Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to today's webinar. Stewardship is a big topic. And everyone in the investment chain has a role to play. Asset owners have the ultimate responsibility for the investments. And their stewardship role. Is generally. Focused on the oversight of. And engaging with their managers on material issues investment managers have control of the. Assets and are responsible. For engaging with the entities in which they invest and as consultants, our role is generally to help asset owners through research and facilitating engagement with the asset. Managers, this work falls. Within our manager. Stewardship work stream. My name is James Moore and I lead the Manager Stewardship work stream at LCP and we'll be chairing today's session. And with me, I have my colleague and stewardship expert Drew Henley. Locke, who advises our DC. Clients and we are. Delighted to have an esteemed. Guest. Takes Harding, Trustee, director. And head of. Sustainability at IgG. Before we start, I'll just talk you through what you. Can see on the screen in front of you. You should be able to see the slides and videos of the speakers. You'll also see our BIOS. And contact details so you can follow up with any of us. Afterwards there is also a resources list. Where you can see some more materials on this topic and you'll be able to find links to our recently. Released RI survey reports. This webinar is being recorded and is available on demand to re watch. Or share. And really importantly, you'll also. Find the Q&A box where you can enter questions as they occur. To you. We'll be keeping an eye on these, and we'll address as many as we can. Please don't be shy. All questions are anonymous and we welcome as many questions as possible. However, we have a. Large number on the call. Today, so if we don't. Get to your questions, we will respond to you after the webinar. Finally, you can tailor the screen to suit you by moving the various windows around and changing their sizes. Or at the bottom. Of the screen. You can switch off all these. Extras and just. Focus on the slides. So here is the. Agenda for today's session. First, we will be. Discussing the importance and challenges. Of stewardship. We will then be discussing what consultants can do to help asset owners drive better stewardship from their managers. And finally, we'll talk about some of the interesting findings on stewardship from our recently. Released RI survey and wider. Research and afterwards we'll have some time to answer some of the questions at the end of the webinar. You'll be provided a feedback. Form which? We would be grateful if you could complete and before we start, we have two quick poll. Questions for you. Which should appear for you. On the screen. So question one, do you think stewardship? Is important, so please select. One from the following options it's yes. No or not sure. So nice easy question to kick us off. Stewardship is clearly. An area that regulators. Think is important, but for some investors it may be seen more as a regulatory. Tick box while for others. It is viewed as an important investor tool. I can see that we've got a good number of responses coming through. But I'll just. Give it a few more seconds and then we can see the results. Brilliant. Overwhelmingly, yes, which is, I think very pleasing. For those of us who. Spent a significant. Amount of our time working on stewardship. OK, So the the next poll question, what's stopping you? From doing more effective stewardship and you can select more than one of. These answers so that they don't have enough time, don't know what to do, or don't have enough. Influence with our managers, so please go ahead and send those now. If anyone. Involved in stewardship. It's likely that you know that doing strip, doing stewardship. Well, is not an easy. Task and we'll be talking. About some of those challenges. In more detail later. Some of the most. Common ones we hear are. Listed here. OK. Got a good number coming through. Now just give that few more seconds. That's quite an interesting split coming through the majority of responses and so not having enough influence with managers. But also still quite a lot of. Not enough time and not not knowing what to. Do so we will be. Talking about how you can address some of these challenges. Without further ado. I'm going to give the first question is for. Tags Firstly, thank you so much for joining us today. So what is it that you're trying to achieve from Stewardship? So I think the main thing is having real world impact because that's the bit that's actually going to control the risk and mean that portfolios are resilient into the longer term. Stewardship is also the tool that most trustees have identified as how they're going to achieve their transition plans. And lastly, trustees, as you say, that their job in the stewardship process is really around effective oversight. So it's making sure they understand what their managers are doing on their behalf, the tools they're using and and whether it's going to be effective. Thanks to Just to Probe. That a bit a little bit. Why is? Real world change so important and can you? Briefly touch on how that. Fits in with. Your duty as a fiduciary. Duty as a Trustee. Yeah. So real world change is you know, the the objective of what we're we're trying to to achieve here. It's not about sort of paper portfolio based decarbonisation or or ticking a box that you you've kind of done an activity. It's around controlling that risk into the longer term. It's making sure that, you know, the companies you're investing in are going to be successful into the longer term. And as to whether that that sits with your fiduciary duty. I think pretty much every Trustee is going to agree that that effective oversight role is the job of trustees. It's essentially what we're here to do. I think where there is, you know, slightly more contention is, is the the extent of that. So for some companies you can really see that when you're doing that engagement process, you're asking for things that are going to be in the long term interest of that company. And there's sort of no, no conflict there. But there is a question on issues that pose a systemic risk to the economy, whether trustees should be asking them or asset managers should be asking companies to to deliver things which aren't necessarily going to be good for that individual company, but will be good for the economy as a whole. And I think there the line gets slightly more blurry. Thank you. And is it mainly about addressing the risks, or is capturing opportunity also an important consideration in your stewardship? Activities and. So I think why we're doing this is mostly about making sure that we're controlling risk into the longer term and that resilience. But when you're engaging in that way to try and make sure companies are successful many years into the future, that's going to capture individual opportunities for them as well, whether that's through increased market share or opening new up, new new markets up. Thank you. And Drew, how does that compare? To what you hear. From from clients. Yeah, I mean, a very similar story. I guess to start with, it's important to say that as LCP we have a role and that sort of plays into that poll question or the answer to that poll question. Lots of people don't feel like they have an influence. LCP, clearly we advise hundreds of billions of pounds in client assets and we can use our role as consultants advising on those those assets to drive change with those managers. And we really see that we should be doing that on our clients behalf or helping them to do that. Our clients really sit on a spectrum. We've, we have clients that we've been advised in loads of detail on how to, to influence fossil fuel companies in particular is one of the, the toughest problems to solve climate change. We have lots of clients with not net 0 commitments. And obviously stewardship is, is really critical to, to getting that address, getting the, the real world changed there. But loads of clients just they know this stuff's really important, but they don't have the bandwidth to to do it themselves or to really get onto the bonnet. They just want to know that their managers are doing a good job and they're looking to us to do that. And often that's about managing risk from climate change. But but there there is a lot that you can do to seek out opportunities and where we see the best managers using stewardship. They really understand the companies that they own that allows them to understand best practice at the very best companies and to share that across the board so that you're able to find those kinds of win wins that the tags was talking about and really proactively Dr. change without sort of compromising on on profit. Thanks Drew. So it takes. Clearly, stewardship does have a. Really important role to play. What are the biggest challenges you have with stewardship? Yeah. I think really it's, it's recognizing that stewardship is hard and it takes a specialist skill set over a number of years to do properly. And it can be quite hard for somebody that isn't an expert in stewardship to judge from the outside whether an asset manager is doing a good job. I think there are three specific things that don't come help with that. And it's about reporting resource and then the differences and approaches and ambitions that that managers have. So on the reporting side, it really tends to focus on the quantity of of in get different engagements rather than the quality of it. So, you know, we know that a good engagement journey takes a number of years. It might start with a conversation. You might have to bring specialist resource in there. That bit might be done collaboratively. You might step milestones with, with certain, you know, times against those your expectations around delivery. And only then if if that was failing and not sort of being successful in, in bringing forth the change that you're asking for, would you go into sort of escalation measures like like voting or individual shareholders and resolutions. But the, all of the data that we've got tends to focus at the very beginning of that. So how many letters have you sent out to your companies? And then at the very end, how many times have you voted against with and, and completely misses the, the, the sort of the quality of the conversation in the middle? And you can get around some of that with case studies, but then it's hard to know if the manager is just case, you know, cherry picking a case study that kind of makes them look like they're doing a bit for a better job than they are. And I think resources and skill of, of the people are doing it is a is a good one as well. I think a lot of trustees are time constrained and the time that do have to spend on these issues is often taken up by the actual reporting at the end of it. So that you know the implementation statements that the TCFD. Now the obvious push back to that is put a little bit more time into it then. But I think that it is it can be hard to really see the benefit of spending additional budget and time over and above the lots and lots of other things that are on the busy agendas. You know, I can give a couple of examples where I have dug into the detail and seen, for example, that an asset manager isn't voting consistently or it certainly doesn't appear like they're voting consistently with their climate policy on a company that had backtracked on climate goals. But actually, when you, when you ask questions and you dig into that, there's some very good reasons why they're voting in the way they are. And those, you know, that new ones can be really hard to challenge as a Trustee. I think even even when you do sort of dig into it. And then the, the last one was sort of differences in approach and ambition. And you, you've got managers out there that have very big teams that are dedicated to these things or very small teams, but they're what they're doing is quite impactful. You have managers which just focus on disclosure or you have managers that are much more ambitious in the kind of extent of real world change that they're asking for. And there doesn't seem to be anybody that can tell me which one of those is right, or being able to even. Kind of rank them. Thanks. So, Drew, what? What can? Clients do if a manager. Stewardship approach is poor or. Just misaligned with a client's view. Yeah, I guess what we want to see is that that all managers are improving. So I mean, in in the first instance, the way that we're coming about this is to do really, really detailed research on the the most important managers for our clients. Really try and get that understanding that the text is talking about needing as a Trustee in order to make a decision, you know, be able to rank them and, and ultimately to be able to say this is where the the the top end is and and this is the bottom end. And, and, you know, at some point you might consider moving away. But really we want to go out, engage with managers, help our clients to engage with managers. And that means understanding that they're in in enough detail to come up with sort of detailed asks to get them to move. If they're unresponsive to that, you've got a, you've got a few different options. So you can put in voting choice if you're just not happy with their voting behavior. Obviously that manager has still got their engagement team hopefully going into the company and and sort of driving the behaviors that they want to drive if they are doing that. And so that might be misaligned with your voting. So that's, that's not always optimal. You could get it get in an overlay service provider, someone like EOS or Rubiko and to do some voting and engagement as well. And that means the voting engagements joined up, but you're still paying an asset manager to run those assets. You're still sort of financing their engagement activity that you've sort of acknowledged isn't good enough. And then you your sort of last resort, which often we find that clients don't feel or haven't so far felt empowered to make is, is to move away, to move to a best, best in class manager that's, that's fully aligned with your values. That is pushing for the kind of change that you would like to see. But obviously in the first instance should be engaging with the managers trying to get them to change because that that means that you've got change across the board and not not just the best in class managers. Thanks, Drew. Tex, I wonder what's your view on these approaches? I'm I'm thinking in particular voting choice, which has a bit of a split opinion in the market. Is that something you've used for your clients? Yeah, I have used it in certain circumstances where I haven't been happy with how the manager was voting, you know, against their own policy and that wasn't consistent with the objectives that I had on that particular scheme. I don't think it's an ideal because we what we really want is the managers are going to be the ones that have the most influence with companies. So we want them to be, you know, speaking with one voice asking for the same things consistently. And obviously that's not going to be the case if you have you know your your vote is different from the managers standard approach, but it might be that the least bad thing that you can do in this in certain circumstances. Thank you. Moving away from manager specific stuff do you think? Policy advocacy helps to solve any of the challenges that you identified. Yeah, I, I absolutely think it it does. And it's, it probably goes to addressing the the last one so that that that differences in, in ambition, where managers do push back against that sort of feeling of being asked to be world police. It is typically because they don't feel that they should be doing the job of, of governments. And that there's only so much that, you know, asking nicely can achieve in a world where the regulations simply don't have that same level of ambition. So I do think there is a space for policy advocacy on, on those big systemic risks. Absolutely. Drew, would you like to add any comments on that? Yeah. I mean, we obviously recognize that it's it's central to addressing huge issues like climate change sales. CPS come out with five policy asks and we've asked clients to support us with that and have over £188 billion in client assets supporting that. That feeds into our conversations with policymakers and gives us clear structure to those conversations, shows the emphasis of investors in support of addressing things like climate change. As Teg said, managers can only go so far. To an extent, you know, the companies are playing to the rules of the game to a degree, and so we need to change those rules and raise the bar for everyone. Thanks, Drew. So moving on, Teg. What would you like your consultants to do to help you drive better stewardship? I think the main thing is just help to identify what good looks like, you know, answer some of those questions like what's the, what's the best approach? What level of ambition is OK? I think sort of lending weights in terms of the, the influence as well. So trustees asking for these things is, is one thing, but we know asset managers are very sensitive to the ratings that consultants give them. So I think that's a big, powerful tool for change, but it's really that skill gap and that focus on getting under the bonnet enough to understand what the manager's doing and whether it's going to be effective. Thanks, Drew. How does that fit in with the work that we're doing for clients? Yeah. So we we're recognizing that and we are undertaking some really detailed research. We know it's a really complex area sort of every topic, whether it's climate change, whether it's diversity, equity, inclusion, nature loss, each of them is really complicated in itself. And the levers that you might want to pull as a manager already varied. There are different frameworks to support that. But in our view, no one has so far been doing the kind of work that you need to do to really get under the bonnet to help drive those decisions. But doing really detailed research isn't, isn't enough. So you have to come out and come away with with some insight and feel like if you're empowered to make a change. And so to do that, we're not just sort of looking across the board, we're deliberately seeking out best practice, who is, who is the best in each of the different categories that we look at. And that means that clients are able to understand what they can get by moving to the to the best practice manager or what they would get if their manager adopted that best practice. And actually as LCB, working in collaboration with managers, sort of feeding back from the detailed research that we're doing, we see ourselves as raising the bar there and helping our clients by driving those improvements. Thanks Drew. So I mean as. You say sort of. Research really has a. Important role to help trustees understand their managers stewardship. Approach. So I'd like to talk about that a bit. More starting with some of the findings from our 7th. RI survey of investment managers for those of you who are not familiar with our survey. We analyzed the responses to our questionnaires from 119 managers. And produce reports with our key. Findings in four areas, one of which is stewardship. You can find the link to the reports in the Resources page. The report gives an. Overview of how managers are revolving their stewardship approach. In aggregate. However, there is a spectrum of. Approaches that managers take as shown on this slide on the Y axis. We have a. Spectrum of objectives from those seeking real world change at. The top to those focused on disclosure at the bottom. And on the X axis. We have a range of approaches which. Vary from being generally supportive of management on the left hand side to the managers that are prepared to challenge company management more on the right hand. Side of the survey highlighted that. Most managers think of themselves as being somewhere in the middle of it. In practice, there is a wide range. With the least. Impactful managers in the bottom left and the more impactful managers somewhere towards the. Top right hand side. However, it's not just what they're trying to do, but. Also how they go about. Doing it and we see the best in class stewardship for managers that are able to maintain strong relationships with company management while pushing for real world changes. Aside from the ROI survey. We've been conducting some deeper. Dive Stewardship. Research meetings looking at the. Broad categories you can. See on your screen. And I wonder, Drew, would you be able to highlight some of the? Best and worst examples. Of stewardship that we've. Seen in some of these. Areas, yeah, absolutely. And so there is 6 areas of focus for us. And there's a huge amount of detail underpinning each of these separate areas. Each one of them could be its own webinar quite easily. And so I'll just pick out two that that really stand out that are maybe more easy to understand, more tangible. So on on engagement, it's been mentioned a few times, there's a huge spectrum of what's counted as engagement activity. And that that could be from sort of mass letter writing to some really detailed structured conversations over a period of time with issuers. But what we find really interesting is, is actually going beyond that, not just investing, it's not just engaging with issuers sort of as issuers, but sort of understanding the the role that they play more broadly in the investment ecosystem. So an example of that is banks who play a really important role as as financiers in the fossil financing new fossil fuel activity. They're also very substantial counterparties to things like their involvement in in LDI and and through FX transactions. And so we like managers who set a criteria for identifying counterparties, sort of their selection criteria for those to incorporate that bank's financing business. So the stringency of their fossil fuel financing requirements, because they're, they're sort of recognizing their role as a, as a customer and not just an investor in that business. And, and banks are potentially more sensitive to the fee income they get than the potential impact on on cost of capital. And then on voting, often the focus is on shareholder resolutions, but, but actually a really small fraction of companies have the these in anyone year. And often managers will tell you that charter resolutions are really prescriptive and often they're right about that. But every meeting there are other proposals. So voting it votes on directors for example, but also on the accounts and the auditors and all of those can be used to have a say. So what we've built some technology that allows us to understand how managers compare in using those levers. So voting at directors, accounts and auditors to drive the change that they want to see at the company. And that really marks out the sort of the best and the worst managers. Because quite often the same managers that will tell you shareholder resolution to prescriptive and the important thing to have is, is the board in place aren't necessarily then willing to exercise their right on their vote on directors. So there's a clear differentiator there. Thanks. Oh, sorry. Carry on, please. I was, I was going to, I was going to wrap up, but. If there was anything more you wanted to add on the the the differentiators, we we definitely have time. Can I come in with a question, James? Course course you can. So my question for you, Drew, is what do you do in a situation where you can see the on paper the manager is doing all the right things? So they're really well resourced. They've got a very clear policy, you know, very clear escalation pathway. It all looks right, but they can't really demonstrate that they're having any, any real world impact. So what do you do about that? Yeah. I guess the question is whether it's a problem with their ability to measure their real world impact or whether it's not. It's just not that, it's just that they're not having a real world impact. And so like one of the things that we've been looking at, especially this year is trying to understand managers efforts to to gauge their own impact. And I would say the situation you've raised is kind of hypothetical because we're even some relatively small managers where their where their engagement is really well structured and they're able to sort of bring learnings from company to company. Actually, they are able to prove that they have an impact and say that there's often a false dichotomy where you say it's a small manager, they're doing everything right, but they're not going to be able to have impact because they don't have the size of assets. Actually, there are quite often are ways for those managers to have, have quite have at least some impact in changing the company behavior. And we've seen examples of that where the sort of company is fed back and said, your engagement on this has encouraged us to change this particular aspect of our of our strategy. I guess if we, if we found a manager that that was doing everything right, but for some reason wasn't having an impact, we'd sort of we try and help the clients to, to understand sort of side by side. Could they have more impact by investing with a a manager that that was was better set up or seem to be having more influence was able to communicate that that better? So we'll we'll come on to some more questions and answers. But just to summarize the key takeaways from today, stewardship. When done well. Is a powerful investor tool. And one of the most effective ways to mitigate systemic risks like climate change and benefit from the opportunities, for example, the transition to a lower carbon economy. Stewardship is challenging and time consuming. To do it well, making sure you understand what your managers are trying to achieve and their approach to making that happen is important to help identify and address any areas of weakness. And most importantly, there is lots. You can do as asset. Owners and that your consultants can help you with. We can all be bolder with our stewardship activities and be prepared to. Genuinely challenge managers and be prepared to move assets. Make sure your consultants are giving you the support you need. To use their insights and. Influence to drive better stewardship from your managers. So on to questions I can see. That we have a few. Questions come through. But please, please continue to. To send them in and we will get through as many as we can. So the the 1st. The question is, is quite topical, I think there's. There's a clear divide. Between US and European managers With political pressure on U.S. companies to disregard ESG likely to increase following Trump's RE election, should European investors really be engaging with US managers? Or should they be avoided? Entirely and I'll. Ask you both that, but perhaps I start with. Drew on this one. So I think the answer is yes, European investors should be engaging with, with US managers. It may, it may be that there comes a time where it looks like they they can't be convinced to change. But I think if you, if you look at the changes that, that some of the larger US managers have made in response to pressure from European investors to try and enhance the, the stewardship activities that they're undertaking for those investors and to to sort of differentiate their, their proposition. It does show that there is some responsiveness even if they are having to sort of navigate stronger political pressures in the other direction on the other side of the Atlantic. But at the end of the day, the US market as well is, is, is the biggest market that we invest in. And so and and US managers are well placed therefore to engage, so being a sort of taking the time to try and convince them that the European sort of perspective is more correct and bring them in that direction certainly at the moment makes sense. Thanks, Trey, what's, what's your view on, on that question? So I certainly agree with Drew in that we just can't just ignore the problem. So if you're invested in equity, that's sort of 70% the market. So we need to find a way to, you know, engage with them somehow. I do think though, we need to be realistic and asset managers need to be realistic when they're setting their engagement priorities and they're allocating resource to these things. There needs to be some prospect of those companies listening and being willing to engage. So there's definitely something around setting the right priorities and recognizing that things change and things change quite quickly. So just because you might not be able to make progress on on climate, for example, right now in a, in a market that's moving towards deregulation, what can you make progress in? And perhaps it's just really picking the right battles. Thanks Dick, Cheryl and another one that I think is. Probably more suited for you. How do you? Balance the need to engage on long term systemic risks like climate change. With the short term. Performance of your assets, I think particularly for DC schemes. Is that amazing? No, sorry. That was that was it was for tags as a as a Trustee. Yeah. How do you? How do you balance? So engagement isn't the same as asset allocation, right? And those are two tools that that we have. And it is in some ways easier to rely on the engagement lever to achieve your objectives than it is to, to, to use that asset allocation lever and disinvest from, from certain, you know, sectors. I think it's in some ways unhelpful. The value for money, certainly as it's written now, focuses on short term performance and is quite silent on the extent to which ESG needs to be incorporated into your strategy. Hopefully they'll be kind of listening to feedback on that and we'll get some sensible long term goals put in there because the you know, for long term investors these two things are absolutely consistent. It is only over very short periods of time where where you do get that tension arise. So hopefully that will be that will be changing. Thank you, Drew. I think I've got one for you here. What's LCP's? Experience of engaging LDI and credit managers on stewardship. Yes, the LDI in particular, I mean, I sort of raised this as one of the things that we were looking at the, the counterparty aspect, but we did a deep dive into LDI managers stewardship and how they're in get it, they're engaging with the UK government towards the end of last year. As part of that, we went out, spoke to those managers, sort of helped them to understand what we thought was best practice across the board and communicated gradings for those managers to to all of our clients. And we've also sort of enshrined a set of principles that we think those managers should meet. And my understanding is that a couple of managers have moved in that direction sort of in line with our principles as a result of that sort of collaborative feedback process. So I I would add to that though, it probably depends on what your expectations are. So I mean, if you take LDI managers with the influence they can have, it's really over banks. If your expectation as an investor is that banks shouldn't be financing new fossil fuel projects because it's not appropriate to to undertake projects today that bake in emissions for 30 years into the future, then you're going to be disappointed because I think there's all but one bank out there in the entire market kind of takes takes a stance and is, is still investing in those projects or financing those projects today. And so you're right that you can engage with those managers, but I think it's definitely one of those cases where you need to be a bit realistic about what it is that you're asking for. Yeah. I think just to come back on that. So I think you, you're absolutely right that there's a long way to go. And, and I think we see often see managers, if you ask them about sort of their criteria for selecting counterparties that it, it doesn't feature in there, the fossil fuel financing aspect. But banks are differentiated, differentiated in the way that they sort of undertake fossil fuel financing. And so getting getting the bar up to the point where it's included in the criteria that they use to select counterparties and then sort of to ratchet over time to reflect improved standards hopefully gets you there. But yeah, it isn't, it isn't a panacea. Another question for for Teg's, how much impact can individual trustees and schemes have on managers? And particularly, what's your experience with smaller schemes having an impact? So I do think managers are listening and you can see that by even how some of the US managers are responding to the asks that they're getting from their European clients, which are obviously differing from the asks they're getting from kind of more domestic investors. So they, they, I think they are trying to find a solution. So I think that's positive. What I don't think is very realistic is the idea that each individual board would set engagement priorities and then somehow those are adopted by managers, particularly of full pooled funds. One, they won't be the same and consistent, so they can't possibly do that for for all of their their clients. And two, those managers will have a house policy which is sets their priorities for for how they engage anyway. But I do think they influenced manager manager behavior in the round, if that makes sense. Yeah, that that makes sense. Question for both of you. How do you manage? Conflicts that may arise from. Stewardship. Drew, would you like to go first on that one? I mean it's one of those areas that that sort of rhythm with conflicts or potential conflicts. And I think as as a firm, we are incredibly careful about the way that we look at that. And, and you can see we report each year in our stewardship report how we have sort of identified and managed conflicts. And I think you see in some other reports it looks like they don't exist at all. I guess it depends on sort of the exact answer depends on the kind of conflicts that you're envisaging. I think we've discussed in the past the idea that someone might be employed by a company that's the subject of, of engagement efforts. So it's making sure that that people are aligned, that it's, that it's recognized, but sort of calling it out as a problem. I think sort of when we've discussed this, there isn't a clear solution to it. But it's the, the, the way you manage it is to document things carefully, understand how the how the conflicts might arise through each part of the process and, and being really clear what you've done to, to try and mitigate it case by case. And but yeah, it's a very difficult question. Yeah, I think it's just something that we don't, we, we just don't talk about it enough. And I think it's really simple kind of what you do about it. It's just whenever you're talking to, to somebody you're relying on to, to do a service for you, whether that's your asset manager or your consultant, you simply ask them what their conflicts are. And then you can kind of judge for yourself, as we do on a lot of other topics as trustees as to to whether that is a sufficiently managed conflict or not. Thanks. Another question here. The FRC is undertaking a major shake. Up of the UK Stewardship Code. What does that mean in terms of being able to oversee managers? I'm actually I'm happy to take this, Drew, unless you you want to. So yeah, there there is quite a major shake up. Going, I think. One of the the main. Changes is. To try and reduce the. The governance burden of producing the. Reports. I think the hope is that we'll actually. Potentially better be able to identify best in class managers, but it's it's. You know, it's very early. On see the consultation is is in, is in. Process, so we won't. Know exactly what the impact. Is but I I would say that the stewardship. Code reports themselves are just one of the inputs that that we most consultants look at, so we'll expect still be necessary to. Take time to carry out. Deeper research into stewardship practices. That drew highlighted earlier in order. To properly oversee managers. So have a look through. Drew, have you noticed? An increase in demand from US asset owners seeking European managers who are more aligned with stewardship and ESG practices. I would say that that isn't a trend that that we've noticed. I am cautious because I'm, I'm not sure what the the exposure we have to to USS asset owners more broadly is. But I think often they will play in their own market to a large degree. And I think we've kind of seen some of the opposite with with some European asset managers maybe maybe stepping back in the USA little bit. Have you seen any interesting trends with with your clients tags? I don't actually work with any US asset owners so I can't really really comment. Fair enough. I think, I think we've actually answered all the questions. So I I will wrap up. So we've now come to the end of the webinar. I really hope that you've enjoyed the session. Shortly after the webinar ends, the screen will prompt. You to complete a feedback survey. Please do complete this as your feedback helps. To inform. Our planning for future webinars. Have you found today's session interesting? You also may be interested in registering for an online roundtable event that we'll be chairing with Pensions for Purpose on the 5th of December. Ties to leveraging asset owner influence to address systemic risks. And please reach out to any of us if you have any questions. Or would like to understand more about our work and how we can help you with your stewardship. Needs and as a reminder, this stewardship has been recorded and is available on demand. To rewatch or share so if. You found it interesting or? Useful. Please do share it with your. Colleagues, finally. I'd just like to say. Really big thank you to Drew and Tegs and to all of you that have joined us today. Thank you and goodbye. _1733374946448