Megan Day (2:55)

Think he definitely gets an A. And I feel like that might be a segue to mine, which was specifically I believe around DE and I and the collapse or we were starting to see inklings of a collapse. Is that correct?

Dottie Schindlinger (3:10)

Well, you were, you were also predicting that we were going to see more state level regulation because we weren't going to get regulation at the federal level. So you were predicting that if we weren't going to get federal regulation on things like climate and dei that we'd start to see more stuff happening at the state level like we saw in California. Oh boy. Megan, I think there's been too many.

Megan Day (3:29)

Other things for organizations and for governments to worry about that level of regulation.

Dottie Schindlinger (3:36)

Yeah, I think they were just trying to keep up with the executive orders, basically. I just, I'm not sure that that one really gets a good grade. I don't know. Megan, what grade would you give yourself this year?

Megan Day (3:47)

I mean, hey, look, California is still trying to be California. You could say the same about New York in some respects.

Dottie Schindlinger (3:52)

And Texas Y. Yeah, exactly.

Megan Day (3:55)

So yes and no. So I don't know, a D maybe. Cd It'll be interesting to see.

Dottie Schindlinger (4:04)

I'm.

T.K. Kerstetter (4:04)

I'm giving you a B minus because of the DEI and you know, stuff and whatever, if that's what you predicted, because that certainly has big.

Dottie Schindlinger (4:16)

It has been a big change for sure. All right, so I'm not sure what to give myself a grade. I predicted that 2025 year was going to finally be the year that we would see things evolving in the boardroom fueled by AI. I'm not sure I get an A on this. I mean, it definitely was a huge topic of conversation in boardrooms, but I don't think we've yet seen the work of the board completely be transformed by AI. I think we've seen a lot more efficiency gains. I think we've seen some productivity gains because you've got, you know, some AI summarization of board materials. You've got AI helping with things like board minutes and maybe surfacing some good discussion questions for boards. But we don't yet have a majority of boardrooms, for example, appointing an AI advisor or using AI fueled scenario planning or things like that. I think we're going to see a lot more of that in the coming year than we saw this year. I think this year was really just getting started. So I don't know, I'd probably give myself a C plus. What do you think?

T.K. Kerstetter (5:16)

Well, it all depends what. I mean, if you were talking specifically about the incorporating EI into the boardroom, then yeah, I would wholeheartedly agree with what your analysis was of that. But as far as AI getting into the boardroom because of what their business was doing, that took great strides. Okay. Um, so you'll have to. You'll have to determine which of those you were specifically pointing to. But I would say there's different grades for each of those.

Dottie Schindlinger (5:54)

That's. That's true. I. I think, unfortunately, I was really predicting that it was going to change what board work looked like. I think that's just wishful thinking on my part because I want board work to be so much better than it is.

Megan Day (6:04)

Well, I think it is getting better, Dottie. You know, I think we have heard plenty of examples of organizations who are seeing this take shape in a meaningful way and have it impact how they prepare and review materials. And I think over time and over time, I think being 2026, I think it's going to look a lot different. So not all failing marks here?

Dottie Schindlinger (6:32)

No. Okay.

Megan Day (6:33)

By the way, a C is still.

Dottie Schindlinger (6:34)

A passing grade, so. All right, Megan, I'm going to put you up first on this one. What was your top Ripped from the headline governance story of 2025.

Megan Day (6:44)

Yeah, so I feel like my pick is something that's flown a little bit under the radar, but it's something that I haven't been able to stop thinking about since I first heard the news a couple of weeks ago, and that is OpenAI's move to convert from a nonprofit to a for profit model and likely paving the way for an ipo. So why does this matter? I mean, first, it's rare to see a nonprofit transition to a for profit model. I. I can't think of any past examples. I feel like if anybody can think of1, it's TK so think about that. TK but even so, it's a big move for an organization that started with a mission, a big mission to ensure that AI benefits humanity. And, you know, should they become a public company, that accountability sort of shifts in ways that might raise some tough questions. You know, how do you balance innovation and ethics when quarterly earnings are front and center? Although if the president has its way, it'll be, what was it? Once a year earnings, half a year earnings. We'll see if that happens. That might be a pick for 2026, but, you know, are we going to start to see, and maybe this is wishful thinking, more conversations about the tension between purpose and profit at organizations like OpenAI.

Dottie Schindlinger (8:10)

It's a good question, Megan, but honestly, I kind of feel like the writing was on the wall there. I mean, you don't have Nvidia hitting a $5 trillion market cap and not go, maybe we shouldn't be a nonprofit. I mean, also, calling OpenAI a nonprofit was always a little spurious. Yeah, exactly, because they were making plenty of money. And I think they might have been hard pressed to funnel all of that income back into public facing. Good. You know, so that may have been one of the main impetuses for them to change their business models. They might not have had a choice. I mean, you know, that is. That is something that I've seen happen to other nonprofit organizations over time, where they have a model that suddenly becomes wildly successful, and they're literally not capable of funneling all of that quote, unquote profit back into a charitable mission. And so they kind of lose their status. But it's not usually a strategy. It's usually something that kind of happens to them. And so in this case, you know, having it be a proactive strategy is novel. I don't. I don't remember another example of that. It is kind of interesting. TK what's your take on this?

T.K. Kerstetter (9:15)

Well, I can't say that I'm particularly surprised by the path of OpenAI, but my real concern is the gap that exists today between, you know, the what's going on and the. The Congress and regulators and particularly the Delaware courts. None are really addressing and attempting to close that act. And I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself because I think that that's going to be a very big issue in 2026. But the issue of how to close that gap and what to do is something that somebody's got to get on top of, because if not, that creates the, what I call the wild, wild west. And then that opens the door for the bad actors to sort of take the lead. And that obviously is never good. So, you know, not surprised. But really, the shot across the bow is. Should have been seen or heard. And we need to get on top of this issue much more than we are currently.

Dottie Schindlinger (10:28)

So, TK what was your top governance headline of 2025?

T.K. Kerstetter (10:33)

Well, interesting. This was an actual headline that it said, AI Board oversight is moving from nice to have to a board priority. And I wholeheartedly agree that this is the kind of thing where you directors can't just know a little bit about it. Okay. They either are going to have to do their homework or we start to get into one of our mutual favorite topics, which is board evaluations and leadership starts to have. Has to evaluate if the right people are in the room. You cannot just sort of sit by and say, well, this isn't really going to impact the business or business as a whole. And this nice to have to board priority has happened a couple times, and we sort of solved it sometimes by having a couple people in the room who were good at finance or good at, you know, certain topics. But I just think that this is going to make it more obvious that you're going to have to do an evaluation of what skill sets are in the boardroom. And do we have this particular one covered?

Dottie Schindlinger (12:02)

Well, that's. I mean, T.K. i can't disagree with you. I mean, I think you're absolutely right. It is by far the biggest rip from the headlines story in governance this year.

Megan Day (12:11)

But.

Dottie Schindlinger (12:11)

But I had a different pick because I feel like I talk about AI all the time. And so I wanted to shift gears a little bit. And my top rip from the headlines story of 2025 was a series of headlines, all of which had the word Elon Musk in them. Because I'm really hard pressed to think about another figure who has pushed conversations around corporate governance more in a single year than Elon Musk. I mean, let's just start with going back earlier in the year, right?

Megan Day (12:41)

Oh, you're not going to start with the trillion dollars. I thought that that was high on my list, Johnny.

Dottie Schindlinger (12:46)

Yeah, well, so. So I was going to start earlier in the year when his original compensation package was thrown out by the Delaware court, that then, that might even been late last year. And then that prompted his move, you know, of the headquarters to Texas. Now he's got the approval of the $1 trillion pay package, which has, you know, aggressive targets tied to it. But still it passed shareholder scrutiny, which is like really just jaw dropping. And then, you know, you have the issue of he's a CEO for two major companies and then takes a job as a federal government employee and his company stock starts to tank and the shareholders demand that the board force him back to his job. I mean, honestly, like, there's so much corporate governance stuff all happening around this guy. I had. I had a hard time thinking of any other set of stories that had that much ins and outs of corporate governance tied to it. And, you know, if I was to try to compare him to another historical figure, like the one that I keep coming up with is Henry viii. You know, Henry VIII kind of upended the politics of England and forever severed England's ties to the Roman Catholic Church. You know, it's kind of on that same scale. It's sort of Shakespearean in its pathos. What this guy is doing as it relates to corporate governance. I don't know where we're going to land, but it's fascinating to watch it unfold. And there's so much going on there. Lots of things that we thought were norms aren't normal anymore. It's really, really fascinating to me. I'd love either of your take on this story.

Megan Day (14:21)

I just still can't get over as you were talking through all of that. That all happened just in this year.

Dottie Schindlinger (14:26)

I know, I know. This is what I'm saying. I had a hard time coming up with anything else. I mean, it was just. I thought for sure you'd both pick it because it's been such an ongoing saga. And all I will say is how glad are the three of us that none of us are on the board of Tesla? I mean, that's got to be one of the roughest gigs out there right now in corporate governance to be on the board of Tesla and to try to figure out what to do with a rogue CEO who has lots of opinions very publicly and does lots of things that may not be good for the bottom line. It's fascinating to me.

Megan Day (15:00)

Yeah, you didn't mention either. The. The tunnel company is in hot water, too, in Nevada.

Dottie Schindlinger (15:06)

Right.

Megan Day (15:06)

There are some.

Dottie Schindlinger (15:08)

And let's not forget bribery.

Megan Day (15:09)

Alleged bribery, totally.

Dottie Schindlinger (15:11)

And this was also the year that the Tesla 3 couldn't get off the production line. I mean, there's so much that has happened in just 12 months with the set of companies that are all run by Elon Musk. All right, T.K. you're awfully quiet. I want to know what you're thinking about all this.

T.K. Kerstetter (15:25)

Well, I'm constantly amazed at his and his company's ability to be involved in this multitude of, you know, unbelievable major tasks. You know, whether it's, you know, going to the moon or talk in Nashville about him, you know, building a express tunnel system there to get from the airport to downtown. Some of my admiration was taken away, to be quite frank, when he stood in front of whatever audience it was with the chainsaw. And I thought that was a very demeaning gesture to people that were maybe rightfully or wrongfully losing their jobs and, you know, were having their lives impacted. And again, I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been let go, but to amplify that by standing in front of a crowd with a chainsaw, I don't think is how. Whether corporately or nationally is the way that we should be symbolized. So I would never put him in the sense of putting him too high on the spectrum. But I am fascinated by all that's going on and I just can't imagine how one can keep their focus moving from project to project. I'm sure it's possible. I've seen other great business people do it, but it just baffles me on how he can do it. And most of them, I mean, most of them, no matter what you say about Tesla, these are very successful ventures and that part of it's very impressive. But don't ask me to put them on too high a pedestal.

Dottie Schindlinger (17:26)

No, not, not a high pedestal. Just more of like a fascinating set of stories that I feel like we'll be writing about these for generations to come. They have a lot of. There's a lot packed in, let's put it that way.

Megan Day (17:39)

Well, that's a good segue, Dottie. To my top governance read, I picked a book versus some other mediums this year. And speaking about putting people on a pedestal, putting companies on a pedestal, my top pick this governance read was Careless People, the book by Sarah Wynn Williams. It is a very fascinating memoir about her time at Facebook where she was a very senior and long tenured member of their policy team. She joined the company deeply inspired by its mission to connect the world and really genuinely believe Facebook could make the world a better place. In particular, her background is in politics. She worked at the UN for a long time. She viewed Facebook as a huge driver in creating meaningful political engagement. But as the story unfolds, and as we all know about sort of the years of Facebook over the last five or so, there's a lot of tension between idealism and the realities of scale and profit and influence and putting people in companies on pedestals.

Dottie Schindlinger (18:58)

Well, Megan, I'm glad to hear you give that book a recommendation. I haven't read it yet, but it is on my shelf. It is waiting for the Christmas holidays along with Apple in China. Those are the two reads that I hope to plan to get through this holiday season. All right, I'm gonna give you my pick and then tk I want you to take us home on this one. I went with a podcast this year. I think I'm very late to this party, but this year I learned about the Rest is History podcast. I don't know if either of you listen to the rest is history.

Megan Day (19:27)

No.

Dottie Schindlinger (19:27)

2 historians, authors and historians, Dominic Sandbrook and Tom Holland. They're from Oxford and they basically go through major moments in history, global history. So it's US History, it's European history, it's Asian history, and they're incredible storytellers, but they gravitate to stories of leadership and governance writ large. Not necessarily corporate governance, but, you know, the governance of nations or of, of, you know, systems or of campaigns. And I have just learned so much from this podcast. They did an incredible series on the Tudors, which is really fascinating. They've done series on like, they have an eight part series on Custer's Last Stand. They go deep on a lot of topics. But I will tell you, you learn a lot about how decisions are made and when a decision is good or bad, what the repercussions are. And I think there's just a lot of things you can extrapolate from history in corporate boardroom settings. And so I'm finding it not only super entertaining, but really interesting and really instructive. And it's something I've recommended now to a few different directors who are now all hooked. So it's a great listen. The rest is history. If you ever get a chance, give it a listen. I promise it will not disappoint. All right, TK, what's your read? Watch or listen to moment of 2025.

T.K. Kerstetter (20:47)

Well, both you guys are going to be familiar with this year after year. And that was the. This was both a read and a show and a podcast episode, and that was PwC's annual corporate director survey. And I am just stunned. Well, first of all, I need to tell you why this surfaces for me. I was involved in the generation of questions for this survey over 20 years ago, okay? So I have tremendous amount of history with the PwC study and where it originated and how it was done and the whole nine yards of making sure that they got directors to respond and whatever. So I'm closely tied in the past to this. But that only makes me more equally amazed that when asked the question this year of whether the directors that should be replaced that that number continues to grow, okay? This year, I believe it was 55% of the directors said that there was a director that should be replaced. Now, I can remember going back a very, very long time ago, can remember when that number was in the 20s, okay? And I would predict that if I went back each year that it was grown. Now, logic would say at some point in time that number should level off or decrease, okay? Because people are becoming aware, they're becoming better with board evaluations. They're, you know, improving. They should be improving the caliber of directors that are on the board. But the number continues to increase, which sends a very poor message to me, to the shareholder and investment world. That somebody is not making the hard decisions of making sure that the right people are in the room. And it's funny how in a lot of our discussions, every year when we do this, and even in this year, things sort of seem to get back to board leadership and board evaluations and making sure the right people are in the room. It seems that there is a pretty good correlation between that and some negative things that occasionally crop up. But that read, for me was just eye opening that that number continues to grow. And the reasons are predictable. You know, not contributing, I think was the largest one, and not being prepared. And, you know, we still have the age limit rising, which, the older I get, the more I agree with. But fact of the matter is there, there is a number that's probably correct to refresh the board. And so anyway, that would be mine. I think it's fascinating and again, that we should have a predictor of when will that number turn?

Dottie Schindlinger (23:50)

It is really interesting, T.K. i mean, we definitely did a podcast episode with the authors of the report this year and talked about this very number at length. And I'm curious to ask your opinion. I mean, they had a certain take on it, which was evaluation practices leave something to be desired, and so they're not doing what they need to do to really uncover the issues and then take action on them. But I also wonder, you've got this history of watching corporate governance change over the last 20 years. Is it also just that the expectation of directors has risen? Is it partly that directors expect more from their colleagues than they used to?

T.K. Kerstetter (24:28)

You know, that's a great point, and I would guess that the answer to that is yes, that that does play a role in this, because all of us, as board members are reminded year after year of the importance of having the right people in the room. So I would say that that could be a factor as well. But again, doing this for as long as we have and educating directors for as long as we have, you'd still think that number would sort of. Sort of plateau off and. And gradually, gradually start to decline, but nope, that's not what's happening.

Dottie Schindlinger (25:11)

Yeah, no, it is really, really surprising.

Megan Day (25:14)

Although I did just have a thought, and we can edit this out. That, like, they're just going back to the same pool of people and they're still pissed off about the. That one person that's hanging out on their board.

Dottie Schindlinger (25:25)

That could very well be Megan. I mean, I know we saw some other data that boards are becoming less diverse. So there's definitely some data to back up they are going back to the same pool of people over and over again, and those people haven't gotten any better.

Megan Day (25:37)

So there's a possibility there.

T.K. Kerstetter (25:39)

The one nice thing about this study is they do have a large number of directors, more than I think, in most studies that I'm familiar with. So they've always done a good job, you know, on getting responses back, but could be the same people, I guess.

Dottie Schindlinger (25:56)

No, it is. It is really true. All right, so let's talk about the hottest governance trend for 2026. So, TK I'm going to give you the floor first. What do you think is going to be the big story to watch in 2026?

T.K. Kerstetter (26:08)

Well, I'm not sure how. How much this is going to be to be trackable. Okay. But in. In 2026, my story or trend or whatever is going to be the complexity of the corporate director's job description, because now we're going to be adding AI on top of cyber, on top of an administration, which I think still is going to be executing some decisions that affect businesses. And the complexity of not knowing, trying to get your arms around cyber and trying now to get your arms around AI. And we've got issues with tariffs and supply chains and whatever. We've got people trying to predict what's going to happen when, you know, with the economy and stuff. I just think that the complexity of the job is getting way, way complex. Okay. And, you know, just what I said about AI, I'm not putting the, you know, sort of the guide rails on AI. It just adds to the, you know, to the complexity of sitting there trying to develop a risk plan for your organization when there's so many unknowns and challenges. I just think it takes real good leadership and thought. And even then, I think you better be able to adapt because you're not going to think of everything. So that's sort of my. That's what I'm going to be very curious about for 2026, is how are boards handling all the complexity, all the risk analysis, and all the strategy that's necessary to keep the company moving forward?

Dottie Schindlinger (28:24)

Well, T.K. i think you're right in that that one might be a little bit hard to measure, but I bet we'll get a sense because we'll see some stories of where they got it right or wrong, and then we can discuss next year how we think you did. That's a good one. Megan, what's on your list for the governance story to watch for next year?

Megan Day (28:40)

Yeah, I mean, it's. It's an extension of what TK just talked about and what we've really talked about this entire episode, which is of course around AI. Come on, how many times can we say it in one episode? But how boards are really going to have to become stewards of algorithmic accountability. You know, people are going to, whether it's regulators, investors, stakeholders and shareholders want to know how decisions are being made, how data is being used, whether the algorithms can be trusted. And so the tone shifts from, you know, what we're seeing right now is are we using AI? Are we using AI like panic around that to, well, can we explain it? Can we audit it? Can we, you know, for the good companies, can we prove it's ethical? And I think we're going to start to see, or maybe this is just the optimist in me. Hopefully we'll start to see some governance frameworks emerge that maybe even treat algorithms. You know, the way we think about financial statements, that there'll be oversight, there'll be compliance and risk management. And that again, is another layer of governance that boards are going to have to think about that is entirely new.

Dottie Schindlinger (29:49)

Well, I'm going to pile on because my prediction for 2026 is very much in keeping with the two of you, but maybe with a slight nuance. I too really can't think of anything more seismic than AI as a trend in governance in 2026. That said, very specifically, I'm going to predict that 2026 will be the first year that we will see some test cases in the courts where shareholders are suing boards for AI related decision making. Here's what, here's why I'm saying that I think we're going to start to see shareholders looking at boards and saying any of the following things. This board isn't paying enough attention to AI and they're not using AI capabilities to make better decisions. And therefore we could have done better. Lawsuit or this board is using AI and they didn't take the AI recommendation, which was better than the decision they made. Lawsuit or this board used AI, followed its recommendations and shouldn't have. It was a terrible decision. I'm going to sue. So I feel like 2026 is going to be the first, I think the first year where we're going to see some AI related shareholder action against boards. I think a lot of shareholders are really kind of keeping a close eye on how boards and leaders are integrating AI into what they are doing. I think they're also really concerned about what's happening more generally with AI deployment across companies. But I think specifically we might see some actions related to AI in the bucket of what I'm going to call duty of care. What do you think? Am I out to lunch, T.K.

T.K. Kerstetter (31:25)

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody has a lawsuit, but I would tell you right now that the bar is going to be very high for a director to be found liable in those situations. You can make mistakes as a board, but as long as you do your homework or you have used and document logical thinking, somebody's not going to be a Monday morning quarterback and say, you know, that was a bad decision. Now, if you don't do any sort of research or analysis on making a decision, then I think you have the ability to be held liable. But I think a lot of these. I think there will be suits, but I don't think these suits are going to go anywhere, particularly if there's not sort of a more meaningful guide Rails or something that somebody can go across. Now, one of the things that may happen is there could be a sort of a red letter suit that's going to set up those guidelines, because at some point the court is going to have to make a decision what's good and what's not good. So I think we could see that this year. But I don't think you're going to see a lot of disruptive cases, meaning where the attention is taken away from the board's duties of a particular company because they're involved in that. I think a lot of these are going to be maybe to help define the guidelines, but I don't think it's going to be disruptive.

Megan Day (33:05)

Hey, it's a bold pick, Dottie, and we support your boldness.

Dottie Schindlinger (33:11)

Well, you'll notice I said there would be lawsuits. I didn't say they'd be successful.

T.K. Kerstetter (33:17)

I just wanted to clarify that.

Megan Day (33:18)

That's it. Yeah.

Dottie Schindlinger (33:19)

No, but, T.K. i think that's right. You know, I don't disagree with you. I don't necessarily believe that the lawsuits are ultimately going to be hugely disruptive or successful. I just think we're going to see some. But I do think it would be very interesting if they do have a successful suit, and it does lead to better guidance coming from the Delaware court on boards about what they should and should not be doing. I mean, again, you know, it reminds me very much of how governance looked different pre and post Internet. Do you know what I mean? Like. Like, it definitely is very different now than it was before there was an Internet. Internet, right. You didn't have directors feeling this responsibility to go do their own research before the Internet was a thing. And I just think it's going to be an extension of that, where you have new tools at your disposal. You're expected to use them. You're expected to use those tools to help you do your job better. And I think people are going to notice if you either don't use them at all or use them irresponsibly. I think those things are going to get noticed anyway. We'll see.

T.K. Kerstetter (34:23)

We've seen those watershed sort of suits that have hit the Delaware courts. When cyber first came, I think it was Target that had one of the early right ones where somebody came through an air conditioning vendor and got into data with credit cards and people's accounts and stuff. And the letter of the law there was, did the board take steps to prepare and make a best effort. And the end of that case was, yes, they did, even though people were harmed. And, you know, it did set some guidelines on what the expectations are. And now we see expectations where if there's a, you know, you have to notify customers within a period of time, if you're in this and whatever. And I think in the case of AI, as you say, some of those cases may be good for setting up some guardrails for this and maybe force Congress or, you know, regulators or, you know, usually starts in banking. So maybe, you know, that's where this will start as well. And. And maybe we'll have something a little more definitive by the end of 2026 that will help people sort of plan better.

Dottie Schindlinger (35:45)

Is that going to be an addition to your prediction?

T.K. Kerstetter (35:50)

Maybe. Well, if it happens. If it happens, yes.

Dottie Schindlinger (35:55)

Okay. Well, we'll talk about it next year. Megan. TK Any best and final for the audience before we wrap it up?

Megan Day (36:02)

No. Now I'm hesitant to make any type of prediction. I mean, just thinking about what TK said and the responsibilities on boards now and navigating that, look at 2025 as an example. The first six months were filled with plenty of things that none of us predicted or would ever predict, really. And so I think that is our future.

Dottie Schindlinger (36:26)

I know I kind of feel like if we had had a parlay going last year, I don't know that any of us would have done well. Would any of us have predicted a $1 trillion pay package? No. Well.

Megan Day (36:39)

It'S not even the predictions or identifying those things. It is picking things sort of out of thin air and saying, oh, yeah, that's going to happen. I mean, it's been a wild ride.

Dottie Schindlinger (36:51)

TK what's your final well, first of.

T.K. Kerstetter (36:53)

All, I want to thank both of you. I know you guys are keeping tabs, are keeping tabs on what's going on. And I think this communication, this education out to people is a positive thing. And I know we have fun with this. But hidden in the fun that we're having is is some messages that are thoughtful that hopefully will be helpful to our listeners out there and to board members. And I can only hope for the best. Obviously, we have a strong tie with corporate directors and corporate secretaries and general counsel. And I hope again we can continue to offer meaningful advice in 2026 and hopefully make their jobs a little easier.

Megan Day (37:51)

Love that.

Dottie Schindlinger (37:52)

I love that. Well, tk, thank you so much for joining us again on the show and helping us wrap up the year. It's always great to have you back on the show.

T.K. Kerstetter (37:59)

Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Dottie Schindlinger (38:01)

Well, that wraps up another episode and another year of the Corporate Director Podcast, the Voice of Modern Governance. I'd like to say a few special thank yous first and foremost to my two amazing co hosts today, Megan Day and TK Kerstetter, podcast producers Kira Cher Ciccarelli, Steve Clayton and Laura Klein, our sponsors for the show including PwC, KPMG, Wilson Sonsini and Meridian Compensation Partners. And most especially, thank you to Diligent for continuing to sponsor this show. If you like our show, please be sure to give us a rating on your podcast player of choice, five stars only, please. You can also listen to our episodes and see more from the Diligent Institute by going to diligent.com resources. Also, if you serve on a nonprofit or public sector board, then consider tuning into our sister Diligent Podcast, Leading with Purp for expert conversations on governance risk and compliance that makes an impact for mission driven organizations. Thank you so much for listening and have a great new year.

Podcast Host/Announcer (38:57)

You've been listening to the Corporate Director Podcast to ensure that you never miss an episode, subscribe to the show in your favorite podcast player. If you'd like to learn more about corporate governance and tools to help directors do their job better, visit www.w.digent.com. thank you so much for listening. Until next time.