Transcript provided by Kensho.

Lindsey Hall: Hi. I'm Lindsey Hall, aHead of Thought Leadership at S&P Global Sustainable1.

Esther Whieldon: And I'm Esther Whieldon, a senior writer on the Sustainable1 thought leadership team.

Lindsey Hall: Welcome to ESG Insider, a podcast hosted by S&P Global where we explore environmental, social and governance issues that are shaping investor activity and company strategy.

Esther Whieldon: That was the buzz of the crowd at the S&P Global Sustainable1 summit in Paris on May 10, a sound a lot of participants at the conference hadn't heard for a while due to coronavirus restrictions that moved conferences and meetings online.

Lindsey Hall: That's right. Around 300 corporates, investors, analysts and academics gathered in Paris to discuss sustainability themes that ranged from net zero to biodiversity, to the energy transition and the ESG data challenge. And I was there on the ground along with my colleague Jennifer Laidlaw, who's a senior writer on the Sustainable1 thought leadership team and is based in Paris.

So Jen, what were your takeaways from the event?

Jennifer Laidlaw: One of the things that really stood out for me was that this was the first conference that many of the participants had been at for more than 2 years. People I spoke to said they really appreciate it being an in-person event and exchanging ideas.

Lindsey Hall: Yes, I definitely felt that same energy, but what struck me as well was the sense of urgency around the need for countries and corporations to achieve net zero. One person we heard from at the event was Jean Boissinot, Deputy Director of Financial Stability at France's central bank and Head of Secretariat at the Network for Greening the Financial System or NGFS. That's a network of central banks created to help financial institutions manage climate change risks. And Jean said that net zero was not an option.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes. And he also warned about the risks of delaying. Not doing anything in the next five years means that we won't get on that 1.5-degree Celsius pathway that's so crucial in fighting climate change. And as we've heard in this podcast, the International Panel on Climate Change said in a recent report that global emissions need to peak before 2025 to reach that goal.

Lindsey Hall: Another theme, Jen, that I heard from several panelists is this idea that net zero goals can't exist in a vacuum. Rather, we need to take a holistic approach that considers the E, the S and the G. So for example, you can't just focus on a net zero goal and ignore all the social implications of achieving that goal.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes. That's something I heard too. For example, Sagarika Chatterjee said that net zero is no silver bullet. Sagarika is a high-level champion for climate action in the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, often referred to as GFANZ, an alliance of 450 financial institutions. I had the chance to sit down with Sagarika at the conference to dig into some of the challenges of meeting net zero goals, and here are some of the highlights of our conversation.

Sagarika Chatterjee: That was fantastic, to be back at an in-person conference. So I think, in the last half hour, I've not just reconnected with people, old familiar friends, met new people but also exchanged on some quite difficult topics and found out what people really think about things, so it's brilliant.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Okay, great. And you were just on a session. You were talking about net zero and everything, which is the big challenge. And just before you were talking, we had somebody from the Bank of France from the Network for Greening the Financial System just saying we have 5 years basically to meet a 1.5-degree scenario, so what do we need to do to kind of like get things in place to ensure we can get on these pathways?

Sagarika Chatterjee: Yes. So no time to waste. So obviously the first thing that's really important is seeing the enhanced ambition from governments, and that's where I think finance actors have got a very influential voice with governments. Obviously, we also need to make sure we're curbing corporate lobbying against climate action, which can be a significant challenge for those that are more progressive in this industry.

And then I think the second thing we need to do is practical implementation, so we've got to work out how we're going to set the net zero targets, demonstrate that we are serious about them and have all of our  back-end ways to do that with the methodologies that are needed, making sure our clients are really behind them, ensuring that we understand the assumptions behind any scenarios that we're going to draw on. And then working with peers is going to be absolutely critical because, let's face it, we, A don't have time to mess around and to pilot too many new methodologies. That's very time consuming for us as well as not cost effective. And we can also learn so much as well as we try to break new ground. And when things don't work, we're going to have to pick up and find the right solution that does work.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Okay. And when you talk about solutions, I mean, what kind of things are you seeing? What kind of things really need to get and sort of concrete things that need to be put in place?

Sagarika Chatterjee: Yes. So I think the most important is going to be how we use the current energy security crisis to accelerate net zero transition and clean energy. And winning the narrative battle on that will be very important. And then next will be making sure that financial institutions' advocacy with governments really does highlights that all of this capital is available and is already funding many of the solutions and new technologies that are needed, including in emerging markets and developing countries, but for financial institutions to go further, we really need policymakers to act and to step up.

I mean I think the third area, just coming back to a lot of the commitments that have been made, is going to be around net zero target-setting methodologies and making sure that they are going to provide solutions that they're going to have an impact on the real world and the real emissions curve. And they're not just going to be proxy methodologies that kind of look nice that mean you achieve your target but don't actually change anything at all in terms of emissions.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Okay. It's interestingly you mentioned like private like finance basically and also like working with government. I mean that was one of the big things, I think, that came out of COP26 as well. How do we connect the dots between private financing and public financing? And GFANZ obviously is a big part of that. What are you doing in your position at GFANZ to kind of like ensure that these dots are connected, that there is this bridge between public and private financing?

Sagarika Chatterjee: Sure. So in my role at GFANZ, I'm there through the high-level champions, as this was a collaboration between champions Mark Carney and Mike Bloomberg and also now Mary Schapiro.

And so the key role that the champions play is being able to show parties to the Paris Agreement all of the action that is being taken by non-state actors, including not only finance but also business. And so one thing that the champions will be highlighting in their interventions back to parties to the Paris Agreement will be what are the enabling conditions, and so GFANZ published a call to action that highlights exactly what financial institutions need to see changing.

On a very practical level, of course, many of the members of GFANZ already have work underway. So the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, which is now I think over 70 asset owners -- and that was launched in 2019 with, I think, less than 10 asset owners at the time. So they have some very interesting work underway on blended finance, and they're working with Convergence. They've also published a call to action of asset managers asking asset managers to step forward with innovative financial solutions and vehicles that those asset owners can consider so that they can scale up their investments in solutions in emerging markets and developing countries.

So we'll be trying to highlight those kind of examples again back to parties to the Paris Agreement and encourage them to work with the private sector on de-risking and on some of the other measures that are needed so that investments really can flow.

Jennifer Laidlaw: During the conference, you mentioned credibility gaps in getting to net zero. How do we address that challenge of credibility gaps? Because obviously everybody is very interested in net zero. Everybody says, "We are net zero." Financial institutions maybe have net zero pathways. I mean, how do we actually ensure that they are following these pathways?

Sagarika Chatterjee: Yes. So first thing I think we need is a common reference point, and we do have that. So the UN Race to Zero campaign, which over 450 financial institutions that are in GFANZ have joined, provides that common framework. And it does that through the Race to Zero criteria and that covers 4 Ps: so pledge, plan, proceed, publish. The pledge part covers the time period. So it is 2050 at the latest and includes consistency with 1.5 and setting an interim target for 2030. Some financial institutions have gone earlier, and the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance has already set 2025 targets.

The plan component means demonstrating that you have a plan for the next 12 months. And this isn't just about waking up in 2049, but it's about immediate action. Proceed is obviously about taking the action for the net zero target. And then finally, publish is about annually publicly reporting on what you are doing.

Now beyond that, each particular finance actor type is part of a net zero alliance. So there's a Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a Net-Zero Insurance Alliance, a Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, a net zero asset manager alliance. And each of those alliances is typically coming up with its own more kind of "customized to the sector" guidelines for setting a target. And so those again provide a very important reference point for all of the actors in that particular part of the financial sector.

The other thing I think that's really important is the need for near-term credible targets. So this has to be about the next 5 years. It can't be about only the next 20 or the next 30. We need to bring all of these targets much further forwards. And then I think, in terms of coverage, they need to cover finance actors' actual role; and their core business; as well as, of course, covering a sufficiently large proportion of the assets under management. And then finally, a credible target is going to have to cover what is the approach towards coal phase-out, towards oil and gas, towards land use and deforestation. And we'll also need to cover the social implications, just transition as well as the financing opportunities in emerging markets and developing countries.

Jennifer Laidlaw: During the conference, you mentioned sectorial pathways. Do financial institutions -- I mean, how should they look at like different sectors?

Sagarika Chatterjee: Yes. So I think, if you have a net zero target, you are going to need all parts of the economy to change. And obviously you're going to look at the most carbon-intensive parts, but the feedback I've had from investors, particularly Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, is that it is very helpful to look across all of the sectors in a very deep way to understand against different probabilities for net zero and consistency with 1.5. What is the pathway that needs to be taken? So you have a bit of a top-down perspective.

Obviously the other part that is very important is the dialogue with the sectors themselves and the corporates in those sectors in terms of what they see and what their plans are and how that matches then against the analytics, which is more [indiscernible], so not totally theoretical, still useful analysis. And then what are the implications of all of that for the net zero target? And how exactly you'll be implementing it with all of the sectors and companies in your portfolio.

Lindsey Hall: That sector-based approach that Sagarika mentioned was another theme we heard at the conference, this idea that the energy transition needs to involve everyone and every sector. And we heard from some panelists at the event that, to achieve this "all-hands-on-deck" result, engagement is the preferred strategy rather than divestment.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Indeed. And Sagarika's comments on what steps financial institutions need to take to get to net zero led me to another conference participant, Magnus Billing, who is the CEO of Alecta, Sweden's largest pension fund. I spoke to him about the challenges of implementing a net zero strategy and how Alecta manages its ESG investment strategies. You'll hear us talking about Climate Action 100+, an investor group working on getting top emitters to act on reducing carbon emissions.

Thanks very much for joining us … Magnus. It's very kind of you to come along.

Magnus Billing: Thank you, Jennifer.

Jennifer Laidlaw: During the conference, you were talking about net zero, how to get to net zero. And how do you implement investment strategies to ensure that you can get, have a net zero portfolio?

Magnus Billing: Well, it's different angles to it. I think -- maybe if I start with we are a mutually owned company. And we heard a clear message from our customers saving for their pensions, whether they're corporates or employees, that they expect the money that we have the privilege to manage for them to be done in a responsible manner. So that's the starting point for us. And we have to then interpret that to commit to net zero by 2050 for our entire portfolio.

That goal is obviously far ahead in time, but it fits fairly well the commitments we have which are extremely long term, yes. We have commitments running out to 30, 40 years, so it's a natural way to think about it to align the portfolio with net zero and the commitments towards the customers that we have. And we try to do it in a different way, with the theme of integrating into the investment process.

So we have an investment model which is based on fundamental analysis. We want to do as much as possible in house both when it comes to execution and analysis. So today, of -- around 95% of the investment activity is done in house, and the remaining 5% is based on mandates to third parties. And we want it to be a natural part of the investment process as such, both from a risk perspective but also more and more today from an opportunity point of view, to ensure that we deliver the expected return to the customers over a longer period of time, yes. And I think I'd like to stress that because we believe that we can do this without giving away return. Maybe on the contrary, in significant areas, we can actually see potential for higher returns in the long term. So risk, return integrated into the investment process.

And then we work both from the top down and from the bottom up. And the bottom-up for us is basically ensuring that the portfolio managers get the tools that they need. And then we are talking about getting the right data; trying to support standardization; trying to, yes, conform the data so it gets part of the actually investment calculus basically, yes; and then putting on incentive structures to encourage the managers to prioritize this and sending a signal that this performance on this area -- in these areas are important and you will get paid on it.

Jennifer Laidlaw: How much are you actually seeing that maybe ESG gives greater returns over the longer term?

Magnus Billing: Well, it's a very good question. I don't think we have the data showing that. We strongly believe that, but ESG is also a very wide concept, yes. And we have taken a conscious decision to focus on climate at this stage predominantly.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Okay.

Magnus Billing: We have other aspect of ESG that are important, but I think we want to have focus on climate going forward. That entails other aspects of ESG, obviously, but I cannot say today that performance is better if we have a high level of it. There are studies showing that, but I think it's a little bit early to conclude that. But we are a strong believer in it, yes, and particularly today when we talk more about the opportunities. This transition creates opportunities and we would like to be part of those.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes. So it's basically like ESG, climate is something that's creating investment opportunities for you...

Magnus Billing: Yes. And then we also want to work top-down, and that's basically stress testing our portfolio in its entirety and applying a number of climate scenarios and what impact will that have on our assets on the balance sheet, yes. So that allows us to get an overview and kind of have an allocation strategy discussion. And it also allows us to keep track on are we where we want to be on this journey, yes.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Right, okay, interesting, yes, because I mean stress testing portfolios, I mean, that's something that a lot of like portfolio managers are doing, asset managers, asset owners, right? I mean, how exactly do you stress test a portfolio?

Magnus Billing: Well, simply put, we try to find out based on the research out there what is the relevant carbon price for reaching 1.5 degree or reaching 2 degrees; and then discount that carbon price, the carbon price, for 2040. Discount that today, yes, and then you will get a value on our assets. Our share of company A is 10%. This company is emitting 100 million tons, yes, and the carbon price is that. And that has been very valuable for us.

Obviously you can have views on the assumption in that model, but it creates a clarity that the market price is perhaps not aligned with the actual value of the current business model of that corporate. And that has been extremely valuable for us to take as part of the engagement with these corporates, for example.

So then we can come to the company and say, look, we have done the stress test. We've done it based on the following assumptions. Do you agree with the assumption, yes or no? If you agree, what are your actions? How are you going to shift your business model if you want to do that? Or is this additional cost that we're showing you as part of the carbon price, something that you think you have price power enough to transfer to your customers? What's your plan? Yes, show us that and show us how committed you are to that. And then we take that as part of the investment assessment, investment decision that we are doing on a day-to-day basis.

So that has been extremely valuable. And I think that, over time, the top-down and the bottom-up approach that I described will converge in the day-to-day work of the portfolio managers.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Okay, interesting. You mentioned engagement. I mean that's something we've been looking at in other podcasts. We can talk to asset managers and asset owners about the theme of engagement versus divestment.

Magnus Billing: Right.

Jennifer Laidlaw:  So you are mainly focused on engagement. I mean, what are the benefits of engagement versus divestment? And when would you consider divesting from a company?

Magnus Billing: Well, it happens in our portfolio on a regular basis, but our competitive edge is long-term capital able to sustain liquidity, yes. That's where we can add value to the issuer, yes, so we have that as a starting point. We want to be long term, yes, so that means that the selection process is extremely important for us. We want to find the best companies in the world to invest into, great market position, strong balance sheet. We like positive cash flow, yes, so if we get that right, the selection, we have then created a foundation for being extremely long term.

Having said that, obviously there are companies that we conclude that this is not -- we don't believe in this business model and we exit. And I think we're coming to a point -- given the fact that we have sort of committed to reduce emissions in our portfolio by 25% when it comes to equity and fixed income and 50% in real estate, by 2024, 2025, we will come to a point where we will have to go through all the holdings and say, look, are we meeting the goals? If not, what's the problem? Is the transition plan not being adhered to? Yes, why it's not being adhered to. And then is this an exit point in time? Or do we still believe that we can stick with this company or issuer for the next 5 years and see a more positive development when it comes to emission trajectory?

Jennifer Laidlaw: All right, okay. So do you go to a company and say basically, "You said you would reduce emissions by 25%. You've only done it by 20%?" If that happens, do you say to them "Tough. We're not going to work -- we're not going to invest in you anymore?" What is basically the thing that makes you change your mind that you need to get out of this company?

Magnus Billing: I think we don't want to start the discussion in that way. We want to have a discussion.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Right.

Magnus Billing: We want to understand the discrepancy, depending on the explanation; or the discrepancy, yes, that will form a base or substance for the decision-making. Clearly one point would be that, if the management is not credible or committed to this journey that we are on and to align with our journey, then I don't see that we can -- then the company doesn't belong in our portfolio basically.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Right, okay.

Magnus Billing: But I must say that, in the past 5, 6 years, the impression I have, generally speaking, of the corporates is that they have advanced significantly in transforming their business model, obviously due to regulation; to some extent due to asset owners like us asking for this, pushing for this, but more and more customer-driven. "I can increase my revenue growth. I have potential to enhance the margins, and I can create more value." And to me that is extremely positive to see that enormous momentum that creates that when it's P&L aspects coming into play here.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Right, okay. I'm just interested going back to something you were seeing in the conference, on just things like having alliances like 100+; that, that really helps, for example, if you're going to see a company like Microsoft, just to have that body of investors. I mean, how important is these kind of alliances basically for getting to net zero?

Magnus Billing: I think they're extremely important. I mean the engagement tool for us is not as effective outside the Nordic region. It diminish as we move away from Stockholm, yes, obviously, so even if we are a relatively large shareholder in a U.S. company like Microsoft or what have you, yes, we are still not -- we don't have the same clout, relevance as we'd talk to a Swedish company like, for example, Volvo or  SCB or Sandvik, what have you. And I think we need to bridge that gap in order to ensure that we get the engagement tool -- in order for us to leverage the engagement tool. And that's when Climate 100+ comes in, and I think it's extremely important cooperation for us.

Jennifer Laidlaw: I also wanted to ask. You were saying during the conference like about accepting high-emission portfolios for a short amount of time. And it -- is that something -- I mean, why do you think it's important even to accept like high-emission portfolios?

Magnus Billing: Because we're in a transition. And I think there are industries -- well, let's take the steel industry, a high emitter. So you could argue that, okay, I will not expose myself to that industry in order to meet the net zero, but we will need steel in many industries for foreseeable future. There is technology that has potential to scale up now and become viable from a business point of view, providing green steel, yes.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Right.

Magnus Billing: So we would like to be part of that kind of transitions. The outcome of that will obviously -- in the short term, that our footprint when it comes to our portfolio will increase over a period of time, yes.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Okay.

Magnus Billing: But I think it will be pension capital like us could add value in supporting that transition, assuming that we still need steel in car production, real estate, constructions and so forth.

Jennifer Laidlaw: So going back to something you were mentioning before, carbon prices, which I thought was very interesting. And obviously that's a subject that's -- a lot of people talk about, but will it actually ever happen? I mean, how important do you think like having carbon prices is to getting to net zero?

Magnus Billing: I think it's important. I would really like to see a relevant carbon price in place. I think it would help us as an investor to correctly price the risks and opportunities. I'm not realistic or optimistic that we will have a global carbon price. I think that's -- it's a wish, but I don't think it will happen.

And I -- also I listen to and I understand the argument that maybe it's not a silver bullet. There are -- it's a tax. It's going to -- maybe it's not going to impact the behavior in the way we want to. And that might be right, but I think here and now it will be good to -- we see enormous subsidies into fossil fuels globally. I think IMF has assessed it to US $500 billion per year or so, but we are not pricing the emission correctly. So we subsidize it, but we're not setting the costs for it properly, so that is to me the wrong incentive structure for this market. And if you have -- I mean market participants will, end of the day, act accordingly to the incentive structure that is put in place, the framework basically. 

So something is skewed here. And I think moving away from subsidies and focusing on carbon prices that would have a monumental shift in the behavior of our market participants.

Jennifer Laidlaw: All right, okay. So it's really like governments need to stop these subsidies and put into place a carbon price, right?

Magnus Billing: Yes.

Jennifer Laidlaw: That would be -- would that -- I mean you said, of course, carbon prices are not a silver bullet, but it would be part of the solution, right?

Magnus Billing: Yes. I mean just coming back to the stress tests that I talked about that we perform. If the assumptions we make are correct and you have -- we introduce the relevant carbon price, you see a discrepancy which is significant between the current market price of an asset compared to what the model is putting out. So that discrepancy is showing that something is not proper here, something needs to be done. And the market don't have proper incentives today to take actions to that. It has tools, but I think the incentives and the drive to make changes and take actions would be enormously higher if we had a correct price on the actual cost.

Lindsey Hall: This idea of working in tandem between policymakers, financial institutions and different sectors was another big theme at the conference. And really it's something I've been hearing in a lot of my conversations with ESG stakeholders over the past year. At last week's summit, there was a lot of conversation about the need for open dialogue, broader education around sustainability and just better understanding of the ESG space. And I think conferences like the Sustainable1 summit can help facilitate that kind of communication.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes. I totally agree. It was interesting to hear from Jenny Mathilde Nordby, Head of Partnerships and Third-party Distribution at RepRisk, an ESG data firm, talking about sharing information even with competitors.

Lindsey Hall: Yes. And net zero was obviously a big topic of conversation, but Jen, one thing we haven't touched on yet is biodiversity and the role of nature. This is another big part of summit discussions.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes. And we had Nathalie Borgeaud from the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, who spoke about the TNFD's goal of shifting investment that ultimately hurts nature to making sure financial flows go to nature-positive projects.

Lindsey Hall: What really struck me was how much insurers, banks and asset managers are looking at biodiversity and trying to put a value on nature. Roslyn Stein, head of climate and biodiversity at AXA Group, spoke about using insurance to account for the real value of nature. A price tag on nature would help change the way we use and manage sensitive ecosystems, she said.

Jennifer Laidlaw: One of the challenges in the ESG world about measuring biodiversity has been the fact that there's not enough data, but David Vaillant, global head of finance, strategy and participation at BNP Paribas Asset Management, said we just can't wait around for perfect data. And there are plenty of things to be done in the meantime.

Lindsey Hall: Yes. This is a theme I've heard come up in a lot of conversations over the past year actually, this idea that you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good when it comes to developing and evolving ESG data. And so we heard this real sense of urgency about getting things done at the summit.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes. One of my main key takeaways from the conference was the fact that time is running out to address climate change and the challenges of biodiversity, and we just can't wait to get things done. Having events like the summit get that energy going as many countries and cities loosen coronavirus restrictions. I asked Magnus what he thought about that.

Obviously, in the last 2 years, we've been inside. Most conferences have been online. What's it like to be back at a conference where there's people, where you could actually meet people face to face...

Magnus Billing: Fantastic. I missed meeting people, so that's -- it gives me energy, so I'm so glad that I'm able to meet people and travel again.

Jennifer Laidlaw: So let's see if that energy continues as we tackle the rocky road to net zero.

Esther Whieldon: Well, thanks, Jen, for taking the time to share your thoughts on the Paris summit with us.

I'm actually in New York City now for the second leg of the S&P Global Sustainable1 summit, so in our next episode, we'll be taking an in-depth look at some of the key themes discussed at that event, which took place on May 17.

Lindsey Hall: And for those of our listeners who are in Australia or lucky enough to be able to travel there: We're holding our third and final summit in Sydney on June 9, and we'll be bringing you more insights from our conference in the weeks to come. And thanks to everyone who took part in the Paris event and in our podcast.

Thanks so much for listening to this episode of ESG Insider. And a special thanks to our producer, Kyle Cangialosi. Please be sure to subscribe to our podcast and sign up for our weekly newsletter, ESG Insider. See you next time.

Copyright © 2022 by S&P Global.



DISCLAIMER  

By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk. This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.  

S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST.