Transcript
Live. From. The State Street executive squash court. Oh, I've done. Have they moved on the pickleball? Know, they're sticking with squash pickleball is too plebeian. Oh it's the ESG Industries. Only weakly woke data power podcast. Featuring BS man. Matt mascara. Yeah. Today. I don't even I'm not even gonna lie. In today's Everclear, Sunny gold called May 17th 2023 randomly. She had lines And anti-esg update from Matt, Mascari and a word from our sponsor about director elections. Is that what? Oh, I love a word from our sponsor, you hear that word people sponsor our show today is being sponsored by ESG your ESG data solution provider. Yeah, ask GAO doing it, right. Let's we need to we can't even fool around, I think there's so much. Okay, let's get through my stuff. All right, here we go. What's your favorite music? I don't really understand this music although it's because we're American doing the news. I was gonna say that might be the theme music for the national Center for Public Policy research. They might think, all right? Move. It is random. Yes she headlines. First, I try to limit it to just a couple. CEO Elizabeth Holmes. Loses she's Elizabeth again and mostly I'm only well. Okay. Yeah, this true. How do I is? She is she Elizabeth and I'm mostly just reporting on this because I'm re plugging our corporate theater podcast from yesterday. So download that and yeah, listen to share was really good all about Elizabeth Holmes. She loses her bid to avoid prison. and, Hit with a. 450 most of which I read, it will be going to Rupert Murdoch. Is it really? Because remember this what she was? She was found criminally. Liable of was defrauding investors, right? Yes. One of whom was Rupert Murdoch. Who will now get the money back to pay for that defamation suit. Thank God. It's just in time to find a new Tucker. I don't think they're expensive. I don't I don't know that. They're gonna have to look that hard. Yeah, they can call the national Center. For Public Policy response to Tuckers. How about this one, Matt? Speaking of CEO CEOs, College Dropout and open AI CEO Sam Altman. He was in front of Congress yesterday, here in the United States now. Okay, he was actually asking for more regulation, over AI asking for regular regulation, over AI, right? Yeah, which, you know, I'm not gonna disagree with that. You know, how you regulate it? Stop making it. Okay. Tell me if this is surprising to you or not. I found this fast dating and light of everything we cover here. He confirmed that he owns zero equity in open AI. Is that, is that a good thing, maybe? So he's really the anti Mark Zuckerberg. I suppose that that makes his eyeball scanning World coin. Make much more sense. Okay. If you yeah, zero equity in the thing that you run. That's going to be but you feel better about this that he's not a dictator of open AI? I mean do you feel better or worse? Who doesn't own the equity? Well this is what we don't know because it's not publicly traded. Right. So maybe we feel worse I mean we know Microsoft owns a chunk of it. No Microsoft bought in but there's supposed to be a non-profit and then they switched to be a quasi for profit know in order to then go back to a non-profit. The whole thing is I thought it was interesting though but I got to walk data War update. And I will update. I know you don't want to hear my is what I spent all morning on know. Well, you didn't cover this, but I, I was gonna avoid. All this is gonna void the, the anti-wolf stuff, and the Elon Musk crap. I didn't, I think I did. Officially avoid Elon Musk. That's good. But you just talked about them. There's a new entry into the Bud. Light stories and that's Miller Lite and oh here's the problem is the headline is Women drinking beer clothes. Why are right Wingers? Melting down over Miller Lite. So there's a commercial Pointing to long-standing sexism and beer ads sparked outrage led to a campaign of harassment, conservatives are hopping mad. After discovering a two-month-old Miller Lite commercial that was released during women's History Month. Hey, where does where is everybody win things happen? I mean, the Dylan Mulvaney thing was like from December, wasn't it? It wasn't it like there's this long leg between when something happens and anyone notice, I mean they're pretty Dopey these people. So, yeah, so Miller, this is a, this is a self-owned from Miller Lite talking about the long history of misogyny and beer advertising and no one can really refute that. I mean you have used look just spend seven seconds, Google old Super Bowl commercials like from the 90s and you will realize I don't get to go back. You don't have to go that literally exists because of cleavage. That was it? That was the whole thing. Unlike Anheuser Busch, which punted. In fact, fired the woman in charge of giving Dylan Mulvaney a can of beer, One can one time their acting very different over Miller Lite, which I believe is owned by Wilson Kors. I think it's actually owned by Anne Heiser Busch. Oh, Is motion Coors. Okay. Well the guardian has this wrong though because they're claiming that Molson Coors is reacting very differently than in his book. Oh no yeah Molson Coors is Listed in as as the owner but somebody else had them has it as and they were rushed too. Here's what. Okay, but here's what everyone knows who owns there's a company. Spokesperson said from Molson Coors. This video was about two things, warm poop because they're talking about, they're gonna take the old ads, they're going to shred them down, the old massages ads, they're gonna shred them and turn them into fertilizer to help grow, you know, more wait, back up, this isn't executive who said, yes, this is executive. This video was about two things, warm poop and saying, women should not be forced to mud wrestle in order to sell beer. Neat. Neither of these things should be remotely controversial and we hope beer drinkers can appreciate the humor and Ridiculousness of this video from back in March. So this. So there are like f u, right? he didn't just say it was that one time and I don't know the number, I don't have the data around this, but the number of times in executive have had to point out that something was about warm poop. They're also supporting the woman who came up with this ad campaign, by saying, people can take issue with her ads or Our Brands, but we won't stand by as people. Personally, attack our employees especially given that. These are Matt. This is the good part especially given that. These are company decisions and are never made by one single person. I mean, really these not like the biggest business pants ever, they basically took everything we complained about and turned it into a win here. I mean, that was like Ari and Jesse's point that. Again, I had to get vetted by seven different people credible and they're just saying, yeah, it does. Yeah. So I had to point this out because this one, I don't know, this was just in fantastic, this is really good. You know what, I'm gonna drink nothing but terrible Miller Lite from now on. Moving on. I found three. Maybe interesting proxy votes. I have interesting in air quotes. Yeah. First, let's start at. Intel. Actually, let's end it Intel because it kind of it goes into what? Reptiles of my non. Let's start at egg, egg, CEO, and chair Peter's afino. He got 75 million dollars in Pay last year because he got a special Equity Grant worth 50 million dollars. And why Matt? It's, it's because he has exemplary leadership unique Financial Technical and operational capabilities. Oh Matt, he's only been there. That's Our Equity dump, all you have to do to get that money, is to stay on the job for five more years. No, performance hurdles, just be alive and keep your job. Well. Here. Well let me tell you. What was he up for being poached? Is that like, did he get a job offer? Went to the board and was like I got a job offer him considering and they were like, here's 50 million bucks. Well, here's what Cheryl said. This is a big fat. No. Yeah. That 68% 68% as well. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Wait a minute, when your methodology is unique Financial Technical and operational capabilities? How could you say? No? Yeah. Uh, can we do what at what point, how far removed from 2008? Do we have to be to stop? Only thinking about egg as the company that blew up in 2008? But I still, that's the only thing I think about the best part of all this is that, when you're in the proxy statement there, they give you all kinds of tables and stuff about the percentage of of CEO pay. That's this and the percentage that. But for each one, they give there's a footnote that says not including the CEOs 50 million dollar special and finally Norfolk Southern remember, Norfolk Southern Oh yeah, vaguely. I mean probably stop doing trains because they got woke. Yeah, the probably the biggest apology tour so far of 2023 that horrific accident there in. Ohio, Alan CEO, Alan Shaw has apologized to well, has not apologized to everything, I think eventually apologized. Something that was vaguely resembling in apology. This company was an absolute shit show. I was waiting. I was very excited for the annual meeting to see how shareholders react Matt, This Is How They reacted. Nobody is mad at nothing or nobody. In fact, CEO Alan shocked at the highest percentage of yes votes for reelection 99 or with this guy. You can't get 99% of humans. Do agree. The sky is blue and only one director. Matt, someone that you talked about this say the the chair of the Safety Committee, Michael Lockhart, only one got over 10%, no votes that was him Michael Lockhart, he got 88% said yes, 88%. Let's pause for a second and congratulate ourselves. Yeah, that was entirely us like there's nobody. He was not in the news. Once there was no reports about him, there's no like analysis of him, our data, hold him out and said, look how bad he is at stuff. Yeah, I think they that people are listening. I guess all he's gonna get is a red flag at msci. It's about all. He won't even now. He still is it 10% isn't about 10%? No. All right, good now negative point. One deduction. Okay. The last one I I tagged was from Intel So a group wanted a, there is a shareholder proposal a group, one of the third party review of whether the company is activities and expenditures related to doing business in China aligned with its ESG commitments. So basically, this group was was saying that was touting the virtues of its ESG initiatives, right? Supporting the ESG commitments, and saying. Well, what about China are you doing this in China too, right? Oh, interesting. Oh this. Yeah, this tastes anti-walk to me, but also not. Yeah, I'm very confused by this. And this is where I'm going to hand off to you, Matt. Because again, they're touting Intel's ESG commitments, right? And this this is coming from the national Center for Public Policy research, which which you have pointed out many times, is the most anti-esg organization going so there. Yeah. So this is what they're doing. They're they're, I don't even understand. You're gonna have to help me. They're using their fake, love of ESG to be anti-china. What are they even doing here? I don't understand this. Okay, well, I can tell you, this is, this is called, this is the old trick proposal help which they are trying to make it. Sound like an ESG proposal. Like, all we're trying to do is be like all the ESG proposals, but they're also trying to use it to say, like, you're all Chinese globalists loving. So it's about greenwashing, this is about that. They're two pro China. Is this about like being being snarky jerks like what is it really hard? I'll tell you shareholders were not buying this one. They supported this to the tune of 0.04 percent. Wow, solid point zero four, man that's even less than a 10th of 1%. I mean, you could probably count the number of votes that is at like one voter, right? Like that strives Holdings. Yeah, strive. So that's that's the segue and also give you. This is the oldest way is at the, The Wall Street Journal had a kind of a piss. Poor sad propaganda piece yesterday. It's op-ed. Its editorial. Board had us had a story called, The ESG proxy. Vote ranking, is your asset manager voting based on the interests of investors or for political agendas. Oh, no. What? Bro, I ended up to you. I didn't really want to cover this but I got into the rabbit hole too, but you have a lot more reporting on this. Yeah, there's a lot here. So, actually, can we do this? Can we turn it over to Paul for now? And he's. So, when we come back to this, we're gonna dive into the Wall Street, journal's anti-esg, editorial. There's a lot to talk about. Okay, here we go. Hello Paul. Hudson here from skhs statistic of the week. I've dragged my cell phone, my sick bed to make this recording, so hopefully I won't call my way through it. So, we're going to look at direct to elections this week, and we're going to look at them. In terms of the numbers of directors, receiving significant vote against their election. So, the looked at in two ways, directors, receiving less than 70% of shares, voted, and the number of directors receiving less than 50% of shares. Voted. Now, over the years, the number of directors receiving less than 70% of shares voted has steadily increased from 304. In 2018 to 448 in, 2022 are only 99 so far in 2023, but it's early days in this year's proxy season. On the other hand, the number of directors receiving less than 50% of shares. Voted has gone up and down over the years, from 53 and 2818 to 89 in 2022, but it was at a high of 104 in 2021. So I'm just gonna switch out the analysis, a little bit here, and look at the statistics by index, as well. So, we're looking at these, those figures with the Russell 3000. So what we're looking at now are figures for the Russell, 3000 and the S&P 500. Now, I'm just gonna look at the 2022 figures, which is the latest full year. The one with 448 of directors received me less than 70% of shares, voted and looking at the them by index, you can see, this is the vast majority of those Actors receiving less than 70% and also the vast majority of those receiving less than 50% were found in. The Russell, 3000 outside the S&P 500, only 54 directors, received less than 70% of shares voted in the S&P 500, and only 10 received less than 50% of shares voted in the S&P. 500. So, most of the directors, receiving low, vote support are in smaller companies, mid caps and small caps and that pattern is repeated for all of the years back to 2018. So now I'm going to switch the analysis from index to sector. And what we're looking at. Now again, we're looking at 2022 the last four year. And we can see that in fact there are a number of significant differences in the fortunes of directors by industry. for example Communications Services, Consumer Staples materials and utilities very rarely get any significant votes against directors A very small numbers there. On the other hand, Healthcare. Information Technology financials and consumer discretionary companies are much more commonly receiving significant votes, against directors in healthcare, for example, 115 much higher than anybody else directors, received less than 70% of shares voted and only 21 received 50% less than 50% of shares voted, but again, both of those are much higher figures than almost everybody else except consumer discretionary. Where 23 directors received less than 50% of the shares voted the next highest number of directors receiving less than 70%. is in Information Technology at 61 and then the financials at 55 and consumer, discretionary also at 55 Of course. These numbers pale into insignificance when looked at the number of directors being elected overall, which runs in the tens of thousands. However, the statistics do indicate a growing level of dissatisfaction with directors and a growing willingness to vote against them. So this is Paul Hodgson with skh statistic of the week signing off and I managed to get through it without coughing. Wow, he did sneeze a few times though. So, first of all, I do want to say Paul that what he said about directors and Oil and Gas and energy, getting fewer votes against directly. Contradicts, what I'm about to tell you the, like the anti woke wanna segue. So like that, like, that segue. Here we go. Let's do this thing. All right, so first of all, I want to do proxy vote of my own before I come back to that editorial in the okay, there's titled. You can order anywhere you want. And here's why? Because you mentioned a few of these interesting are quote, proxy vote about anti ESG confusing things. They're doing it. Better now. Because now they've gone full qanon. Here is a vote from Marriott International. It is item number six on the proxy. If you're reading it it is a resolution requesting, the company publish a congruence report on Partnerships with globalist organizations. Now, if that feels a little hard, right? Kind of point. You don't really hear globalist in a proxy unless you listening to an Elon Musk tweet, you don't. Yeah you don't typically hear that language, this is one like I've never seen anything. So openly either anti-semitic or qanon or whatever, I mean it's big that's Lane and it really is in its Lane. It was filed by the national Center of public policy research. One of the largest anti-woke proxy filers and they what they want is a and Analysis a report disclosing how voluntary Partnerships with these globalist organizations is congruent with shareholder Duty. I guess that's kind of what they want. Here's the proponent statement, they basically list out that Marriott does not list themselves as a partner or associated with, in any way, with the world economic Forum, The Business Roundtable Council of Foreign Relations, the Rockefeller Foundation The groups or the Bilderberg Group, which I am now going to think of these five as the globalists. I didn't realize, I just thought it was World economic Forum, but there's five of them. Now the Business Roundtable is a globalist group, okay? Um, And then they list all the things that aren't listed on Marriott's website, including that the world economic Forum sponsored by Marriott as in, they sponsored conferences. So that people would stay in their hotels, they were angry about that. They didn't disclose that. This is their angry about the fact that Mary got International is sponsoring another National some of their hotels that exist across the globe, including ones at convention centers, that house angry. Yeah, it was enough to make one angry that they had a very bottom line though, doesn't it? Like To support your bottom line. Would you not want to be supporting these international hotels that are your product? The conference does have people that go to it and need to stay in hotels? It does sensibly, we don't have to line up, very neatly The Business Roundtable. The CEO sits on the Business Roundtable alongside may add Lin, good of Duke Energy, Lance Fritz of Union, Pacific. Greg Hayes of Raytheon, Doug McMillan of Walmart, Scott, Kirby of United Airlines. These are all the wokes right there. All sitting on these The Business Roundtable, the Wookiees, the relations. They mentioned that a past executive, a former Marriott president was on the council foreign relations. Former president. A former president, this is a problem. They didn't disclose that someone who used to work at Marriott years ago, sat on this thing. And finally, they talk about Denise neige who's their sustainability officer, who worked with the Rockefeller foundation on a thing? What she did was write a blog post with the Rockefeller foundation. So that's the association. The Deep Association happening. They accused the board of concealing these Partnerships. And that these Partnerships are the radical. Agendas are troubling, including how World economic Forum? Advocates for transhumanism abolishing private property, eating bugs, social Credit Systems and the great reset. Okay, now, I did a piece by piece detail of what those things are. No one wants to hear it. Suffice it to say that none of it makes sense. Like, all of it is taking well contacts, I'll tell you how much it really doesn't make sense, is that caught up in this? Anti-global, anti-semitic rhetoric is Elon Musk, who was who was tweeting, bizarrely about George, Soros, blah, blah, blah. You know, but that the woman, he just appointed the glass Cliffs woman ever, Linda yaccarino to be the CEO of Twitter used to work at the world economic Forum. So so which he has said that he hates in his followers. Hey, so the whole thing is just nonsense, it's just it's a bunch of nonsense. Very, very confused. Okay. Yeah, but all I'm saying, is I expect the proxy vote game of the anti-woke to, they're going to up their game if we're talking about globalists and votes. So, it's gonna, we're gonna start to mirror like Trump in redder because it's gonna get dirty or more vulgares that. We mean, isn't that the only place to go? I mean, they're talking about one of the things that bothered them about their association, with the world economic forum, is the world economic Forum, says to eat more bugs. Well, okay, we know, How is this relevant? We know that most corporations try to exclude shareholder proposals. I wonder if I wonder if the corporation has tried to exclude say this one or yeah. Sure. But then again, they tried to exclude them all. So that's not really say anything, right? Well, it is funny to that the board had to respond to this one. They don't have to respond without just writing in ha ha ha. This is a joke, right? Because they had to say that the company and its members and leaders represent industry and business interests globally, I mean, Mary International represents business interests globally. Okay, globally. Yeah, they had to say that they had to write that down and they had to say that these organizations generally provide opportunities to get new clients. Yeah, they're giant networking groups of other CEOs like that, which is basically what the S&P 500 board of directors system is that's that's all it is. Why don't we just we should have proposals just to cancel boards. We should have no more boards. We have no more companies. No more corporations. We shouldn't have people. There you go. Answer. Correct. And and that all of these Partnerships were reviewed by their Global public policy, president, and CEO, and Senior executive leader. They admitted to have a globalist executive that they looked at these things. It wasn't Secret. In fact, they even said they disclosed this on one of their websites so they're not. None of this is hidden. Um, and they did, they had to add at the end. We don't endorse every policy position, but basically where and to ask us to do a report on everybody else's policy positions and whether or not we agree with them and how is it not feasible? So, I expect that the national Center for Public Policy research, which is led by a man named Dave rittenour. Yeah, he took over for his sister who founded the organization who died and he's been running it for 37 years prior to doing actually this. He was his own LinkedIn says that he's very proud of this. The national Center of public policy. Research is a free market Think Tank described by Nation magazine as crucial gear and the rights propaganda Factory, write wrote that in his bio. He's very proud of the nation's a propaganda. The nation is just a bunch of prior to doing this. He was an executive director at something called the US youth Council which was this CIA funded front to look for Communists in the 60s in youth groups. Why not lying? This is all real. All it's all right there and it was dissolved when he was there because Congress made a rule that said, you cannot spy on American citizens anymore and then they lost all their funding and went bankrupt. Good to know that. That's what he did before, okay? Let's bring this back. So let's bring this back to the op-ed piece Wall Street Journal Wall Street Journal op-ed, which is my favorite op-ed of any op-ed I've ever read and by that I mean the stupidest yeah it's hard to get through, to be honest, but go ahead. It was written by the committee to unleash Prosperity. Well, no, well, the the okay, the the op-ed, okay, editorial board about the this about a report from the committee to unleash Prosperity. That's like the excellent group again, right? I mean Prosperity, so they wrote him up at about this paper released by the committee to unleash Prosperity, who Unleashed a report unleashing grades on how funds Unleashed Wilkes through their votes, right? Like there's a lot of unleashing going on. Yeah. And this is, this is what they did. They hand selected what they called, the fiduciary free 50. Yes, that's it. It's catchy. I like that. Produces a great that's alliteration. Matt, there's not enough for documentary. Free 50. Beautiful. Yeah. It's beautiful. It's wonderful in which they picked a hand selected hand select. That sounds like a robust methodology. Yes, and selected. This is, this is a quote. They pick the 50, quote, most radical proposals related to left-wing activism. Yes, they yes already. Right? Yeah. I'm already fighting radical left wing righty. I think. Yeah, that. That's what this that's. That was the title of each one. Yeah, they then went through and they assigned scores. They said if a fund votes 4 one of these radical left-wing. Yeah. Sherry free 50. They get 0 points. If they abstain they get Five Points. So basically they quit and don't vote. Yeah and if they vote against it they get 10 points because they must love America. Yeah, I helped me out with this 50 of the most extreme ESG oriented proposal because I I couldn't really figure out how they determined that. Were you able to determine how they picked these? Well, I was one clear pattern. Yes, 24 of the 50. Just said anything related to climate change. Okay. But there are some, but there are several dozen others, right? This thing climate change, they picked it at 50. Big companies. That's all they did. Okay. But still, I don't, you know, exactly explaining a methodology here. Well, I'm pretty sure what they did because they don't, they did not mention a data source. Sure, I'm pretty sure what they did was go to proxy monitor which is run by the Manhattan. I go there a free governance, it's a great source of proxy vote's, their, their website. If you want to see it covers a fortune 250 and you can see every vote for the last like 20 years there. It's really amazing all the time great show. That's what they basically just looked for the wokest things. They could see there and the last again focus by what set of criteria do we know. Well, I think they don't know either. Okay, that's the important. Here's what I found. Yeah, among the fiduciary free 50, the radical left-wing agenda activist agenda in proxy voting. They identified these two proposals one at Twitter. Considered radical left-wing activism. Yes. Filed by the national legal and policy Center. Yeah. And it actually says, it's about a racial. Oh no. It's this one's about lobbying. Yeah. And it turns out the national legal and policy Center is an anti-woke. Oh, so they did. So as part of the methodology to pick the 50, most left-wing proposals they didn't actually read the proposals. They didn't, actually, they just picked that they were triggered by. Yeah, what? Whether it came from the left wing or the right wing, they just pick things. So they managed to sneak this right wing one in the radical left. Yeah, and they picked this proposal at Johnson and Johnson for a racial Equity audit. Now, we know yes. From strive Asset Management, sounds very woke. The number one thing you ask your financial advisor. About is no one. Yeah. Do you care about black people? Have you if this is a racial Equity audit that I'm out. Yes. This company. If you're, if you're even thinking about fighting systemic racism, where goodbye goodbye vote again as my manager, not excellent. That was America's. Those stripes suggestion is the first question. You should ask every financial advisor. Yes, They five they basically highlighted this proposal for racial Equity audit at Johnson & Johnson. As super anti-world radical leftist agenda. Super duper left filed by the national Center for Public Policy filed, by the same. Exact people who We just talked about. I mean, globalists. And you haven't it's not like you've looked at all 50 of the most extreme left-wing. Yes, she proposed. But you've already found two that actually came from the right hand selected. I randomly was clicking through the links and actually reading them. Yeah. And here's the quote from The Proposal quote, if the company is in the name of racial Equity diversity and inclusion, committing illegal discrimination against employees, deemed non-diverse, sure, that's the problem. What they said is you are discriminating against white people by including black people that the proposal was about right? Strong stand there to make this worse. The national Center for Public Policy. And the committee to unleash prosperity. Actually has a guy who works in both places? Joy Murdock. No relation to the Murdoch family. Not you Murdock Ock last name. Is a fellow at the national Center for Public Policy and an Advisory Board member at the committee to unleash Prosperity. They have the same people working. You know, while we're on the topic, can I just quickly show you that tell you that the committee to unleash prosperity? It's run by four principal people quickly tell you who they are. It's NEP one is nepo baby. Steve Forbes, Steve Forbes. He's part of a lot of this hand ringing and crying about the issue. He's, you always see him there, he's always around. We have the co-authors of trumponomics that's Arthur Laffer and Steve Moore Arthur Laffer. Yeah, he's a guy, Steve Moore co-founded the Club for Growth with, with Harlan Crow, who is a billionaire in the news, because he's the sugar daddy of Clarence Thomas. Oh really. And then Phil kerpen who co-founded another one of these groups with the money from the Koch brothers. So it's all just group of people kind of its nickel chamber of of what I call and I think this is the official language disgruntled old, rich, white dudes, And I'm not even saying that flippantly that when you look at the principles of these groups, it is, they're all white. It's always disgruntled, old rich, white, dudes, always, and you mentioned Steve Forbes. Now, I didn't do it. But nepo baby. Steve Forbes. Actually he heads the committee to unleash Prosperity. He was at Heritage. When you say that, it's ridiculous. He was at the Heritage Foundation with Ed Hazel, mayor who is on the board of national Center for Public Policy. Go. So there are all linked here. It's not that hard. And so not only do they do Right on right. Crime by selecting two, proposals filed by the anti-woke as radical left agenda. I could discern because I don't know how they pick the 50. Just seems random. They gave them grades so they gave him grades a through F. Yeah, like that. Yeah, that's easy, right? Yeah. And there they created basically percentages for how often they voted for or against these terrible. Terrible left-wing agenda proposals. That they were 0 to 10 score or as your reporting is turned out. Some of them are actually right wing, right? Way to do is buy this but whatever, but it's very simple, right? Like they take a number and divide it by the total and you get a percentage of the possible, right? So for instance, BlackRock the according to their score out of a total number of like 17,000 points, they get like, you know, some thousand and it came to a 6.8, they just took 68% times 10. 6.8. Now, if you were to take a five-letter scale, sure, break it up. Yeah. Into 0 to 10 score. The easy thing to do, the obvious thing to do you mean 10 divided by five? Yes, every two points. You go to a new letter grade. That's what we do quintiles. Yeah, that's that's what they do, everywhere. Queen tiles. Well, if you had done that, yeah. The problem was that BlackRock and JP Morgan get bees. If you do actually like normal quintiles look antiques. Yeah, according to regular math, So how do they do it in order to avoid that? Yeah, they made the scales. Yeah, one point nine. One point nine. One point nine. Two point. Five. One point they just changed the size of what you can consider a b c, d, e in it like abcdf. Okay. Such that they couldn't make it work. So that BlackRock would be an F that would have been great but instead they managed to make BlackRock a sea and JP Morgan see and they were happy enough with that saying like look there there. Whoa, they're pretty well. Yeah. Well you know what they did which is just absolutely wonderful which I love the most matte is that, it's not actually an ABCD, this is a stupid there which I love, I love you guys for this. So if you're listening, I know you are, please call us. It's not actually abcdf. It's not actually a typical quintile system. There's a there's one year for getting Matt. I'm not forget. Yeah. Are you gonna talk about it? There's an F minus. There's actually something worse than failure. Yeah. Which is they split the F in half in order to show how bad some yes. So f is from 0 to 3 essential and there's a, there's a sub. There's a sub failure category which but you can see how badly this works. When I look at real math, JP Morgan and BlackRock end up with B grades Fidelity. T, Rowe, Price, Vanguard, and up with a grades State Street and put the sea, which means, 90% of the, the largest portfolio managers in the world, they call not woke. That doesn't make such a great report for the committee to unleash, Prosperity know, that doesn't, that's not really unleashing much Prosperity. So, the best thing you can do is just change the grades just enough. So that State Street is a d Black Rock and JP Morgan herc's. And we can flip out about how woke every buddy is in the entire world. Yeah. Because according to the math Goldman Sachs State Street, Tia crap that all be Seas they all bees somebody magically entered Decatur according to real math most of them are just their actually they would all be woke. So that's what I got for you. I love it. Somebody has to do it. Somebody had to do it. Honestly this this may not this may sound like a rambling mess because I spent four hours this morning. Oh I feel your pain. As it is a labyrinth. It is a rabbit hole Labyrinth of weirdness when you start to go into these organizations websites But this is how. Something in there that you can find. That's ridiculous. But we would never get away with this type of methodology. I know this is this is I don't know what this the gaps are. The stupidest gaps of any gaps I've ever seen in my entire life? Yes, makes no sense. Unless you really want to Black Rock. Well, see, or unless it's just a bunch of political theater. Oh, I'm not suggesting it is. Speaking of theater, that's our show. You should go see the actual corporate business pants theater starting, June 3rd. That's right. June 9th in Portland. Maine. Yeah, just voted by US news world in Paris the sixth best place to live. Come on. What are you waiting for a compass? And the corporate theater was just voted by my kids and wife. The funniest show that they make, I make them listen to in the car. So you need to go see them. Otherwise come back tomorrow where a world play some sort of game and that's it. Good.