Seems to me to be very critical if you're going through an ESG integration approach to really know the character of the company in which you're investing in. That does require a great deal of really hands-on fundamental analysis, perhaps outside of data driven types of scoring, even or relying on scoring. I suppose there are many different companies that provide different methods to their own scoring systems. Really diving into the character of the management, their strategies, and how they're approaching their business in terms of the ESG related risks that face more sensitivity to downside, I suppose. But you've also talked about greenwashing. You've talked about disclosures. I'd love to get into more of that as we go. When I'm thinking about, say ESG integration into a certain business due to changes in the sector in which that business is, let's say, behavioral consumption or changes in behavior and consumption and say the dairy industry towards things like soy milk or almond milk, etc, seems to have really pushed a lot of dairy companies out, like board and Dean Foods, for example. But other sectors today seem to be undergoing massive transitions or transformations driven by some of the underlying reasons, I suppose that some of those downside risks become more significant. Things like climate change, for example. I know that there are great deal of high yield energy companies for instance, that may be grappling, I don't know with the transition towards renewable energies, for example, do they have to pay higher carbon tax allowances? I don't know, or do they have to change their entire operation away from fossil fuels towards something like natural gas or solar or wind. If there are high yield company, without taking on say, more leveraged and integrating these particular factors or environmental factors into their financial landscape. We're just supposed that they would be struggling to be able to adopt this type of ESG integration into their financial model. Talking about energy companies in particular, because they do, they're large part of the high-yield universe. Energy is about 30 percent of the high yield universe in one form or another. Premises are correct. Energy companies are struggling to adapt to this environment and to adopt ESG related improvements. I don't think you're seeing companies put themselves in financial distressed positions to try to meet the demands. I think we're in a different situation, which is that companies they might technically increase leverage, but they're issuing remote entity. They'll create this remote special purpose vehicle and they'll have some environmentally friendly project, like a hydroelectric plant or whatever. They'll raise debt against that and put some equity into it, but not a time. Maybe it's a joint venture though, they'll raise debt against that and fund that. Then point to and say, look, we're doing good. Maybe over time they end up doing enough of that it basically becomes the bolt, their business and then their core business goes away. But I think currently the mindset is more cynical than that. The mindset is people are always going to need us, they're always in need energy. It's going to be forever before we're just dislocated. We're just going to do what we have always done. We're going to keep doing our business. We're going to have this thing we can point to and that we can sell it ESG portfolios and that'll be that. I don't think you're seeing companies putting themselves in tricky positions. I think you are seeing companies that are having trouble truly adapting in a sincere way how that plays out. I don't really know to be perfectly honest with you because we do need energy right in one form or another. It's very cost-prohibitive for new entrance in that market to create. You can have a company that has one plant or two plants here in there with alternative energies. It will still put far away from a scenario where we have a utility equivalent that has nothing but alternative energy sources. I'll give the example of, it has nothing to do with the ESG really, but it's Blackberry. Everybody remembers that I don't know. Maybe we have some particularly young attendees that don't remember what a Blackberry is, but a lot of us do. When watching the Blackberry the rise and fall of that particular device. The Blackberry was his handheld device with a keyboard on it. It really worked for a lot of corporate environments. Apple came along. For awhile corporate environment just saying, we can't remotely manage that so we don't want you using iPhone, which started to build momentum as people stop wanting to carry two devices and started demanding they get to use their iPhone or whatever. Over time, the iPhone or Android took over, touch-screen smart phones took over and Blackberry, nobody really cares Blackberry anymore. If they do, they probably have trouble having it's service by IT. The reason I bring Blackberry up is because when we're watching the growth of the smartphone industry, the Blackberry didn't decline in parallel with the growth of the what we know now as the smartphone industry. For the simple fact that when analysts looked at that company, they saw a long tail of cashflows. They saw an install base in corporate America with IT people who knew what they were doing and who had a bunch of servers setup and worse, managing these devices remotely. It looked like a very long tail thing until it wasn't. I think the challenge we have when we draw that parallel to the energy space in ESG is it appears to have a very long tail. This is where I keep going back to this notion of risk factors because it appears to have a very long tail. But you won't know when it's coming to you. You won't know when the music's is like musical chairs. You won't know when the music stops until it stopped, and then it's too late.