah, blah, blah. Like that's not the world. We live in anymore. I'm like, okay, yeah, you did nothing about that. Laborers. Did something about that. The worst is something about that. You did nothing to me. It's the same thing as my Starbucks argument. If you Empower people, they might feel empowered. Even if it's just even if it's nonsense, even if you don't even really mean it, you know, intending to empower them. But if you keep telling them, that they might be important, they might be a pillar on something and blah, blah, blah, mental health is important. Maybe they'll start to buy into it and maybe maybe the idea of the alternative democracy will start to grow from that. Maybe I know, maybe I love when you look at it dated a day. It does seem. Nothing seems meaningless seems shit. But if you would joined us five ten years ago, none of this was even like whispered about it. Fine. I'm with you on. On that some, however, he's talking to CEO Trump lovers and he's, oh, yeah, for sure he's talking to CEOs and he's telling them that shareholder capitalism is stakeholder capitalism. But most shareholders are not like an individual household. Most shareholders are large and large institutions and that's who he's talking to. He wants to keep when he's he's completely erasing, a huge swath of stakeholders because when he says stakeholders, you, he means institutional investors. That's who he means what. That's, I don't know. That's not, I don't know if I agree with that, I don't. But when yeah, when you mean when he says shareholders, yeah, sorry, yeah. He's talking about institutional because I'm not expecting who holds all of the all of public companies. Shares in America are widely held by institutional investors. Not retail investors. That's not what he's talking about. I'm not expecting Fink Rock to not be himself it the same way I don't expect I don't expect the chief niler Supreme Jamie dimon to not be him but I I just think that they're there at least on the right edge of the wet khaki system here because they know they they can they're at least looking forward, which I I'm even that. I'm surprised about they know that that from a long-term perspective you have to get in front of these things now, or yeah. So like I'm honoring that they at least like are way more of all than most of their brother and which could here's what would be. Impressively care less. I would like to see him actually do something with the company that he runs. Like what anything he says that he will in the letter. They're working with their employees in the letter. Call it like that's cool something right in the letter all he wants I would like to see something actually come out of it or else I am wholly unmoved before I fired both of you can we talk about the can we talk about the divestment versus Engagement engagement. And can we talk about the handing off the vote to Yeah I want to get to both of those things. I will say this is a quote from his 2019. Yeah. All right profits are essential. If a company is to effectively serve all of its stakeholders over time. Not only shareholders but also employees customers and communities. Yeah. In his prior letters, he's basically putting shareholders, amongst the stakeholders, they are in his current letter, he's putting stakeholders below the shareholder, right? Like I don't, because I'm not reading it that way. And and I'll probably get this to Emma's point when I do a review of his portfolio, managers at his company, and they are 89% green. I agree. And 70% male, and they can control four trillion dollars in capital. It's really hard to sit around and say, oh yes, stay holders are a focus of your company, not shareholders, well, shareholder classes, white men. I'm gonna, and I'm, and this part of the argument by saying that, I, I still kind of adhere to this not very 1990, Gen X, Version of things, which is to be woke. To a stakeholder. Capitalism is a positive thing like that. I'm still like leaning in that camp like that. This even in the short time that we've been in the ESG supposed to be for saying woke that this feels like like a significant victory in the in the short term. That's tell me about divestment and engagement because I think the reason why he's not investing is because 60% of his business says, maybe 70% is passive. Right? I look, this is the this one's completely fascinating to me because I always go back and forth my head about this issue. So I just wanted to hear what you two think. I I agree with him wholeheartedly that the the prospect of divesting and sending a lot of these companies, into her, a private Mercury World, frightens me. Even more like, I granted, like we, we rail on Facebook all the time, and, you know, and I think the sentiment is that we like basically, if you're not going to do one share, one vote, and you're gonna blow, you can do all these things, like, get out of the, you know, hey, NASDAQ get rid of them. Hey, listing regulations, stop the nonsense. But but the idea of Facebook going private scares me even more than the current situation. So I I yeah. I mean, I'm with you on both of those things but in the in the context of the letter, right? He says we will not divest, we will engage and that I don't believe. We're actually, you cannot engage with Facebook. What's the point? So? Your option is basically saying, like, if I engaging with me, But he's saying dual-class, companies, get a pass from this yeah. And well, this is okay, close it. Well, it's an important thought because this is one of the biggest failures of the ESU industry, is that That topic right there. Like you can see and I'm not, not just msci, I'm only I'm only mentioning them because I'm extremely familiar with the way the methodology works and the way they're reporting works. But they it is just like it's a it's a it's a issue that has they ignore completely like maybe you know maybe there's a red flag and it's like a point. Oh one whatever it's just you know it's but this to me is like it's super important. But anyway, And not only that though, like, not. So he's already giving a pass to dual class companies, which Like okay implicit though, some of the most heinous activity in the entire world is happening at the companies in which you have right to vote. Google Facebook. You know, like like so already already where the disadvantage. Yeah. But then he uses he said, so he says, we will not invest. We will engage, but then he uses as a threat quote access to Capital is not a right? Is it is a privilege access to Capital is basically investing in you. Basically, he's saying we will invest in you, when we believe that you will provide, you know, stakeholder value, he's saying access to Capital is not a right. We have the right to withhold capital from your company, if you cannot provide purpose and meaning and stakeholder value and durable, value, yada yada yada, oh, except we won't divest from you so access to Capital, Is not really a threat that you're holding if you are simultaneously going to say we will not. I agree with you there. I don't what I applaud Larry is just entering into this conversation in the first place. I I just applaud the stakeholder capitalism story I just and I think that long term if you guys get drinks this weekend, what did you do? It's valuable But there's no way I buy in this part of Larry, I think this is all just horseshit. There's no, there's no the Discerning moment when he invests or die. But you know, it's all bottom line here. I don't believe any of this purpose. He takes the the standard view which is my client. We have clients that want to divest and they divest, right? Like we basically are the mirror of our clients. But it's like what my problem with these letters are, there's simultaneously this mix of himself, his thoughts, Black Rock, and then his deferring to his clients and being like, well, my clients wanted to divest, they can dive, we will not divest and my clients want this. He's the first to a ruling class A Lot, which is he defers, like, in the same way Jamie Diamond, where when he's kneeling Chief, he's basically recognizing there are barbarians at the gate, the the plebs are circling. I am making 30 million dollars a year and I can't reject it because they would defend my board. I like but but at the same time like oh the the stakeholder class is going to Upright if we don't deal with income inequality, give me my 30 million. I don't want to offend a couple of fucking white guys but I also like we need to put a cap on it. Like we got to find a way to put a pin in the upcoming. Revolution. There's a lot of fine in a short term as long as people are getting getting actual returns. I mean wages are actually increasing benefits are actually increasing. Why are wages increasing wages are increasing? Because during the pandemic a bunch of employees looked around and were like fuck this right? Like well, what have we been toiling for going to the office 95? This is what do we get? This is why this conversation is powerful. I think I I mean it isn't because Larry think write letters to the CEO, is that wages went up? It's because the okay holders themselves picketed. Oh, okay, that's part of it. He's all. So he's honoring. The ruling class is starting to like, very uncomfortably honor, these tenants. And I, I think long-term, it could have a powerful effect. I'm hoping. And I'm still a good throws right saying, things like stakeholders are means to shareholder end. Here are two things I do hate. I hate that. He says we focus on sustainability not because we're Environmentalists. But because we are capitalists. Oh my, although, although I will say, again, this is another one, like, throwing a bone to like the Charlie munger's. Like, but I will say this, is that he does have a point in the sense that what good is will be our ruling class if the Earth ceases to exist in 30 years. So I kind of get that the other thing I love here that you, I'm surprised you didn't bring up is that they are launching a center for stakeholder. Capitalism, I did. I had that? I don't know why. I didn't mention that because a Larry, I'm clearly the only one side. So you should be calling me to participate that in that in that Center. I can be your, your clown gesture or whatever. But don't not these two that they're not gonna help you. I need more specifics on the center for stakeholder capital. I can tell you like, Building. Nation to like an ivy. I don't know from a sack, like, Charlie hunger, Windows. Yeah. It's a Sackler, it's a Sackler funded windowless dorm designed by storm of stakeholders. But here's what it is to create a form for research, dialogue and debate. Yes. It sounds like absolute bullshit. Sounds like right. I don't have a problem. I did, I actually don't have a problem with like, the ideology that is capitalism. Trump's stakeholders. I don't care about that. What I care about is when you're talking about a both sides of your mouth in the same letter about some of the same issues and co-opting a term that actually has some meaning, right? Stakeholder capitalism has meaning and it has meaning, that's existed since the 70s and work the same way, when like a bunch of liberals Co-op, the term woke from its original usage. It makes Emma and like a an age cohort cringe where us dumbass old people don't cringe. I have the same problem when your co-opting, a term that has meaning for something that you are, then applying your own sort of. Well, now I'm making it capitalism. Like I'm saying this is in service to shareholders, that's not really meaning, it's not the spirit and to be Fear to you. Um, you we were raising it. To be fair to you, we were actually raised at time where we were allowed to talk to people who were identical to us. And that's so so, you know we we actually had that opportunity, you you missed out on that thought. I mean. But my first vote in any presidential election, got Trump elected. So, yeah, I live in quite a world. My adulthood has been quite a world. I I do think I do think like, but my problem is with the hypocrisy, right? Like you can't say, I I'm will not divest and we will give a pass to dual class company simultaneously. I'm with, or will you're gonna say access to Capital is not a right? It's a privilege but we won't divest, which means you're actually just it is a privilege, right? Like as soon as you listed it's a privilege because you're listed and that's where you can't. You can't be throwing Google and Zuckerberg under the bus by saying, it won't be search engines as are the companies of the future. It's going to be scalable and that's just that's like but then leave early with them. Clearly his copywriter wrote that for him because that's just that's just a bullshit like statement. He knows that you governance matters and say the the innovators of the future, reimaging the Auto industry allowed to put their brothers on the board. Yeah. You like the talking at a both sides of your mouth is my problem. You can't say stay holders or the future but shareholders are the ones they serve. Well, this is me, is this disconnect. This is where I'm not a Concepts. This is where I'm not impressed with this idea that he's giving some investors more control over their vote because I actually think that's going to have the effect of watering down activism. I think. She's just go for it like to be fair, they don't, I don't know that. There's a single company that they own much more than Kind of they top out. Usually around 10% even that's a lot, but it's not like they have a controling stake anywhere. Why not? Just push your activism all the way to the Limit vote against everything that you actually say that you believe in and in these letters and see if you can move the needle a little bit, it's not going to it's not going to determine the vote but it is going to start a conversation. So I don't know why you're handing off. The responsibility and I don't know, just like lean into your activism lean into the moment as opposed as opposed to what Matt's saying, which is just like, you know, sitting on the wall and, and appealing to the, to the loser Damien's in the world and appealing to like the the Jamie diamonds in the world. Like, you know, I'm with you on that. Well, that's what I'm saying. Is that, why do I have to read a bajillion Page Letter to other CEOs rather than just watch you do something. Well, and this is where I am torn again because and I compared to the Business Roundtable and to everybody else, he actually in this world is doing something. I know he has more power to do even more, but I still think like, this is relatively shocking for this environment. I know Matt is dubious. It's reactionary to this. Okay, fine. I don't think he's leading. I think he's following okay. But he's, but I still, I still strongly believe in the idea of like Starting the conversation. It's kind of like that old thing that Obama used to say to piss me off too. Which is that you know I gotta hear your voice. Make me want to change things. Make me like make your voice loud and I'll change things in which is irritating because you know I think we thought voting him in, he could do the changing but he didn't do much changing but the point being you gotta have the conversation. You got to go through these this painful part of any kind of progress, it doesn't just you can't just suddenly snap your fingers and convince Charlie Munger to put Windows in. It's just doesn't work that way. I don't I like I don't I I'm happy to have the conversation. I don't like having both kind conversations simultaneously in the same letter land in a place. If you're going to say, if you're gonna be of the opinion that like, you know, CEO should have purpose, but then you write a letter that basically has dual purposes to lick the ass of capitalism and to app. Some sort of stakeholder conversation if you're going to say. We want to empower our clients to vote. But we also aren't going to divest from the companies that they are going to vote at that. You don't have a right to vote at any way because the votes are held by dual class dictators. Yeah, if you're going to say like um stakeholders matter to the purpose and future and durability of your companies but also we matter more. It should be in service to us. If you say all the things it has no meaning to me. That's my problem basically sitting in the middle. Yeah. But we come like every good CEO. So congrats to him whether we ultimate Middle. But whether we liked it or not, we came from an industry that like, even when we first started pushing these concepts of like, you know, diversity and Leadership, right? You you were forced to make a business case for it. Whether you like to not, you know, all those meetings we attended I think you wanted to just be like, you know, it's it's 2017. Like fuck your like why do we have to explain this to you. But we had to like you had to make you sort of have to go through the motions. I feel like that's all he's really doing here. I mean, what is he gonna like push for a socialist system? I don't understand. No, but while he and she moth parse words about what is true and what aren't and while we sit around and we blow hard on each other, like there are real uyghurs and they're in climate, how dare you call Larry Weaver? My point there, my point is like he can Parse the middle as much as you want and you can start the conversation. Meanwhile, 25th Century. Not that far away, right? Like, we actually have to do real things. No, I agree. And your letter does none of the real things. Now maybe what he's going to do is and this was my prediction for 2022 was BlackRock goes, and this is ironic, because my prediction is Blackrock goes from the villain to the anti-hero that they actually vote the way he's talking about and I think he's playing the political nuanced Parsons in the Middle where he's basically saying like this stuff's all important Prius. So, you know, State holder is in a reinvention of shareholder capitalism like you have the right to vote but don't worry. It's not real right to vote in a lot of places, we're not going to dive vest. But we will, you know, like well use access to Capital is the Kajol like he's saying all the things and then when they vote That's when the real color comes out. That's when you're going to see that BlackRock actually is going to vote the shit out of of Net Zero and carbon. That's my prediction like easy votes, okay? If they don't, you'll know which side of this coin is on right where he's not, there isn't a nuanced middle when you have to vote, yay, or nay on a thing. Well, he's and that's what's gonna happen and this is my prediction is they become an antihero no matter how much I hate the fact that he's painting himself in this set. As this Centrist, you gotta pick a side. When you the modern Obama game, then it's like the he's instead of being the activists that he has the power to be. He's, he's telling activists, like here the keys, I'll let you if you, if you have the gumption in the guts, I'll let you You know, I'll let you mess around but I'm not going to do it for you like, it's the that principal, it's the same thing. It's actually the great disappointment of that stuff to handing, to shareholders to vote themselves, right? She's viewing as like, increasing democracy in the, in the processing yada yada. Well, that's really what it is. Is sloughing. Yeah, your convictions that you keep talking about off to somebody else, so you don't have to own, you know, more accountability, Maybe Control. Maybe you can see if today's show accountability, it doesn't do that to shut to shut up the right wing, which is that, you know, we're not a, you know, we're not a monopoly. We gave you the opportunity to vote. Yeah, but yes, the nuns guess who owns the vote, right? Like it's, it's people with 60 million or more basically fiduciaries. He basically handed it to large Pension funds. So we hands political risk to a bunch of political appointees. There is nothing more satisfactory than basically saying you guys make your own decision, get yourself voted out right like instead of the CEO who actually doesn't have to be accountable for to a lot of this like Marco Rubio can change through regulation what Larry Fink does. But Marco Rubio can change very quickly what the Florida State Pension Fund does, there is no more pressure that he can exert like his pressure is significantly greater over there than it is over here. He can decree what? Capitalism all he wants but he can actually make change inside. Or how that pension fund votes, and Florida now has to make a choice. Do we vote ourselves or do we? Not and Marco Rubio, is going to say to Florida. Why didn't you vote yours? Because those woke capitalists are voting in a way. We don't agree with and in fact, it's brilliant. It's a brilliant way to sort of Slough all of this nonsense off and and and and the system doesn't change that to me is the big problem with talking about your mouth because you don't actually have to be accountable for anything that happens. And that to me is the like today's news cycle know, amazing? Yeah. But no one to come for anything except for if you go to tennis match and you don't quarantine, then you're kind, that's why this to me is a tennis match, you don't quarantine for, right? It's basically having it all ways and it's meaningful. This is but Hillary, but that's the. But that's the sort of the undercurrent of everything we cover is that is damn near impossible. It's damn near impossible to hold anyone accountable because even when we finally get CEO to step down either a, they're, they're parachute. The golden parachute is massive, or they still have a lot of shares or they land on their feet in like, two months like ever less or less like, you know that. So it's, it's, it's, yeah, this is the hardest part of this. Unless, of course, you're the founder of a blood company that's a woman or your founder of an like, like women. I'm not speaking for women here, I'm not doing that. Okay, good, just make it on their feet. Yeah, they usually good to jail and then have to get in CBD with stoop Dogg to reinvent because Marissa Mayer. Marissa Meyer Meyer. I always get there. As an example, even when she does land on her feet, five years later the business press will ridicule whatever position you found for yourself like they will, they will stick by you and ridicule you until you die. You know? She's a punchline forever. Yeah, for me to be a CEO of anything. Well, we're gonna congrats to me for being. We're gonna need something this stupid Enterprise when Matt, and I like, Just like punch each other to death, in a few years. You're gonna someone's gonna need to step up here. And you, and Arya are taking over. Speaking of, do we have anything else for this show? Now that we're in the sixth hour of discussing, Larry Fink. Nope, that was Emma, lurking and Damian. And black ink. Rallis I am Matt the laughingstock already. I'm gonna take on that moniker from Emma today. We are frequent media, this was business pants. We actually got a voicemail that we need to address. We need to address it in a coming show this week and it was about how public utilities and okay. Stop talking for One Stop, subscribe. Share this is this is real talk. This is like real talk about ESG in real life. So, this is what you should be listening to. Not some other bulshit come back tomorrow, where we have more Biz, New Gods. Yeah, we promise not to talk about poker.