Broadridge is an undervalued monopoly in regulated financial services; the current sell-off driven by AI disruption fears is irrational, and the stock should recover as the market recognizes its enduring necessity and lack of actual disruption.

Let's start with "Prodridge" because it's the first one we have. What is this company? What's wrong with it? I mean, "Broadridge," I'm not saying it does the infrastructure work for the financial system, but it helps you, let's say, with managing agencies.

She has a lot of work. If you are a company and need to vote by proxy because the Securities and Exchange Commission requires it, they do it. They do all the boring things.

This company was a separate part of ADP years ago, and was a great stock for many years, but it has recently faltered. It's simply deeply rooted. We like these companies that are rooted in intensively regulated businesses, which are essential and also monopolize the market. It is essentially a monopoly.

I mean, it accounts for 80% of all proxy votes according to your data, among other things. It's not their only job, but it represents 63%. Sorry, their recurring revenues make up 63% of total revenue.

However, this stock has been around for a very long time. This is its second-worst decline. Yes. Since the global financial crisis, I mean, this is a steady business, similar to the usual toll gate business.

So, yes, Broadridge is a legitimate company. It is well managed. They are engaging in cross-selling. For example, if you are a money manager and you have all these lawsuits from shareholders coming in because you own shares, they will handle it for you for a fee.

Where they will log in and submit your claims, etc. They have a lot of these boring little jobs that do really well.

It's an interesting company, you know, that has seen good compression in its multiples. It's a good business. As Michael said, it's the kind of work that resembles a token station, and it deserves, you know, for Why It Falls Apart?

It has gone from 280 to 160 now, and it was much lower than that.

Is this a yes? To Josh, is this because of artificial intelligence or what's going on? People in private equity are concerned that these tokens, you know, one of the bearish scenarios is that these tokens allow you to trade stocks, and they won't have to do proxy work, etc. for them.

I mean, there are a lot of things that don't seem to make any sense at all to her. It was a name driven by emotion.

Yes, I think it's down about 25% this year. I mean, how big is this company? The corporate value of this company is approximately 20 billion or so. Therefore, it is a real business.

Good. Is it possible to acquire it? I mean, I think, you know, with interest rates rising like this, who knows? But I think it might happen. I mean, that wouldn't impress me. Many companies, because of the way we look at things, end up being acquired.

So, when you look at this, you don't need it to happen. You don't need a motivator. From your point of view, the market is irrationally reducing the stock's valuation. When the dust settles, people will realize that they have not been replaced at all.

They were not affected or disrupted at all by artificial intelligence. You might even get a benefit in terms of using artificial intelligence internally.

Okay. This may actually serve to boost profitability and they will maintain their monopoly over all these small businesses. Okay. I mean, we generally want a catalyst, and I think if you have to assume a catalyst, it will be people finally realizing that AI or tokens aren't going to destroy their businesses.