 Thank you, Pat, and I also want to thank Code Pink for putting this event on. It's certainly timely, if not overdue, given the headlines today. Now, in the time allotted to me, I wanted to cover four points. First, we'll get my little stopwatch going, because people that know me know that I need a stopwatch. So, all right. The four points I want to cover. First, I want to explain from the advisor perspective why institutional investors and money managers, even progressive ones, frequently oppose divestment campaigns, whether it be South African apartheid or fossil fuels or private prisons or whatnot. Second point I want to make is I want to show why corporations are so fearful of divestment campaigns directed against them. Third, by examining those two areas, I hope to show how powerful grassroots divestment campaigns really can be. And then finally, I'll cover some steps on what we can do, all of us, can do to support a divestment campaign, and specifically this one, on divesting from the war machine. Now, that's a lot of ground to cover, so I may have to talk a little fast. Now, we have seen from past divestment movements that, and I believe it was mentioned in the last breakout, that many money managers, many people in Wall Street and their clients, institutional investors, even progressive ones, do oppose divestment. And here's the reason why conventional portfolio theories say that institutional investors, that is, investors with a boatload of money, have to, by definition, have to invest in everywhere, in every sector, to the point where they're called universal share owners. And a quote from one of the leaders of the socially responsible investing movement said in regards to the fossil fuel free campaign, that another point overlooked is the risk factors that face large institutional investors, universal investors exposed in every market and sector. Divestment on a global scale simply isn't an option. So, risk factors, what are they talking about? Well, money managers and fiduciaries are measured by their portfolio's performance versus benchmarks. Now, what does that mean? A benchmark is a stock index, like the S&P 500 or something like that. Now, that means that they divest from an industry because of their political views or non-financial decisions. And that industry does well in the market. Their portfolio grows less than, say, the S&P 500. Now, the thing is, fiduciaries, that is, those responsible for that performance can be held legally liable for that underperformance. Now, on the flip side, if the industry that's divested performs poorly, well, that section of the index performs poorly as well. And the portfolio performs right in line with the index. Nobody can be sued. So, see how that works? You can only be sued if you stick your neck out. And that's the backdrop that we have with institutional investors. Now, the quote that I just read was from the director of the Principles for Responsible Investment, the largest global trade organization favoring advocating socially responsible investing. And SRI investors take the argument against divestment one step further. They assert that they can assert more influence over the behavior of targeted corporations. If they remain shareholders, thereby giving them a quote seat at the table. Now, there's an ongoing debate within the SRI movement about this, of course. And in the context of the fossil fuel free campaign, Bill McKibben has challenged the SRI industry and argued that engagement doesn't work if the company's whole business model is what we're trying to change. That his share owners can't sit down in the Campbell soup board of directors and convince them to stop making soup. And of course, he's right. Here's a good time to point out Upton Sinclair's quote that it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. So we're met with professional resistance whenever we try to convince an institution, no matter what the issue is. And so that's what we're confronted with. And a little later in my remarks, I'll circle back to how best to respond to this. I want to turn to why public corporations, targeted corporations, are so fearful and so opposed divestment in their own stock. Because the argument is often made that buying and selling a stock doesn't affect the company. When I buy a stock, the company doesn't get the money out of my pocket. It goes to the seller of the stock on the open market. And so the argument is, it really doesn't matter whether you buy or sell a stock. It doesn't affect the company. Well, that's not quite accurate. And I found this out, I'm going to step back and tell a story. 18 years ago, a client of mine owned shares of a timber company. And this timber company had some issues that environmental activists were very upset with in the management of their timber lands. And so they staged a sit-in in the company's home office. Wanting a dialogue with the leaders of the company to address their concerns. Well, instead of having that dialogue, the company called the police and had the protesters hauled off and locked up. Now, my client was rather teed off at this and said, enough is enough. I'm selling this company. I don't want to have anything to do with them. So I did. I put in an order and it was sold. I went back a couple of days later and looked at the trade record, as I do, and saw that that particular trade that I put in dropped the price of the stock by one sixteenth of the point. I mean, back in the day, stocks traded in fractions. And now, one sixteenth of the point was the smallest move that a stock could make at that time. It doesn't sound like a big deal. But then I did a little bit of research, looked at their financial statements, looked at their executive compensation plans that are made public by the SEC. That one sixteenth of a point represented $1.2 million in net worth of the general partner just evaporated at that instant. The executive officers and the board of directors saw the value of their stock options drop about $156,000 in that instant. And the market capitalization of the stock of that company dropped over $4.3 million, just by that one sixteenth of a point, just by that one investor selling the stock. Now, fast forward to today, 18 years later, a couple of things have happened. Executive compensation is now more stock heavy than it's ever been before. And also financial math is more sophisticated. Today, any stock trader, any institutional stock trader with a Bloomberg terminal, has access to several what are called market impact models right on their screen that act to estimate the exact price effect of any trade that comes through to a company. And those formulas are so specific that they quantify an instantaneous effect of selling a stock, a temporary effect of selling a stock, and a permanent effect on stock price for selling that stock. Now, so what about military contractors? How does this affect them? Now, I'm a financial professional. I'm not allowed to mention the names of specific companies in a public setting like this because those comments can be construed as a recommendation that I can only make one-on-one with a client. That being said, one major unnamed defense contractor, a well-known company generally considered to be dynamic, would have this happen if a trade dropped their stock price. What? Would have this happen if a trade dropped their stock price by a penny? The CEO's net worth would go down by $17,000 in that minute. The value of the exact compensation plan for officers and directors of that company would drop in value by $200,000. The stock on hand that the company could use to buy up other companies or use as collateral or any number of other financial purposes would drop by $1.9 million, and the market cap of the stock trading in the open market would drop in value by $3 million. Now, that's one trade, one penny. Now remember, this power goes both ways. If you go to buy stock in this company, then the company and its execs are similarly enriched. This is why CEOs parade themselves to CNBC and other financial press to tout their companies. This is why companies pay huge sums for their corporate shareholder relations departments. And most importantly, this is why companies care when shareholder advocates file proxy resolutions challenging the company on social and environmental issues, even though those resolutions rarely achieve a majority vote. This is the unique power of small investors. Now, why do I say small investors? Because small orders are more often than not the orders that set the market price for a stock. You see, big, huge institutional investors try very hard to minimize their impact through off-the-floor negotiated trades, hidden trades in private exchanges or black pools, computerized models that break up their trades in small pieces. They try very hard not to affect the stock, but someone owning a couple hundred shares, just putting it in market order, will actually have dollar for dollar much greater impact on stock price than a big investor. So, given this backdrop, what's our best way forward? Number one, yes, pressure institutions to divest, make it public, make them uncomfortable, make them really see the issues of owning military contractors or fossil fuel companies or whatever issue that you're looking at. But I would urge you to sit back and declare victory if the compromise with that institution is that they will join the ranks of shareholder advocates. All the while, organize individuals to divest, make this a grassroots movement, and put the two pieces together, make sure that the shareholder advocates, the one with the proverbial seat at the table, are communicating to management what's happening out in the grassroots that stock is being divested because of their behavior. Now, if you as an individual own a stock portfolio, then you probably have military contractors within them, unless you've screened them out yourself. If you own mutual funds, standard mutual funds like Vanguard or Fidelity or whatever, you most likely own military contractors. So, an investment advisor that specializes in SRI, there's lots of them, not just me, can help you with that, can help identify those companies and help craft your portfolio in a way that it's favorable for you. Now, if you don't own a stock portfolio, you can still act as we heard in the previous session. Do you have a retirement plan at work? You can pressure your human resources department to divest out of mutual funds and options that invest in military contractors. Do you and your family have mutual funds? Do you have IRAs, etc.? Take a look at those funds. There are fossil fuel-free funds, there are funds that divest from military contractors. Now, you don't have any of those things, you can still act. Take a look at the bank you use, Capital One, for instance. See if it shows up on the excellent report that we're about to hear about with the next speaker. You can also use Green America's Breakup with Your Mega Bank campaign that can help identify responsible alternatives to those banks. Now, in conclusion, last year in the presidential campaign last year, one of the better things that Hillary Clinton did was the campaign against short-term thinking by corporations, and she called it quarterly capitalism. She cited a survey that asked top CEOs whether they would be willing to make an investment in a project. They knew would bring good profits five years down the road, but at the cost of one penny of their stock price. And the answer was unanimous. None of the CEOs would do it. Now, Hillary knows a lot of these CEOs, so she asked one of them. Why would you say that? It doesn't make any sense. And the answer was that he said he'd get killed by the market and by angry shareholders because of that one penny. So, the question that I would leave you with is when each of you consider divestment, ask yourselves this question. What might that CEO do if he was scared of the consequences of your penny? So, thank you very much.