Business Pants – 2023-04-26

Wow. From wherever we are. It's the ESG Industries. Only weakly woke data podcast. Featuring BS man. Matt mascardi, woohoo. Hey, you hopped up, no fake came out of the gate hot. It's called fake energy and today's extra super, nerdy gas actually. That's a very good description of the ESG for this week called April 26th 2023, we have a 30 es headline, round up a nerdy. Look at over 20 recent annual meetings in a dirty anti-esg Roundup from the anti-esg Intelligentsia yeah, there it Actually, and the show now. I don't have the energy for this. It is a lot of things that you just said that you. I know you hate our show today is being sponsored by ESG your ESG Data Solutions provider. They are that. Let's do this show because there seems like there's 300 things to get random. City. Let you know where you're way out today. Random ESG headlines in no particular order. Ready, Matt? Hit it. Can we blame stock BuyBacks for our now useless pile of Bed Bath & Beyond, 20% off coupons? Is that a real headline actually? It is I like that headline and it's very confusing. What do you think the answer is? We we can we bang? Yes. Yeah, I think it's that simple. The popular opinion is they could not compete on line. But Matt, let me tell you one of the reasons why they couldn't compete online, is because there there are new. The the last failure of an idiotic CEO, Mark Tritton, who came over from Target as the cheese. That's not the cleanup CEO, right? The glass Cliff CEO. This is no, this is the guy they really thought because he was Chief merchandising officer targets. They really thought this is our winner. This is our Smiley Guy. Smiley winner. He came in. What did he do? He spent one point five billion dollars on stock buybacks. All right, you know, what's a good idea when you have no money spending 1.5 billion, she was failing to compete online and you could invest on online. Can you imagine that imagine taking one billion dollars and putting it into some sort of R&D? Amazing. Uh, this is the same guy. Matt, remember a month ago, we reported he suing Bed Bath & Beyond For failing to honor his 7 million dollar. Severance agreement. The same guy. Same guy. Oh, he said he failed and then he sued. All Right, Moving On. Oh, this is a great one. Matt, I I hope you love this as much as I do. I don't know why I love this so much. I I'm excited. Here's a article is called ESG is bad for a company Share value. I'm sorry to listeners if you're not a super nerdy ESG person, just you can just download the Show. And Mark it as played pretend that you listen to it, it's fine. You can move on every time. Look, if you're not an ESG person listening to this show, Wednesday. First of all, congratulations in particulars talk. Second of all, just replace the word ESG with balloons. What did data and moon cycles know it's it's it's just data is bad for a company Share value. That's what I just love this from David Henderson. This is just I already don't like I just love the idiocy of this article. I really do. I really loved it. He says this is okay. So this article is in a response to the observation that ESG investing does not appear to hurt. Shareholder value, based on real life data. That annualized return was 0.02% higher for the S&P 500 ESG index in the S&P 500, right? Got it. That's just real life data. Second. Line says is bad. So here's his this is, here's a quote from the article. It David Henderson said in response to that quote the evidence on shareholder returns is not evidence. And quote, that's what got me going. I just love that. So his theory in this article is based on his understanding of event studies, right event studies about how they affect the market right events that directly affect the market. And he said again in, I'm quoting from the article. He said I'm going from memory here about what I learned in the mid to late 1970s. Wow. His understanding of this subject matter really is based on 50 year old. Events. Yeah, no 50. His memory of 50 year old events, that he's not even the study and look it up. Look up, study, look up. You didn't even look it up. You didn't even bother. And here's his bizarre Theory. This is how much people don't understand. Yes, she but still write articles about it and he was recently in the Wall Street Journal complaining about this crap, here we go. His theory is that again, I'm quoting if firms decide without warning, that they will go ESG. Oh, what does it even mean? Can you can, can we just go companies are gonna go ESG? I don't even remember. That means. Okay. Well, the acronym means environmental social and governance, and it's a series of data that you actually disclosed so, does he mean go disclose? Yeah, she data, they go. That he claims that this creates uncertainty about what steps the company will fall. Oh, I'm not the market will adjust to that because of the new uncertainty because they decided to go ESG And he says that that the market value of the firms that haven't made such an announcement, but instead have announced that they won't do, ESG will also be adjusted. So what he's saying is that the companies that announced that they will go ESG will cause uncertainty in the market? And its relative to the companies that decide that they won't do ESG. Again I'm quoting Is this his memory of the 1970s that was this guy allowed to exist. What is this? All right, if we're gonna break it down for realsies, what he seems to be saying is because companies just like, put out an ESG report. Yeah, it contrasts them against companies that don't put out an SD report. Sure. And the market likes like the report, and there's more volatility on certainty about, who's gonna do this next. And then that means the ESG companies, get a slight Edge, something that seems, but Matt, there is a lot of math behind what he's saying. Despite the guy who said the evidence on Cheryl to returns is not evidence. There's no evidence of what you're saying. He doesn't provide any evidence of the market reaction anyway, to what he's saying. I would love if, in a court of law he was like the evidence of the murder that my client did is not evidence of a murder. This is Wall Street Journal. Level. Anti ESG reporting. I'm just selling you. Where do you write this, man, David Henderson? I don't know. It was a wrote it and he wrote on. Org. Oh, moving on. It's like you still my bit the anti-esg, I tell you I just thought I'm sorry good. This quote the evidence on shareholder returns is not evident, but that's their whole That's their whole, that's strives. And Vivek Rama Swami their whole basis of anti-esg is that is its negative effect. It's drain on shareholder returns, right? That's their whole reasoning. But he's nothing through sight, know he's conveniently throwing out this one bit of evidence saying it's not evidence. His evidence is my memory from the 70s. Next headline, which is missing the point in the world of ESG. S&P 500. CEO pay growth slows. Okay, this is from a correct report from ISS corporate Solutions. They're saying that the median pay increase was was only up 3.1%, which is down from last year, bonus and so annual pay was down. But median stock awards and median option Awards, both up 10%. So, again, completely missing once again, just missing the whole story. How was the headline that their pay growth slows? When they're going to make more money than they ever did. That's correct. The headlines should be when the market is failing. CEOs will cash in yes. Right what they did was give themselves cheaper options on something. They know is going to rebound while they're still CEO. Yeah, exactly. Thank you. You get it. Well, that was from my memory of a paper I read in the 80s. Next Something we don't talk about here lgbtq Plus board representation. I mean mostly because how would we really talked about it? We don't really have the data set, right? Am I wrong? There's something but not much. Do we have it at the S&P? 500 level. It's non-identifiable. Usually we don't have, we don't have it. We might have a partner that can get. Well I hope we do because I want to talk about this more, this is a report out of the from the association of lgbtq plus corporate directors. They claim that it's still lowest represented minority group, at only 0.6% of all seeds. And they're comparing that to Black directors at 11% Asian directors at 6% and Latino at 5%. That sounds probably right. Do you want to know? Yeah, go ahead. Do they have the data? Why don't we get the data from that? It appears they do based on surveys? Oh yeah. I mean I think they're probably listening, so they should reach out to us because yes, reach out to me we don't know if we're going to reach out to them. That's correct. Do you want to know the three there? Three clear causes of their exclusion? Okay. One The Lost Generation. Which means that like my grandfather. Yes, exactly. That means basically Forever Until, you know, a couple days ago. Everyone hated gay people. Well, you're laughing, but that's true. Yeah, I mean, I'm laughing because to call it the Lost Generation actually really minimize its the loss Millennia, right? To there was a focus on gendered Industries, meaning that there's skewed concentrations in certain industries. That's, that's true. Yes, see that. And finally, the and I the reason why I even bring up the stories that because I, you know, because I try to bring up things that relate to us, but there is a significant Network Gap. Oh, there it is. That's it. According to their data. Well, only three percent of existing lgbtq plus directors respond in serve on their nominating committee. 40% reported gating their first seat because they knew someone on the right. So you see what we're getting out here, right? Yeah. I see what we're getting at. You're getting at the fact that we have the data around this and that we can show it to you. and finally, Because I know you're, I think you're talking a little bit about strive Asset Management. I wanted to point this out. And this article called this is from the corporate governance, law blog review, blah, blah, blah, Harvard as far as this Harvard. That's all that really matters. Doesn't matter? Sure, everything says, Harvard. Now, the boards oversight of employee voice. That's the, that's the article again. I'm sorry. This is a very nerdy episode of. Yeah, I'm bored. You just bored me. There's a report out of State Street Global advisors Russell Reynolds Ford Foundation, They did a c-suite survey asking them what they think are the top three, stakeholder groups. Okay? Okay. In order they are. And again, this is to refute strive Asset Management point, that you only think you should be looking at is what shareholders, right. It's the only thing companies should ever be a paying attention to, right, right. Okay. But this is from the c-suite themselves. They say the three, most important, stakeholder groups are consumers and customers. Yeah. Number one, number two, employees that's number two, number two, employees. And the number three is an investors. Oh, so I so I think Drive can just stop. They're wrong. They only surveyed woke companies. That's all I'm saying. Okay, sure. Whatever you're saying, I don't know what you're saying. I'm just saying, I remember this. I was in a class at 9 a.m. and 1993 and which they mentioned this. So, yeah, that's that's my evidence. So the idiocy that that excellent equates to only paying attention to investors is just like a, what is that? It's a old, I believe it's okay, moving on. Matt because nobody else wants to. I looked at 22 the votes at 22 annual meetings. Oh yeah. Bring on the meeting. I feel embarrassed about this. I had good intentions here. I really did. I have the proof that I looked at all? 22 because I just do, I've even given you the links, but I'm going to tell you. Despite this Revolution going on of woke people taking over corporations and woke corporations, and all these woke votes and all this blah. Blah Revolution, baby, what happened. Now I'm gonna tell you, I got the data to prove it, at least that these 22 companies. There's nothing happening. Oh by the way, we're gonna talk about nothing happening for the next 10 minutes. No, I'm gonna I'm gonna, I'm gonna try Kate this but by large margins shareholders vote with management. Oh that's what's really happening. There's no there's no like conspiracy with black rock and Larry Fink there's nothing weird going on where corporations are being taken over by AOC or Bernie or Larry. I don't even tell me, please, tell me that the evidence. You have that investors vote with management is evidence. The actual evidence is vote Oh, I don't feel like evidence to me. I mean, I'll wait to over Reserve judgment. I looked at 22 meetings. Here's I got very little sale quickly. Try to go through them. I'm gonna skip all the ones that were really absolutely one line. Here's some outliers Carnival Corporation. The only interesting thing is two directors had over 10% vote. Oh, oh yeah. Um, while in eisenberger? Yeah. And strive was against weisenberger before a while. So, since like strive is being woke by strive because management supported weisenberger but and management as well. Yeah. According to our data, Matt, if you really upset at somebody here at carnival Corporation, you should aim your vote at Mickey, Harrison who controls 64% of board influence and has a TSR batting average of 125 120. It's really bad. Right? Just so, you know, the whole board is bad at this but the rest of the board is actually 226. So Mickey actually just sucks the most. Wow. 125 is abysmal. Like that's like that's like it's like giving Aaron Rodgers a 40 year contract at the Jets and expecting him when he 73 to actually be any good, that's a bismal that's real bad. Yeah, it's real bad. You know. He'd be home. Again, nothing really going on one director Weaver even though it was first name. It's born. This guy is he got 14% of the vote against our data. Suggests is no reason for this. Yes. Drive agrees that they voted four Weaver. Okay, 19% voted against pay. Strive is always against pay. They don't want to pay anybody. Have you having looked through the anti-wolf votes? They uniformly, think, no one anywhere should get paid. No one should get paid. According to try. Let's move on. oh, L3, Harris Technologies 37% of shareholders voted. Yes! On a shareholder. Proposal asking for transparency in regard to lobbying. Do we know who filed that proposal because strive was for it? And I don't think they would be for it if it was from nuns. As I move on you can you can Google that in the background if you want. Good Adobe again, I'm summing up because there's nothing happening at these meetings. Everyone votes for management at Adobe 12% voted against pay, but that's really nothing to write home about. It's pretty boring. Here's the one that's kind of interesting. I suppose there was I've never seen this report. Matt, there was a shareholder proposal asking for a report on hiring a person's with arrest or incarceration, records. I saw that. That is the weirdest proposal that I think I've seen in a while. 17% said, yes. And and strive was one of them. Here's the thing. Yes. Isn't that awoke ask? No. I actually know because I think it I think there's some kind of racism going on here. We're strive is trying to identify People who have committed crimes and we know in the, in the US, the United States, the rate of incarceration is skewed very heavily against people of color. So maybe this is some kind of backdoor racist action from stripe. They want to know. It's like a reverse reverse racial Equity, audit, even though as in the company report on, anything is bad, right? That's right. Like what they voted on two proposals of the 22. Yes. To a report. It isn't that a waste of shareholder money is benefit shareholders. So she explained to me how this benefits shareholder strive. How does no Wing, how many incarcerated or arrested? People working at a company benefits shareholders, explain that at Manna one director got over 10%. That's the DeLeo. Okay. Now I care about that. I get a better choice. According to our data, Kurt hillsinger, his same amount of tenure. But his career. Earnings batting average is a very, very, very sad. 0.094 Riyal. This is compared to d'amelio who has of his at 4:45. He's actually the fourth best in the team. That's not great. Yeah, yeah. Go ahead. I have an update. I on the transparency, the lobbying from L3. The filer was not reported. They didn't say that they were so I have no idea who they were but it does look like they mentioned the Business Roundtable in there and how they're a member of The Business Roundtable. So it's probably secretly an anti woke file, okay? Finally sent your point energy again there's nothing really going on by and large out of these 22 companies, everybody votes for management there's no what conspiracy going on in Corporate America. Larry Fink is actually not The Devil. He's not controlling. The world as you director Cummings, got over 10%, according to our data, a much, much better choice would be Philip Smith who had a like lower company, average lower earnings. And TCR, average. Wow, I like that. Yeah, well, that guy out, he thinks that his job just say, I'm just trying to give you ways. You could use our data, we have batting averages, is that the right word we have batting average? That's all word. Yeah, which rates the performance of individual directors on the board. Not only for the boards are sitting on but for all the boards they sit on. So if you really want to make Intelligent Decisions about who you're voting for, Don't just get triggered because it's a woman. Well, look at their actual performers. Come on. Do you know strive? Because there are a woman strive tend to vote against more women than against more men, right? Yeah, they do because women are woke. Well, we actually, we have actual performance data, so, reach out to us, that's it. That's all I have. That's all right. That's word. Do something. Exciting. Now, because this was a rough day for me. You Gotta Give me. I thought a 22 companies. I thought I'd find something interesting. Literally, you're, if you could see Damian's production notes, they are pouring boring, basically boring extra boring. I can't believe you didn't do extra boring from Gnostic group where chubby Nori. Yeah. Had 0022665 127% votes withheld, right? That seems, that's pretty. That's Seems like entertainment at the people are what he got. Come on. All right, I got an anti-esg Roundup from the anti ESG intelligence. Yeah, and it starts with this red hot anti-esg. Take. Oh good. Here's the headline Rupert. Well, this isn't the headline, this is this is the just the story Rupert fires Tucker Carlson because he was hurting, foxes, ESG scores. Come on. That's not a real art. This is a real story and real real, from fours. If I could, contributor a guy, this is from Forbes. So, John McGowan who calls himself? Effectively illegal scholar around, ESG. He routinely goes around. He well, he offers services like being a paid expert on ESG legal issues. This is not for fake. This is for Real space. A paid hater, right? Well he he does the, he doesn't the smarter way. That's why it's the intelligence. Yeah. Because he He has cultivated this Persona like he's neither for nor against ESG. He simply is discussing the legalities and the implications of ESG. I love it. but, He's wrong about ESG almost entirely everything. He says is pretty much wrong and it's very anti ESG. First, in this article, he sets out how Carlson hated ESG. He talks about Vivica ramaswamy, and Carlson. Here's a quote Carlson. Did numerous segments echoing Romans statements ranleigh against the concept and contributing many of our world's problems to the well. So, it's, it's fair to point out two of the names that we talked about a lot in the program. First of all, we have an ongoing segment where we make fun of Tucker Carlson, we used to call ESG Tucker. ESG Tucker Carlson right Cocker Charleston. Yeah, second of all we had Vivic Romney, the, the Crown Prince of anti ESG on this show. And Matt the day that Tucker Carlson got fired, who was his guests. Who was his book guests for that? His book guests was like, our world is like colliding. Here at this weird. I didn't even talk about Tucker getting fired or Don Lemon getting fired because it feels like it happened. Like 100 years ago. Now, it's not really that the industry that we cover. Although just said, right, that accept that, that is basically the apology to Dominion, isn't it? That's what we or speculating around here by we I mean me and you yeah, well just see more. Yeah, so next up in this article, what you need to do is find a Jew to blame. Oh, for Thanksgiving. This is heartwarming in February 2023. Black Rock disclosed that its investments in class a fox Corporation stock at increased 15%. Okay, that's not a majority but enough to get a seat at the table. So now we're insinuating, that black rock is involved with no evidence that black rock is involved from the article. This is from the article that's doing from the article. Do we know what increased from We don't end. It doesn't matter because that's their class A, they have no. They have like, it's like the murdochs own the company. It's the murdochs company first so they could own 100% of the Class. A, and it wouldn't make a difference. You wouldn't make a difference to the murdochs at all. They wouldn't care. So, that is dumb, but they do discuss, like the share price was down and maybe it's like this insinuation. McGowan's insinuating, black rocks, somehow involved, how to Carlson, right? You have to name drop Black Rock, of course, blame think. Blame blame blame. Blame the shadowy Jew in New York. That's what they're doing, right? Finally. Say that it's all conspiracy, or at least insinuate that it is quote, while Carlson may have been great for ratings on Fox News, it is possible. His overall impact to the ESG scores of the parent company, outweighed, the ratings, he may have become an ESG like, oh my God, I mean, that's a real quote, from a real quote unquote, ESG legal scholar on a real place in Forbes and I as someone who was an ESG, loser, ESG ratings loser analyst for many years. Where exactly does that show up in the score? Is there like a? There's there's 8 p.m. News host. Where is a bow tie that's too tight. Is that a reduction in the school? We used to have a 0 to 10 box where we changed that move that lever. Yeah. Great reporting at a Forbes. Pretending that Rupert Murdoch even knows what is ESG score are. Is the comedy of like that is so absurd. By the way, this? Yeah. Yeah. I was gonna say congratulations to to John McGowan, because I just did a quick look at the at the report and you're not wrong. Matt. He mentions BlackRock, but he also mentions Larry Fink. And, as we've said before, when people mentioned State Street or Vanguard, do we ever hear the CEO's name ever? No. No, because like Vanguard CEOs Mortimer. What? He had his slip in Larry Fink into the article. Congratulations. Here's but here this is what the anti-energy intelligence here are doing so well. John McGowan Leaguer legal, ESG scholar or not his first rodeo he's writing a ton of articles for Forbes and all over the place. This is a trendy repeats. This is from a Chicago Law review article. He did where He suggests something as a passing thought without evidence which sounds familiar from David Henderson. He says, quote in jurisdictions where fiduciary duties extended only to shareholders to justification of a trade-off of profits for ESG, priorities becomes less viable. So he saying that when you do ESG it costs you profits, there's no evidence for that anywhere, but that's the thing you say Matt. Did you just say that winning argument with? I mean after evidence, it's a winning moment and now he can make that thing that he has no evidence for incredibly scary with no evidence quote. In the meantime, directors and managers who trade profits for ESG are doing so at their own Peril trade profits for SG. I love that. So he's saying like you're doing the ESG. Now you're doing it at your own legal Peril, so you better, you know, just take that into account. And no, he's not biased against ESG. He's just saying, I'm just saying. Yeah, just saying, right? Like, and this isn't the only time he does this. He's got a hot take on a shell lawsuit in the UK, where he talks about how climate change, short of regulations, quote short of regulations, clearly stating that climate change. Cannot be a factor in profit calculations, there's not a lot that can be done to stop the theory. If it takes hold. So basically saying, if unless government step in and say climate change isn't going to affect your profits, The Narrative is taking over. Okay? Okay. All right. And he can also say, and what is this is where I'm going with this. He turned me on to my new favorite piece of legislation ever written anywhere about ESG. Okay. Here's his story. John McGowan Forbes is ESG driving Florida's homeowners insurance crisis. Ooh, I'm glad you bring this up because I was gonna tell you that I was gonna ask you. I was gonna quiz you. What state do you think that John McGowan practices law? If you had an old one out of 50? That's correct. Yeah, I had to Tallahassee, I believe he's from know. I think it's, I think it's Jacksonville. Who cares? Keep going. Yeah, yeah I think yeah actually might be right industry. Experts, quote, industry experts have stated that ESG is a natural fit for the insurance industry as their calculations of risk. Already include environmental considerations. However, however, there is a question as to if those calculations are going Beyond known risk and moving towards pushing environmental action on to Consumers. So now he's insinuating that an insurer Is making you. Pay more. Because environmental issues are political. Okay, that's I guess is insinuation. That's what he meant. That's what known risk means. Known risk is like, is like old school Financial metrics, right? Well, he has to cop to the fact that environmental considerations are risk to your property, like you in Florida everywhere. At least you can't say that it's not, but now he can just say he can just insinuate, there's no evidence of this anywhere ever. So for 99.9% of scientific, except for the paper, he remembers from the 70s there. The now he's going to say that no, the insurers are going farther than that and pushing a political agenda through their insurance premiums, okay? That's basically what he's saying, right? So I think what he's saying is it Larry Fink owns the insurance company. Is that what he's saying? He doesn't mention that here, maybe he could. He could, he could, if he wanted to, which brings me to the link? He says, like this is the trend and this is something that like is happening, okay? There is God I I hope this passes this would make me so happy. Yeah. In Texas, North Dakota and two other states that no one cares about. They are moving to ban ESG in Insurance. Meaning what? Exactly So here's the text from the Texas Bill something that's why I like that. Sounds like it's only gonna hurt the insurers. Sure. I just want you to picture. Picture this when it's when I'm done with this. Texas bill would prohibit any limitation on insurers ensuring fossil fuel companies. Because for the following reasons, quote solely because the risks are related to fossil fuel based energy. So, you're not allowed to look at anything, that's a risk. Unless it's solely, a fossil fuel based energy risk, okay? And they want to ban all consideration of ESG in the insurance underwriting process. But what can you can you elaborate a bit more before we wrap up? What does that mean exactly? Well, what that means? Yeah is it? Well let's let's just ban the E. Okay, let's do it. Okay so property insurance, you banned the E you can't use environmental considerations in flood insurance anymore. I like I'm completely done. I'm literally dumbfounded. I don't that's about other than the political theater of this. What is, who does this serve? I mean I guess it serves the who does it? Serve it doesn't serve anybody. I mean you basically what you've done that you fire Insurance fire is woke. You can't you can't we can't get her like drought or potential wildfires in California. That's a woke consistent. Now we can't you can't model that risk like this. Yeah ESG that's what that is. S, life insurers. Okay, they didn't specify a type of insurance, a life. Insurer, cannot consider obesity in an Actuarial Table. This is, this is a, this is true, or this is you making. This is what they're proposing to ban imposing the band. Yes, ESG considerations in Insurance. Yes, she considerations, that's what I'm listening. Like obesity is an ESG data point. So basically they now when they think of ESG, they think of like a drag show like a grooming dress. Literally. Yeah that's it. It's just it's George Soros watching. Dragging children to watch drag. That's what that's what he is. And to boot the Texas bill that's up that's being proposed is a staggering one, page long. Oh, there we go. Because we're, right, how could it be more than One page. It's basically just you cannot, what are they gonna cite for? This, I mean, how are, how are they gonna create evidence to support this? How could it be more than one page? It's one of the I really. So if it passes, it would make me so happy. Where is this? This is in multiple States or just multiple states. Have it proposed? They haven't, they haven't finalized. Wow. But if it were to pass, It this, like, say it passes in Texas. Zero insurers. Could ensure anything in Texas because all of them use just massive amounts of data that is not like its ESG data. Like you couldn't, if you were a lawyer general counsel at like you know, you know, pick an insurer, you know, Swiss re you cannot go into a place like Texas and say that you don't use ESG data. To underwrite every piece of property. Any life insurance that you might underwrite anything that you might do, right? It's all. Is she data? So they would have to pull out. Texas would literally have to the, which would mean in order to ensure anyone Texas would have to socialize insurance, right? Texas would become so socialists to deal with their own band on ESG and socialism. And I know the answer is, I know the answer. This question is no, but in this one page build, do they even identify all the ESG data that they can't use to identify risk? Know. Okay. I'm that's what I'm, I'm interested in that actual list. I mean, I don't know what anyone thinks it means anymore. Yes, she it just means if it's real if you once you go outside is that ESG data? Like that's on your head. Is that? Yeah, I don't understand anything right. If you write down somewhere that an acorn fell on my head? You've you've got yes. Or if you have a feeling about something, that's all. Yes she did. If you cry or if you cry. That's okay. But don't write that down. Don't have a diary? No Diaries. Wow, that's ESG data. It's really wonderful. That is our show. I don't know what was that doesn't matter tomorrow. What are we doing tomorrow? We have some kind of a draft. Oh yeah, hold on a second. Hold on a second, hold on a second. Stop the show, stopped the presses. Tomorrow's show. Yeah, we are having. Yeah, the first ever Ever in history of ever. Board of directors draft. We're gonna draft CEOs chairs lead directors and and board directors, right committee chairs. But we're gonna do the first three tomorrow. And then we have a round two coming up. This is your opportunity to hear. How a super bored team could get created by the people who created board saber metrics, we really did a good job promoting this. We stuck at the very end of the show, right at the end of the show, where no one's listening and we already had the outro music guy. That's it. Tune in tomorrow when we do that until then goodbye.