Hi, I'm Justin Danhoff, the head of corporate governance here at Strife Asset Management. Today, I want to walk you through how Strife is voting on behalf of Mark Wyons at the annual meeting of Coca-Cola Shareholder. First, the basics. There are 13 board members of FUR-A-VOTE. There are three proposals that management has put on the ballot, and there were five proposals to be voted on that were submitted by shareholders. First, let's talk about a couple of director votes. Strife intends to vote against the CEO Coca-Cola James Quincy. Why is that? Well, first of all, in spring 2021, Coca-Cola was perhaps the leading company that came out against voter integrity reforms in Georgia. This is not a debate to be had by Coca-Cola CEOs, Home Depot, Delta. This is a debate amongst the citizenry that elect the government of Georgia that puts in laws. So that's why we're voting against James Quincy. At Strife, on behalf of our clients, we're also going to vote against Helene Gayle. Why are we doing that? She is the chair of the compensation committee at Coca-Cola, and the company ties the executive compensation of their named executive offers to things like sustainability and diversity, equity and inclusion. And when you're incentivizing managers at a company to hire people based on their skin color, on their sexual preference, and their gender, you're distracting them from hiring the best and brightest talent that can drive shareholders value. So Strife is voting against Helene Gayle because hiring a promotion should be based on merit full-stop. So now let's turn our attention to some of the more interesting shareholder proposals. The first proposal is essentially a request for a racial equity audit on steroids. They want to report on all company operations, all company business that affects, quote, non-white stakeholders. Again, this proposal is divisive, it's political, and it has nothing to do with driving shareholder value. So Strife is voting against this proposal, and we will vote against similar proposals when we find them on other ballots later this year. Next, I want to draw your attention to a shareholder proposal about having Coca-Cola align its political giving with its values. A congruency report is essentially what they're asking for. Strife is going to vote against this resolution because it is trying to dictate the corporate political giving of a company in a very politicized direction. Strife supports corporate lobbying and political engagement on issues that are germane to driving shareholder value. Their politicized giving we oppose and we oppose this resolution. The final proposal that I want to talk about, what have you believed that this resolution only seeks a report on how the company has responded to states that are enacting legislation in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in DOBS. However, the true aim of the proposal is to get Coca-Cola to get involved in the political debates over abortion. Once strife, we would not vote for a proposal from the political right trying to get a company on their side of the abortion debate or the political left. We are aggressively apolitical when it comes to our shareholder voting and we hold firm to that.