Business Pants – 2022-07-20

Hello. Live from your left. Electric ventricle to Wilke data, Wednesday spectacular. Here at the woke data Academy in gym and growlab join us always by Emma bird face lurking and Matt cheesehead. Mascari I'm lump number seven in today's, Venn diagram sent it back of carpet, colored nuggets called July 20th, 2022. A woke data ESG trigger game for ESG expert at Mascari and Emma's wokie, trendy, dumpster dive, Drive, Emma nuts with the buttons today proxy season is over. So I'm trying, I'm trying to like and re-envision how we deal with our ESG woke data, Wednesday here. So, this is what I came up with today. It's a It's a trigger. It's a matte woke data, ESG, triggered it again. Put on your emotional. Or is it hard pants? Yeah, because we're business pants or is there is there an ESG Lululemon line? There must be right, pants does sound very uncomfortable. Let's call this the, how much should we care? What day did ESG trigger walked it again. Okay, so Matt So based on your lactose intolerance am I allowed to say on air? Is that okay? That is true. That's true. Okay, that's that's rude. Based on your lactose, intolerance will will call a strong cheese during a shared family vacation in the Vermont. Woods were nine. People are sharing one bathroom. We'll call that a full ESG Panic cheese. Okay. Okay, and we'll call a mild vegan cheese while alone in your home with four bathrooms to be a nothing to see here. ESG soft spread. Okay. Oh, see the worst part is the hard cheese is the one I can eat. The soft is oh yeah. You're not like those it's already clearly. Thank God. Okay, here we go. So that's still wait. Yeah, just so clear. Yeah, you're just gonna clear just You're just gonna read some headlines to make me angry and rate them on a scale of how much cheese makes me poop. I don't know. I'm, I want to do a service to all over fans at places like Morningstar in glass Lewis. I just want to throw some ESG stories that you some woke through the stories at you and just see, like, what is the expert think like, is he is he pissed off by this? Is he think that we should care? Should the industry care? Should we should, we should this be added to ratings method? I don't know. Whatever. You think, whatever. I mean, we're trying to Get you going here but I don't know. It's not that easy. As long as I'm clear. What the rules are. And for I have not for the listener, we have no Morning Star. I have done no prep. I haven't read any of these. I don't know what's going on. This is why I'm confused. This is when I'm the most confused, right? Let's do this thing. There's no anti woke stuff here so you don't get to lean on. That's, that's me the most Here we go. The first one. I like I'm hoping for some kind of sound effect to get me in this it's not the Bell but now it okay fine. I'll take that works. Bernie Sanders. I feel like you're already upset about this. Yeah, all right, you, it's already downhill and you're an anti-semite, Bernie Sanders calls out, obscene asset hoarding of the big three in a tweet Sanders. Noted how the trio has a mask over 22 trillion dollars in assets and our major shareholders and more than 96% of S&P 500 companies, they own an average of 21% of every company in the S&P 500. And now he's joining criticism that have come from all directions. Including Two of our favorites Here. Charlie Munger and Elon Musk. So Matt oh wow, and I'll tell you this too. This is a trifecta that 21%. Number has doubled just in the past seven years. So really help us out here. Should we be alarmed? Should we be fighting back? Should we be? Should we be happy? Maybe this kind of thing is good. Where, where come on? Yeah, but it's funny that Munger doesn't like it because Warren Buffett is the reason why index investing it like between John Bogle and Warren Buffett saying constantly. All you should do if your retail investors buy an index fund, where do you think the index funds come from? They come from these companies who were selling index funds, Charlie Munger said, the rise of the big three is creating a new center of power for corporate governance. well, the The thing that they do is they vote or not. Right? Which means, that's not sure. They have Black Friday, they might not they vote somedays other days. The company that it's new logo is to stick his finger in his mouth and hold it up to the wind to see like, which way it's blowing. And then they'll, they'll kind of react Thank you. Well, you don't like the idea of Larry Fink's thinking his finger in his mouth. I don't understand. I thought, you know, that I just watched contagion last night. That sounds like a terrible idea. Don't do that. Jude Law will not be playing Larry Fink in a movie or something tells me. Oh, I beg to disagree. That's okay. Like it's, it's gonna be Benedict Cumberbatch, or law or some so look, I think I this doesn't trigger me. I'd like the language of obscene asset hoarding, like I'm not sure that they're asset hoarding, that's not what there's yeah, yeah. Well you just like the word ass but like because you're a child. I don't, but there the the consolidation of voting power. Look, If This Were democracy. Yeah. Like the voting democracy for, like, your senators and stuff, and this was the system, we would hate it because the system basically says, if you have more money than everybody else, your vote is worth more, right? You your vote is one, share. One vote. For the most part. So I don't know. I I kind of actually a little bit agree. I'm not triggered. Yeah, I'm not triggered. So Emma's Emma's gotta be triggered by this doubled, double double seven years not triggered. This is a soft spread vegan. Moving on his G cheese. Here's a new report from the AFL CEO talking about CEO pay. The report is CEOs are driving greed inflation. First of all, I know you're probably upset by that term in general greed, felacion Okay, that's an Emma. I can see you hate. Someone wants to say. Greed inflation every day. So the NFL CEO has put this report out for years. They're sort of one of the Hallmarks of the the bedrocks of the CEO, pay research people, but this year's report is an attempt to reframe the national inflation discussion. Emphasizing that while waging increases one by ordinary workers are drawing outside attention. That CEO pay hikes are significantly outpacing. The wage increases. Okay, and that's where they're calling it greed flation. Clever. Can I ask you? Did you read the report? I haven't read it. I'm going to take the 5th. Plead the 5th. Did I guess the reason why I'm asking is do, is it total compensation? Or is it just like Base salary or what? That's a good question. I don't remember the answer to actually, I think it's only is it isn't it really only msci that uses the total realized compensation that they don't use the summary number? I actually, I don't know. It's a good question. So for those of you who don't know what we're talking about, see what was your paid a lot of different ways. They get like a base salary, like an idiot like we do but most of their money like the vast majority of their money comes from options and stock awards and stuff like that. So when they tell you how much a CEO makes they value those stock awards at a certain date usually when they're awarded and they never tell you how much they're actually worth when the CEO sells that stock and like takes it home because then it's almost always worth more and they get way more money than is listed there. So if they're using total, take-home compensation, which is the metric that Damian and I are talking about, then, yes, they're making a tremendous amount but it's not all flake. The back of a worker, it's off of like the stock. It's it's a little different. It's not like they went into the company. Stole all the money paid themselves and didn't pay their workers and drove up prices. They basically got paid because the Market's been insane up until six months ago. I don't know, the underlying fact is CEOs, get paid a fuk ton of money and I can't wait for that to be me. Uh, oh look, it's gentle agreement today. Answer that I should get paid and to answer your question. Thanks for filibustering a while. I went to the SEC website to find out this information, it looks like they are using the summary comp the summary total comp in the SEC proxy filing. So they're just taking that number out and and I remind you what they're trying to do here is reframe. The discussion on inflation that it's not because because they're the Amazon CFO blamed incentives and Rising pay as the as one of the reasons for for call, you know, for money problems over to Amazon. But AFL-CIO trying to re-frame that discussion to say, actually, It's your green grief. I think the the thing that triggers me is like all of the the system is designed so that a few people make a whole lot of money and everybody else you're a dollar, right? Like. But that is part of it. It's not really like greed relation like reframing it with stupid Mimi terms. I don't care that much about. All I know is that the system is designed for everyone else to not make money, except for like seven. Let people write, let me and done this, your pay ratios. They, they talk about CEO. Pay ratio is the average one, they're saying this year in the S&P, 500 is 324 to 1. So that, you know, that means the CEO makes 324 times the the median worker. And they're saying an Amazon, it was the highest and they're the ones complaining about wage increases and sensitives and operations that the pay ratio was 6500 to 1. Let me ask you this. Are these pay rashes today? Are they making a dent in the narrative here? Like does anybody care? Like I in general, like all the numbers are high, but is it are they just too high is the whole thing. It's an awesome outrageous and people don't know how to like, People don't know what to everyone. Seems to every time I talk about our pathetic pedaling middling mediocre company, How dare you did I just say that I love? Yeah, I mean talk about our great Enterprise of the areas where people really do relate to this runaway executive pay, but I just wonder like over the years, the narrative hasn't changed this direction like no one knows how to have this discussion. What the two things. Yeah, number one is when both the amount of money is CEO makes goes up, like in a straight line up and the CEO pay ratio just goes up in the same straight line. That's why I know and cares. You're saying the same thing. Twice workers, don't make any money and CEOs make lots of money, but The board saber metrics that we developed. We actually are using CEO pay ratio as a performance indicator so you can tell you which boards increase CEO pay ratio at the wherever they sit over their careers. I didn't even mention all that to plug us but thank you. I appreciate it. No, any, any chance I can get you want to know how many calls you've gotten to buy this thing from the show 0.0. Yeah. Less less than that, less than 0. Okay, but someone told me about it thought. All right, next There we talk about gender quarters a lot, especially with the boards. That's the only place. I think we've seen actual mandates across the world as bored on boards. Diversity mandates. This is an article talking about gender quarters for women, CEOs. This is out of Australia. Saying that quotas may be needed to correct, the dire lack of female CEOs. Triggered by this. Yes. But for the wrong, the quotas are all too low. They're all too fucking low, he always triggered Emma. He just swore the first time all the show, why are we shooting for like 30% or 40%? I would make it 80%. Give women a chance to just run it all make them all. CEOs, don't say like five women, CEOs, say all women, all the, all the companies should have a female CEO and just see what happens. Give it, 100 years, give it 500 years. See what happens, how about this, how? I kind of understand how you quantify on a board, how do you do it for CEOs? How do you set that number? How does it work like a lot? Just say all companies have to have a fever get that I like easy rules and it works and it's better. I'm moving on. That was a good trigger there. Okay. This one's kind of for Emma, but, you know, mostly for Matt, we use a lot of stories about the hypocrisy of elite in their private jets and they're preaching on climate change. This one's about Prince Harry preaching on climate change, while he takes 21. Private jet trip. He's a, he's chastising world leaders, his chest, heising Western Elites, he talking about the world on fire. Should we care about this? Is this just clickbait? Is this something that the ESG World should care about? Where are we here? Emma shaking your head. Matt is saying because he's trying to think of something clever to say, it's not that I just look, I went to yeah. 15 years of ESG conferences on private jets know. But every idiot there to flies over and then they sit and they talk and then nothing happens for real. Like the last conference I went to, you know, what they talked about, they talked about how ESG ratings don't work, and need to be changed. We need better standards and we need better data. You know what they talked about 15 years ago. Same fucking thing. And we basically flied we're flying from one side of the universe to the other side of the universe. To just hear ourselves talk. The whole thing's dumb Prince Harry, I don't. Yeah, I don't care about a train about a train mandate for you conferences. You with me, train man, all female CEOs, 100% train rides forever. That's all right. See? We've all actually, I think we shouldn't be allowed. Across oceans anymore. There's no need just make a phone call. Just, you don't need to go across the unless Elon Musk that boring tunnel comes through. We can just, we can shoot a glass thing. I want to get in is a tunnel thrilled by Elon Musk under the Atlantic Ocean. He saw last thing. Something he's that. Twitter thing is going well right? Moving on, worst idea. Number five. This one's called how secretive methane. Leaks are driving climate change, massive methane, leaks known as super emitter events. I've been taking place at oil and gas for the world. This study is talking about one that just happened in Mexico. That discharge 40,000 tons of methane, which is the equivalent of three percent of Mexico's, annual oil and gas emissions. Go triggered, are you triggered by this calling? It secretive methane leaks. If like secretively it's happened like some backroom really, what it is is methane's hard to detect and it just it's like emitted constantly will but it is a problem from the SEC. Will they help quantify? This could they help quantify this? No, Do you think? I mean, no. Okay, we're all dead. I don't know what your favorite. Let's move on. I think he's he's triggered by this one Emma, but it's a different. It's a sad suicidal trigger. Yeah. Now she's gonna be you. Yeah, she go ahead. She shows me but I will be going. Keep going. Up next. Oh, thank you meta. Okay, meta. Hit some of its five-year diversity goals. They just released their diversity, progress report. Hey, this, as you can, probably guess this is all about framed around. The question of do we should we give met a, some credit for this but, okay. But first of all, hey, they're releasing A diversity, progress report, which again is not mandated anywhere they're doing this on their own, the company pledged in 2019, to double the number of black and latinx employees. And number of women globally by 2024, they already fulfilled those goals lie. And let me tell you some leadership numbers. When you set a goal to go from one black person to two black people, is that really that hard to achieve? You believe, gold in 2018. 70% of metal leaders were white in 2022 that number down to 58% white. So do you ever going to give Medical Credit? Should we be giving companies credit? And and do the do these types of diversity progress reports, do they land anywhere in ESG ratings? Let me ask you that. Do you ever see a diversity report from a company that doesn't say? They increase their diversity. Like me a question. Am I to respond to my question? That's not how that works. Matt, I'm just I'm asking a rhetorical question, which is companies, disclose this stuff when they have really great stuff to disclose and when they don't because voluntary, they most does meta deserve any credit at all. It's a, it's a dictatorship. Know, am I shaking your head? No, if Mark Zuckerberg wanted it to be 100% black people except for him next year, he's the only one in charge. He has no shareholder votes. He can vote out the board himself. So what am I ask you? Let me ask you this. Your client of say, I don't know, Morningstar, analytics, msci. And you're you're trying to decide about your investments in meta. Does this report? Does it even figure in know? I know about, I didn't invest in meta because I don't believe a College. Dropout should run my, the entire universe. He's just, he's diverting all, he's just like, oh, it's all about the Dual class, like, all the other stuff, the trigger here is you said meta and that. All right. Well, it's a negative but replace Meadow with company X, do that. Companies credit for this? And how does he started company X? He's not gonna answer. Okay, now let's move on. I don't know what just happened. Oh, let's get the SEC. This is a good one. Probably not. On Wednesday, the SEC proposed I was last Wednesday. I don't I'm not, you know, fortune teller proposed expanding investors ability to resubmit proposals on ESG issues, okay? Ah, if finalized the changes would likely make, it much harder for companies to avoid votes on ESG, matters in the future. Here's where it gets interesting and nerdy. And I want I'm trying to trigger you. The rule is currently written allows shareholder proposals to be excluded. If companies say they have been already substantially implemented Or or that they substantially duplicate, another current proposal. Or that they substantially duplicate a proposal that was previously submitted to a meeting. Okay. The amended, the amended Paul policy would have a much higher bar meaning that for something to be excluded on the basis of being substantially implemented, the Essential Elements of The Proposal would have to be already in place. For claims of a duplicated proposal, the company would have to show it. Addresses the same issue and seeks the same objective of the same means. And finally, a proposal would only be excludable resubmission if it's substantially duplicates, or prior resolution, let me ask you this match. Is this just a bunch of very high-end word solid where nothing actually has changed? Nothing is shifted. Nobody knows what's going on. Help me out. I am trying to figure out. Like what how you implement this? Right? Like it's just all very vague and squinty, it's all very subjective. Let me just put it that way but the but the rejection process of the SEC. So the process as it works was an investor would suggest a proposal. They would submit a form to the company would usually combat it. It would go to the SEC and the SEC would be, would say this is ordinary business or not, and it can go to vote or not. And the there's guidance around what ordinary businesses. And this is just refining the guidance to say something, I I think the I think, honestly, they could, I don't know why we need the guidance like we could have, just let more things go to vote. Like I don't I don't get it. It's good. I guess, fine. Let's wrap this up. The fine. My final one, a study, this is a Morning Star, a study suggests, low, environmental and social focus in US. Firms proxy, voting policies. They're saying that nine nine out of 13, European asset managers have a high or very high focus on environmental, social themes in their proxy voting policies compared to only one. Out of 12 us firms. And here's how they do this study. Matt, did they categorize into these categories? Very high focus, High, Focus, medium, focus, and low Focus. Again, we're, we're in this, like strange wishy-washy subjective. It's like terrible is this helping anything? Is this? Why people hate the ESG investment world? Yes, are you triggered by this? What's going on and bonus points? What is the only company in the US? That has a high focus on ES issues? That's the bonus 9 out of 13. This is a robust study of 13. Asset managers 13 years 13, Americans, there's 26 overall. Don't don't piss on Morningstar. This is a good. This is a good research. 26 26. There's like 100s in the world. This is why people have a trouble though. With this, with a lot of ESG researchers because they put them in. They put studies and bands of medium and low and medium high, and extra spicy. Like is this part of the problem? I haven't read this, so maybe there's a really strong methodology behind it. but when it comes out with very high, Medium juicy soft spread vegan. I don't know what that is. So, my example is as an example, managers with low environmental and social Focus also tend to express support for shareholders environmental and social Solutions on a case-by-case basis. So, there's a lot of Elvis that mean, I think I actually might. And again, you know, I, I'm not saying anything against the people, the analysts and researchers, who put this report together because I used to put, yes, you are. It's like this together, but this might be part of the reason why everyone hates. Yes, she invest. Because this is a lot of, there's a lot of, like, how do you, like your toast? Like, do you, do you like a little brown? Do you like it? Mostly Brown. Do you like a little pale? What? No, that's a little bit more. That's more objective than. But is it a five on a GE toaster? Is it a four on a penis rating, your toast on a scale of Zero to shoelaces is more than when you add in. How runny do you want your eggs is that this is the problem. You this analogy, a metaphor is really falling apart. I, I don't, I don't like it and I don't like it because it's as wishy-washy as every other sort of subjective signal and finance. We look at the ESG one and we're like, very high. That sounds stupid. But by like, Buy sell, hold signals aren't really go out and buy that stock, or hold this stock or sell this stock. It's like, it's like, it's like a suggestion of, like, you might think that this stock is good, 9% chance, sometimes soon. Like that's the whole. Okay, before we hand it over to Emma to make this show. Interesting, although I I'm actually I'm gonna say that I think the show deserves to be in the ESG Hall of Fame a podcast. Just this this quiz alone. This lactose intolerant ESG quiz alone. Deserve lactose did not feature nearly as much as I thought I would. Yeah, who bonus points, which is the outlier, which US firm is characterized as having a high. Oh, geez. It's not going to be BlackRock because the whole point of these reports to make black rock look bad, right? I'll tell you right now. Black Rock is in the medium category. Oh well, yeah. Because they're never gonna make them the best and they're always like, it's like, come on. Like, you pull it out. Oh, I would guess based on your experience because you met with all these estimate managers, right? You probably I have met with all of them, which let me say this, which one impressed you the most in the US actually caring. It was almost always, the ones that were tiny because they were not afraid to do something against. Well, you know, these won't be time. He'll be made. Sure there will be major that I met with I'll go with, like, Lazard. I don't know, it's gonna be. So, yeah, give me a Buzz. Give me a buzz. I'm a bus for oh, the answer is a lion's Bernstein. Oh, Alliance Bernstein. They just they just bought one of our clients. I don't know what that means, but I'm gonna say this. Cool. All right, that's it. That's the I've done. Like, I should just, I should have won. Yeah, that was the the Matt woke data, ESG trigger, woke data game. And that's and that's available for licensing. If anyone wants to I could put that there for anyone's ringing already. Okay. Well Matt, Damon answer. All the calls were receiving to license Damien's game. I'm gonna finish this up with candy dumpster dive which is a union Roundup today because you are trendy and see that now now I'm triggered through the whole ESG part and I wasn't now I am. Yeah. I do know that. This to Matt. So I'm excited about it. Number one, The Simpsons and Family Guy production workers are unionizing. That's it. That's all here in your parade. But I mean, both of the shows have been on the air for, like, 30 years. So really, like, is this a victory because, well, the only sort of a victory is because animators have been unionized for forever. Like, they've always had a big Hollywood unionized. Yes, that being said, this is not, these are not animators here and I think these are the production staff on animated show. What took you so long? Hey, I'm saying, here's that, what the hell took you so long? Here's an alert. Um, this just in, they announced they're canceling Family Guy and The Simpsons. They're closing, the Family Guy store in Rochester, New York number two, Activision employees announced second. Union ahead of game companies. Sailed to Microsoft this. I like more this, I like more. So this new unit is one of two. Now, this has this specific one was established by 20 software. Testers what 2020? It's slow, but sure you are under the name. Game workers Alliance Albany in collaboration with Activision's First Union, the communication workers of America. And again, the first thing you just join the first damn. Oh, I would I will say though Activision their vote went through and they after the back and forth of letters that we covered here, where they kept saying, how much they did on diversity in the sexual harassment issues and they talked all about, like, all the things that they did and including removing forced arbitration, which was great and they applied it only going on a go forward basis. So everyone who had been harassed, sorry you were harassed then but now if we harass you, you're, you're good for like quartz they lost their proxy vote and they, they are forced. They were asked him to make the report. Number three. This one is the most in-depth out of the ones I'm doing. This is about the Congressional Workers. Union. Don't worry, it's not too long. Eight U.S House, offices file for the right to unionize. So hey back out of 435. This is like Activision Blizzard numbers. So yeah but a second. So there was a measure for the measure for how staffers unionize was actually passed in 1995. But they're needed to be a second approval done by both the house and the Senate. Because originally this bill was passed for both Senate and House staffers, but they didn't, they never, they just never approved. Those regulations issued until this may and it passed, two, 17 to 202. Okay? Because all of the yeas were Democrats. All of the names were Republicans and of the Nova's, three were Democrats and three were Republicans, where no independent parties, we really only have two parties, that's it. Welcome to America. Yep. Who, who were the no votes? Do you know? From Democrats or Republicans know, they didn't Democrats. It was didn't vote. It was one person from California, one person from. I hate that person. Yeah, it was, it was no one of note. Oh no one of you know, Matt sorry. Know when you seen the headlines regularly anyway. So it wasn't Joe manchin. Not showing. It was not Senator. Yeah, I know. But yeah. So there's that and Union filings were done by the offices of Representative Garcia Levin, Kahana, ocozzio, Cortez Stansbury, Omar Lou, and Bush. So actual from Progressive offices, correct? So all of those in house members are members of the Congressional Progressive and it is a total of 85 staffers. So I don't know if that makes you feel better about the numbers. That's it doesn't. Okay. Another tidbit is that Pelosi Nancy Pelosi actually raised the minimum wage for house. Staffers 245,000 dollars this year. From 35 million which her husband just Insider traded. Oh okay. So it was actually okay. that being said, AOC, when she came Office established, a pay for of 50,000 and people seem to think that that pay for. It was one of the catalysts of this whole movement because she also pays her interns 15 dollars an hour. Minimum she's just been quietly paying people properly which is, you know, and she was just arrested. Yeah. Where I don't know what we're talking about anymore but I I don't understand how the the money works like AOC can pay 15 dollars an hour. She gets the money from somewhere. She's uses to pay it. Like why would you not pay them 15? I don't understand. Like if you like, is it just are we just doing everything on tradition if you have the budget for it? Like what? I see had to give up like one ham sandwich like in order to pay this? Well, doesn't it, doesn't it like kind of it helps her perpetuate? Elite. Elite. So I actually do have answered this question. Oh, so it on Capitol Hill, I guess the reason for not paying your staffers more as historically used by members, is the fact that they think it would look bad in elitist to pay themselves more because they are paying their employees, what? That is, they have to maintain their CEO pay ratio. Correct. Right, right. But I don't understand. Yeah, so sense to me, they make sure the staffers, don't get a, a living wage. So there is no objects of them by zero because you can't divide by zero. You get an error on your Casio calculator mat. That's why they figured it out. They actually tried. They tried to bring it down to zero. Yep. Thank you. Yeah. This measure as you know the vote went down party lines. Pretty distinctly will probably not pass in the Senate though. Elizabeth Warren is on the case and also I'd like to take this opportunity to give a quick shout out to one of my best friends in the world who is a congressional labor law. Fellow who worked on this very thing and she's amazing and well name her. Come on. Yeah, she have not asked her if she crazy on a podcast that nobody I'm praising her right now. I don't want to, I don't want to help. She's What I like about this? Yeah that if you're a republican staffer. I mean, did they just kick in the nuts or what like that? Like, literally you go to work and and you look at your boss and they were like, yeah, I'm gonna vote. No, I'm paying you more. Yeah, 100%. That is the kind of expect that. isn't that kind of the fun of the It's capitalism baby. Aren't you like aren't don't you don't you then as a staff or immediately, go to the other side of the aisle, because you go into where the pay is higher, right? I'm assuming that these staffers know, they're on the ladder. Okay, something big. It's all about. They're not free markets capitalism. Make the money, but aren't these. Staffers in D. For the, for the, the power ladder. They're not really interested in this piddly. Wrong of the latter aren't their sites are much higher. The only information I can give you on. This is one of Mark Levin's, staffers one of the main people involved in this movement said that, we might be surprised by some of the filings. We see that come out of people's offices. So, let's see if, you know, whoever's Staff decides to unionize and rebel against Me Andy Levin. Oh sorry, what did I say? Is a Mark Levin. Yeah, Andy Levin is a Horrible. Right. Wing conservative video. Oh truly sorry. Apologies Andy, Andy Levin. Thank you, Emma Larkin. Yeah, that's it. That's all. Yeah, I was less triggered with that. That was Woke Wednesday in which I was moderately triggered but not that triggered, it was like. But we got some good information out of you for all you Junior analysts at glass Lewis, you're welcome because you're gonna get a raise today, when you, when you march into your boss's office and you're like, I think we should do blah blah blah. That's what you're gonna do today. Yeah, blah blah. Can you actually film that interaction and send it to us? We'd love to play it on the show when your boss says. That's the dumbest idea you've ever had and you're fired. Take off your heart pants, that's Damien Raul's number Scotty, we are free. Little media will be back again tomorrow with a game. Wait what? Another game. It's a game tomorrow baby. See you tomorrow.