SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : divine interVentures, Inc. (DVIN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (82)4/3/2000 7:06:00 PM
From: astyanax  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 246
 
Transcript of Flip's speech [LONG!]. As transcribed by themayreport.com's mailing list. My oh my, Flip totally bashes Bank One, Sears, GE, indirectly Motorola, etc...
===
A verbatim transcript (or as close as we could come to it) of Andrew J.
"Flip" Filipowski's speech to the Better Business Bureau's Anniversary
Dinner attendees at the Hilton on Thursday evening, March 23, 2000.
________________________

It is definitely my pleasure to be here; I hope I didn't give anyone
any
heart attack about my arrival. I'm always here when I need to be here,
just in time.

Now, you would expect that my major topic of conversation tonight would
be
about the Internet, and I certainly won't disappoint those of you
who think that. On the other hand, I think that by the time I'm
through, you
will find out that the Internet is not necessarily the whole point of
this conversation or discussion that we're going to have. It is
certainly a
very important inflection point in all our lives, it affects not only
the
businesses, but perhaps all of the social structures that we have. It
is an
inflection point that rivals that of electricity and perhaps many of
the
other inflection points that go from as far back as the introduction of
the
steam engine, the railroads, or the automobile, or the telegraph, it
just happens to be the most recent of the inflection points that is
having
an impact on our society in general.

However, just like those inflection points, it is not always obvious
what
the changes are. One could claim that the automobile was one of
those major inflection points, and it is said that nobody will argue
this
but if you take it a little bit deeper and study the impact, you'll
find out
that the automobile was just simply a catalyst, that in fact what
really
revolutionized the world, what really made the cities that we all live
in,
Chicago included, what really made it possible for us to re-arrange our
life, for better or for worse, was the highway system that developed in
support of the automobile. It was that network of roads that created
the
cities, the opportunities to deliver things to people in those cities,
and
created the infrastructure that created a mobile society. And believe
me,
without that infrastructure of the highway system, the things we see
and take for granted as cities today and all the things are a very
integral
part of our business and personal lives would not be here.

And before I'm done today, hopefully I will have left you with a whole
bunch
of things to give you pause for thought, perhaps a bit of
discussion. Some of the things that I'm going to say are going to be
quite
controversial, I do that on purpose, I make sure that when I say
things that I at least first explain to you that I'm not doing it with
the
intent of being devious, I'm not doing it with the intent of being
harmful,
I do it for the purpose of illustration. And there will be some
companies,
some local companies here in Chicago that I will mention by name,
some of them will wish that I didn't, but on the other hand, it's the
only
way I know of making a point. So with that apology up front, I'll
proceed.

What really is going to change and what is changing is that the
Internet is
making all of us become different. The workforce, the employees,
are different today than they were just a few years ago, because of the
Internet. Investors are different today than they were just a few years
ago. They act differently. They perhaps will act differently forever.
And, I know that many of you had that impression through 1999 and into
the year 2000 that perhaps the investors have just become lunatics,
that
they perhaps had some administered drugs, that perhaps they're not
acting rationally, and that if you wait long enough things will get
back to
normal, things will be sane again, and you can back to the way it
was before the arrival of the Internet.

And it's certainly my thesis, my theorem here today is things will
never,
ever go back to the way they were before. They never have in any of the
inflection points that arrived, never did it go back to the old way.
Sure,
there were periods of time
in which some of the pendulum swing looked like it was going back, but
it in
fact it traversed on new property, on a new trajection. It was
never back to the way it was.

Let me illustrate some things and put them up for you to examine.
Number
one, things are changing very rapidly right now. If you ever want to
know
how quickly, I would suggest that you take out the Fortune 500
equivalent
list of 1950, 1960, 1970, '80, '90, and the current list of the Fortune
500 organizations, and look carefully. If you ever want to be shocked
about
how quickly things change, that will give you some insight on how
quickly organizations come and go. Not too many generations ago it was
possible and plausible to expect that most of the companies we
knew, most of the organizations would last longer than our own
lifetime. I
suggest to you that today all of the companies being formed have
lifetimes of their own far shorter than that of a human being. That
takes
some adapting to. If you ever want to test out some of that, let me
give you the following as an example: A generation ago, perhaps with
some
of you even in this room, but certainly to your parents and
grandparents, it was plausible that they would look for a career when
they
exited the educational system and entered the workforce, where
their goal was that they were going to join an organization that
provided
them with a degree of security and compensation, and that they
would one day retire with that organization. I submit to you that if
you
walked in front of the MBA class at Kellogg or the University of
Chicago
or Stanford or Wharton or any of the top business schools and stood in
front
of the MBA class, and told them that that was a rational thought,
they would think that you had taken some very bad drugs. They would be
sure
that you were joking; no one could be as stupid as that to
have even mentioned that as a possibility. They know that is
impossible.
They will not finish their career with one company, more than likely
most of the companies they have careers with will be born and will
probably
die within their single lifetime. That is basically because the
inflection points are arriving with more frequency.

There was a time many generations ago where they, as inflection points,
would arrive perhaps once every 10,000 generations of humans. That was
back
in the days when if you knew when the herd was going through your
neighborhood tribal area, if you had a calendar, if you had some
notches on
a horn that you picked up or was passed on by your parents, you
were the knowledge broker of your tribe, and you could pass that
knowledge
on to generations and generations of your children, and believe
me, it would have served you well, and you would have been the
knowledge
person of that community for many generations.

Let me give you the test. You're probably still skeptical that
companies are
going to be coming and going with that frequency. But as the new
technologies arrive, that's exactly what happens. It doesn't matter
what
occupation you will have, whether this was an audience of individuals
from the medical community, from the car, from the sales community, it
doesn't matter what. Every audience that I could possibly stand in
front of would answer the following question correctly, perhaps even in
four-part harmony.

Who is the biggest, largest, most successful software company on the
planet
today, the biggest, the baddest? Let's do it folks. [audience:
Microsoft]. You know, you did it in four-part harmony. Now, how many of
you
were around 15 years ago, raise your hand. How many of you
were conscious 15 years ago? Now, 15 years ago was 1985. You don't have
the
70's as an excuse. In 1985 there was a big, bad software
company identical in power, size, relative to the others in this space
that
was the #1 biggest, baddest software company on the planet. I
challenge you right now, in any way, in four part harmony or otherwise,
to
give me the name of the Microsoft of 1985. Don't mention hardware
companies, make sure you mention software companies, let's hear it.

[Lotus]. Lotus wasn't even in the top 10, and IBM was a hardware
company.

[Computer Associates] Computer Associates was in the top 10, but
the number one was a company by the name of Cullinet
Corporation.

Now, I know what I remember, because I was the Chief Operating
Officer of that company in the seventies. Who was the #2?
You'll not get it. Now, think about this, we're here again, in the year
2015. How many of you are still going to be alive, 15 years from now?
Imagine coming back to the whatever annual BBB of Chicago banquet, and
some
speaker's standing up here going, "and remember back in
the year 2000, what was the largest single software company on the
planet?"
And you scratched your head, and went "God, wasn't it
somebody with an 'M' or something like that?" Now, if it could happen
in
the last 15 years that you can't remember, it could happen in the
next 15.

I'm going to give you another test, this goes back 25 years. Do you
know
that in the mid-70s there were approximately 80 publicly-held word
processing companies? I bet you will only remember one of the names.
Whip it
out, tell me the name of that company. [audience: Wang] Right, I've
heard enough. Only name you can remember, very few of them could come
up
with the others. And today, do we even care that Wang
exists? Is it even a relevant company? No, it is not. Things really do
change. And I could give you many, many examples that would confirm
that, but much as parents we really have a hard time seeing our
children
grow up, if we see them every day, we don't get the full impact of an
incremental change as we watch them every day. It's only when we
reflect
back on some old photograph and then take a glance at our
children that we find out that they've really changed a lot. As
grandparents we get that opportunity a little bit more because as we
get
older and as grandparents we don't see the children perhaps as often as
we can
every six months perhaps notice how dramatically they changed.
It is no different.

In fact, my thesis here will be that ultimately, organizations are in
fact
very similar to human beings. There are tremendous parallels. The only
reason we thought that companies would be around forever is because
they
used to last longer than us. They will never again. And so now,
certainly
the next generation, those MBA students are quite clear that companies
will
not last that length of time. That creates an incredible dynamic that
permeates the careers and the objectives and the way that people think
about their jobs and the way they
participate in the economy.

The major change of the Internet is not the Internet, it's not the
network.
The ubiquitous availability of the Internet whether it becomes wireless
or
not, the big change that you will see that will make life different
forever, is the impact on society and the way human beings will look
upon
the world as a result. I'm going to make that point several times, and
before I'm done, we'll build up to the case I
hope that will be quite clear.

Do you know that when we look at some of the antiquities that we today
live
with, some of the oldest antiquities are the organizational
structures that power our operations and our companies? Partnerships
and the
way we build corporations have been around for more than a
hundred years, 200 years. Don't you think they're wearing out a little
bit?
And of course they are. They're primarily based on hierarchies. If
you want to see how dramatically that change is being reflected in our
current incoming job force, take a listen to this one: Two years ago,
Morgan Stanley, no longer a partnership, already a corporation, has the
investment bankers got it quicker, more than the lawyers and
accountants ever get it. The investment bankers knew how obsolete
partnership structures are, how unscalable they are. They, two years
ago, went to the Harvard Business School and they have what is globally
known as their dance card, they went on to meetings with job
applications and the job placements that they want to have out of the
Harvard graduating MBA class. Two years ago they went there and 400
MBA students showed up to fill the dance card. Four hundred I believe
represents
something like a third to a half of the Harvard graduating class. Do
you know how many showed up last year? 40. That is the velocity with
which
the changes are happening.

Imagine walking up to that MBA class of Kellogg, the University of
Chicago,
Harvard, and walking in with a proposition of here is what you have for
your career, we want to sell you on this. (A) we're a partnership,
think
lawyer, think accountant, think whatever. The proposition is that in 12
years you get to join us. Work 24 hrs, 7 days a week, you get to make
an
idiot partner really rich,
and then in 12 years you get to be an idiot partner and amuse the
next set of MBA graduates. How many of them are stupid enough to take
that
job today? Zero. You can hardly find a one. They're no longer
graduating them that stupid. And it will be a universal change that
will
impact dramatically. If you miss out on 10 years of the MBA draft, it's
equivalent to missing out 10 years of the NBA draft. You want to know
what
it looks like, take a look at the Bulls. And, the last set of employees
you
got 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years, also aren't as stupid as they
were
then. They see the opportunities. They see that you can get a job with
an
Internet company, they can aspire to being funded. They know you can
become
a billionaire in 3 weeks. They don't need to get involved with those
systems.

Let's go to corporations. Let's take a look at the business proposition
for
an entry-level MBA student. Most businesses have a proposition
today of "I'll tell you what. You come work for us, and we've got a
very
good company, a very powerful company, it's got 300,000 employees,
everyone works here and we have 7 or 8 divisions, and when you work in
one
of those divisions, our stock price is affected, not by what you
do in one of those divisions, but by the errors that you've made in all
of our divisions. And if you do really, really well and one of our
divisions screwed up, your net worth goes in half." As a result,
believe me,
those MBA students are no longer dumb enough to do that, either.
And I'll pick on a very nice company in Chicago, in fact, some of them
we do
cherish, nevertheless deserving of this comment. Imagine having to go
work
for Bank One. You could go work for American National Bank, work your
butt
off, end up owning the middle market, but guess what, your credit card
division screws up, and you're screwed. You get to work at a company
that
includes brand names like First Chicago, but we don't use that any more
because we want to use Bank One. So that when you're in Frankfurt or
Hong
Kong, nobody knows who the hell you are, but they would have know if
you
were First Chicago.
That proposition doesn't work. In fact, I found it pretty humorous
that a few weeks ago there was an award given out to a fellow by the
name of
Jack Welsh. It was "Manager of the Century." I found it really
funny. And I was really happy that he was given the award for the last
century, because that shit ain't gonna work in the next century. If you
ever want see something that don't work, watch GE.

Now I'm going to say a few more very sacrilegious things here. If you
think
that one's bad, wait till you hear the next few. What do you think
really happens to companies as they get older? This is the parallel
between
the human side and the organizational side. They can grow more
conservative; they put in more processes; they try to avoid any
mistakes;
they try to continue to grow earnings. They do all of the things
that do what? Eliminate innovation, and age an organization. Go back to
1975, that magical moment, and read up on any book about how to
do retail right. And what would you think you will read about? Who was
the
example, right here in Chicago, of how to do retail right? Sears!
What did they do, get a lobotomy between now and then? Did they just
get
stupid? No, they just got older. And older companies age. When
you see a 120-year old person, do walk up to them and say things like,
"How
come you got stupid when you got to be 120?" No, you go and
say things like "Tell me how you got past that 18 year segment when you
were
18 and had that tendency to drive at 95 miles an hour drunk?
How'd you get through that?" And you know that everyone at 18 does
that,
you're invincible, you cannot possibly think of that as a risky
operation, but by the time you're 40 or 50 driving at 95 drunk, it's
not
something you consider rational. In fact, that's exactly the way
organizations work. Innovation ends, emphasis on the process, risk
avoidance, not making mistakes, that's what happens.

Now, what are the tell-tale signs that you are introducing that
process?
What are those things that kill organizations? Well, let me give you
the
two big
culprits: If you ever hear of somebody telling your organization that
the
number one key to your success is asking what? The number one
reason for organizations aging, getting decrepit and old is: listening
to
customers. You hear that, someone gives you that advice: shoot
them! You're about to commit suicide. You know exactly what a customer
will
tell you, you don't need to ask. You know every time what the
customer wants: ask any researcher, ask anybody in the laboratory or in
R&D,
and what is the customer going to give you? The same old bs,
I want 15-15. What's 15 & 15? "Give me 15% more features for 15% less
price." You could have predicted that. Ask a customer, "Should I go
innovate in some new area and create a whole new product that will do
this?"
What are they going to tell you? "I'm dependent on that product
that you're building for me right now, you stick to your knitting and
don't
go on some crazy spending your money somewhere else. Make sure
what you're doing for me keeps working. By the way, I want 15-15, give
me
15% more features and then you can give it to me for 15% less
cost."

You don't need to ask. But if you're in the mode of maturing your
organization, which is ok, if you're in the mode of becoming a bond
as opposed to an innovator, then start putting in those processes cause
sooner or later you have to, and I'm not saying don't do it, just
recognize that that's a sign of aging which will ultimately link to the
organization's death. Don't worry about death because it comes to
everyone. If death didn't come to corporations, then when we'd look at
the
Fortune 500 companies today, they'd all be 1,000 years old, and
they're not. The reason is they die like they're supposed to, just like
we
die to make room for the next generation. Live with it, they're
supposed to die, I know they try to fight it, but ultimately they're
just
the same dead anyway. There is no eternal organization.

So..another thing: what's the second worst thing you can do, the thing
that
will age your organization? The pursuit of quality. You can be
dumb and stupid, listen to your customers and go for quality. It kills
you
every time. Now, believe me, you go to most educational
institutions, which are going to have to change dramatically based on
the
internet anyway, but if you go to most educational institutions, I
think that what you should actually claim they are is museums of
obsolete
business practices, because that's what they teach. I could prove to
you in one second that you do not want quality. I can tell you that
every
engineer knows exactly what quality means. It means don't
innovate, don't change, because if it changes that's where the bugs and
problems are going to show up.

If you ever want to know what the single minded pursuit of quality
yields, it
yields Iridium. When you make quality the engineer's mantra then you
get
Iridium. Instead of innovating and using CDMA technology you stay with
the
tried-and-true TDMA technology, that's how you get into that mess. When
you
tell engineers that they must achieve 6 Sigma quality above all else,
they
know how to get there, they eliminate all innovation and risky
technology.
I emphasize these issues to make a point. I am truly not denigrating
quality
and attentiveness to customers, it is just if I do not make these
exaggerated examples the point will be missed.

Stick, stick to quality means only one thing to an engineer --- and I'm
not
saying that some degree of quality and some degree of listening to
customers is not right but for the emphasis for this organization, to
you,
I want to make sure that
I don't mince my words. I want to make sure that I'm clear. Aim
for quality, and you're not going to get innovation. You're going to
get
people using tried-and-true stuff, you're going to make them eliminate
the
mistakes they know that when we tell them to do that, they don't make
changes.

Now here's the one, one-sentence, proof that you hate quality: How
many of
you want to drive a perfect Pinto? Not a whole lot. Proof
positive you don't care about quality. In that sense, what you want is
somebody to innovate and somebody to fix the problems when they
occur, but you want something interesting, something new, something
innovative, with a minimum of problems, but that has to be way down
the list, otherwise we'd all be driving in perfect Pintos.

So...with certain apologies, I'll continue. Now you have had inflection
points more frequently, organizational structures might be obsolete, we
got the fact that certain things age organizations, and if you really
want
to read up on this last part, read a book called "The Innovator's
Dilemma," that you will hear and read in much greater depth that I can
possibly do tonight, the impact of some of that process and aging on a
organization.

Now, I will go on to explain on a positive what some of the brightest
and
best organizations do, and they do it sort of just like human beings
do this. The best of the bunch spin off businesses, and treat their new
businesses just like we treat our children when we're good parents.
You want to be a great parent, what do you do? You give all knowledge
you
can to your children, you give them all of the experience and
background to let them think through what they want and don't want,
they get
to accumulate their own experiences and add to it, but you give
the right to go off into the world and do what they will do, to succeed
with
everything you can give them as an advantage. You don't hoard that
knowledge, you don't laugh when they fail because you didn't tell them
about
really a neat secret. You don't hide, you don't hope they fail,
you spin them out, just like the best organizations spin out. They take
their brightest people, they give them all of their secrets, all of the
experience and they tell them "Go off in the world, and I hope you
destroy
us in the process, 'cause we're getting old, we're in the bottom of
the business now, we're going to die anyway, it might as well be you,
our
spinouts, that kill us, rather than our competitors."

Just like parents, the best of organizations do that and I always
highlight
a positive story in Chicago about that. If you want to see how to do
that, study the Tribune. When the newspapers were challenged by radio,
what
did they do? They got into the radio business. When television
challenged
all of that, they got into the television business and spun it out.
When
they were challenged by cable, they did that, when they got challenged
by
the Internet, they did that. And today they're 140-and-some years old,
still a vibrant organization that has in fact elongated their life by
doing
the right thing, and that is taking their best and brightest and
spinning
it out. It's actually a rejuvenating activity. And I use them as the
example because, frankly, I haven't found a better one anywhere else
that
can be used as an example for this process.

Now, if organizational structures --- the organizational structures of
the
future --- what will have been impacted by the Internet is that
individuals
will want to work for atomic units where their work will be fully
appreciated and that the results of that team's work will be valued in
the
marketplace. What that means, if you want me to translate that into the
real world, is that I believe for GE to survive they're going to have
to
spin out 300-400 companies. Otherwise, they will not attract the human
capital with which they've succeeded to date. The reason why GE is
a successful organization today is that they've used in an
extraordinarily
positive way, all of the technology, all the knowledge to stretch the
old hierarchical business model of a corporation to the extreme. And
that
is a compliment, no one does it better with the old stuff than GE.

But it will not work in the future. You cannot convince the workforce
of
today entering the marketplace to work within a homogenous unit like
that. You cannot have a management team anymore that their relationship
to
their employee is as it is at GE. You can no longer have a
chief executive who says to the board "Pay me all the money, and I
will
make sure that all of them do what I tell them. You don't have to
worry about paying them, just pay me."

In the old days when loyalty was describable in the context of, if you
joined a company, if you did what they told you to do, you didn't get
fired and your family didn't starve --- that equation no longer works.
Today
the equation has to be "Come work for us, and we'll share --- a lot
more equally than we ever have in the past --- the fruits of the labor.
So
atomic units are going to be important, because that's where you can
build the value directly in association to the work effort of the
individual.

Let's go to investors. Investors want those atomic units. They don't
want
to invest in homogenous units. How else would you explain the
fact that Palm is worth more outside of 3Com than all of 3Com? Is it
because
someone is truly just stupid? Is it because the investors have
swallowed a pill? No, they just know that it's a better deal that way.
Investors have always been conned into stupid things. We absolutely
have a
history of that. There was a time when tulips were important. There was
a
time when people thought porcelain was very important. In fact, the
Chinese
convinced Europeans that you had to bury the stuff in your backyard for
80
years before it became porcelain. And they believed it! That's why it
was
expensive! Today, we are equally stupid in believing stuff like gold is
important, or expensive. Who said? Why?

It's because we believe it, that's all. Who said earnings have anything
to
do with anything? There are people who absolutely think that it's
relevant to something. There are people that even today that when I
speak
to them say, "Earnings are important because ultimately the
shareholders get part of the earnings." When's the last time that you
ever
saw any earnings? They keep it all, they don't give it to you. They
let you play with Monopoly money. You get to write down on a piece of
paper,
if they gave it to me, I would have gotten $2 a share but they
never give it to me! And yet they're stupid enough to think that it
actually counts! The fact is, it's just a game, it's like golf. 70
strokes
is better than 72. It's a bet, and exactly what the story is is that
investors
are bettors, no different than a crap table or anywhere else, no,
there's no more sanctimonious part of gambling. No, there's not any
safer,
more honest way of to do it. It's all gambling, it's all risk. It
doesn't matter if it's on craps or a horse or a stock, it's the same
stuff.
And what's neat about it is that investors are finally figuring out
that
it's a game and they're finally figuring it out that it's not what
happened
in the past that counts, it's in the future.

And they're making bets. And they found out that venture capitalists
tend
to make more money than most that invest in bonds. So they
decided that they might as well get in on the action. They want to be
part
of the venture capital community. They don't mind investing a little
bit earlier, whether their names are pension funds, mutual funds or
individual investors. They all decided, they no longer like to invest
in
bonds. If they wanted to invest in bonds, they would, and some of them
do,
with some of their money, and they invest in companies like McDonald?s
---
that?s kind of like a bond. Frankly, if you invested in McDonald?s
today,
what do you know? Well, you know if they spun out their Chinese unit,
that
would maybe be a good bet. It might roll real fast. But you know what's
going to happen in the United States they can't eat any more
hamburgers!
You don't want any part of that, why would
you want it? Well, you would if you wanted to just get a steady return
like
a bond. But you want the organizations to spin out those things that
are
better bets.

So, what good are those earnings? What does it tell you if somebody
says
"I've had 60 consecutive quarters of earnings?" In the old days, when
companies lasted a really, really long time, it meant that they could
have
another 60. What it means today to investors is you're old enough to
die
you may not have any more than 1 or 2 left in you. Just ask the folks
invested in P&G. Right? You know I'm not lying to you, I'm telling you
the
truth. If you're only going to last a few years, a big long track
record
means that you've done it for a long time.

Now, a test. Two baskets. Let's put all the stocks into one of two
baskets
in 1999. In this basket, in 1999, let's put all of the shares that were
traded anywhere that had earnings. Let's put in this basket all the
shares
that had no earnings. Now let's answer the question: in 1999, was
it a great year for the stock market, a medium year for the stock
market, or
a shitty year for the stock market? What was it? A banner year!
The best ever! Except if you had basket A, that was the worst year it
ever
had because it was a down year. The average stock with earnings
lost value. This basket with no earnings went up astronomically in
value.

Lunacy, you say, stupidity? No, what if it's the way it will always be
from
now on? And why would it be that way? Well, because if companies don't
last
that long you want to get in line. You want to bet on the ones that are
going to really win big. You want to get there before everybody gets
there.
Because if they report all their earnings already, even five
consecutive
years of earnings, you know what that means: they're old. They're gonna
die. So when you want to invest up-front, you want to do it to the ones
you
think are going to be the winners. And what tells you a winner today?
They've got to move fast. They have to invest now. If they're a small
company making earnings now, what does that
mean? They're not spending enough to be the monopoly of next
year, next decade or whatever. They will get destroyed by the company
that
is losing but investing. That's real obvious. And, the good news is
that in
the old days, if a company was losing money, and companies lasted
200 years, you might not live long enough to see them be profitable.
So, it
was a good idea to see them profitable now. But today, they're not only
going to get profitable before you die, they're probably going to die
before you die. So your bet is, how do I get in on something that's
going
to be really expensive in five years? 'Cause I can't wait five years,
that's not past the time I'm alive, I need to do it
now, I need to invest now, I need to take a bet, I'm a venture
capitalist,
I'm aggressive