Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing - Google Faces a Potential Breakup

Episode Date: April 22, 2025

The Department of Justice is asking Alphabet to sell Chrome. (00:21) Jason Moser and Ricky Mulvey discuss: - Why Apple could lose an “easy $20 billion” from Alphabet’s break-up. - General Motor’s big bet on electric vehicles. - Bill Ackman’s hedge fund, Pershing Square, buying a 20% stake in Hertz. Then, (16:52) Robert Brokamp answers listener questions about tariffs, capital accumulation plans, and 401(k)s. Companies mentioned: GOOG, GOOGL, AAPL, GM, TSLA, HTZ Businessweek feature on GM: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-04-14/inside-gm-mary-barra-s-35-billion-bet-on-electric-cars Host: Ricky Mulvey Guests: Jason Moser, Robert Brokamp Producer: Mary Long Engineer: Dan Boyd Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Don't you wish you could just hit skip on the worst parts of your life? You know, the same way you can skip an ad? I get it. I'm Siaya and I live in Ice Cove. I've made some questionable decisions that didn't end up the way I planned. And today I'm still figuring it out. Somehow things usually get worse before they get better. Apparently, that's how I roll.

So bundle up and come along for the bumpy ride. Stream a new episode of North of North Tuesdays on CBC Gem. Is Google a little too dominant? You're listening to Motley Fool Money. I'm Ricky Mulvey, joined today by a very well-dressed Jason Moser in a full dress shirt. Very rare for you. Thanks for being here, man. Well, it was from earlier in the morning. Ricky, I had a another media thing I had to do. So I had to actually look presentable, represent the companies as they say. So I thought you were just starting to take this work a little more seriously.

I'm sorry to hear that it was for someone else. Well, maybe maybe I will. Maybe now that you say it, maybe I will. I mean, you're an inspirational guy. I mean, I take what you say seriously. OK, well, you're dressed up like you're ready to go to a courtroom. And you know what? So is Google, because the next phase of its antitrust case is underway.

At the same time, Meta having its own issues with the FTC, but we're going to focus on Google and Alphabet for now. Last year, a U.S. district judge ruled that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in online search. Now, they're figuring out what to do about it. Google pays billions and billions of dollars to be the default search engine on Apple. And according to the Department of Justice, this helped make the company a monopoly in online search. So now, what do you do? Well, the DOJ has some asks. Number one, sell Chrome. Number two, terminate the default search engine agreements with companies including Apple and also give data to competitors. It's a whole lot of setup, J-Mo, but what does this mean for Alphabet if the Department of Justice gets its

way here? So I must say, thankfully, I'm not getting ready to head to a courtroom. With that said, I think looking at these different remedies, they take a wide range of outcomes. I think selling Chrome would be a real attention-getter. Google Chrome holds the largest share of the global browser market, with approximately 66% of users worldwide. That breaks down fairly evenly along desktop and mobile devices. That would be a hit. I don't suspect that is what will happen. I think terminating agreements seems like a bit more of an interesting solution there. And also, in regard to Google, habits are tough to break, Ricky. And I think a lot of us use Google today just because it's so ingrained. It's out of habit. And I mean, I do think Google's pretty

darn good. It's really helpful in a lot of ways. Data is quite valuable, of course. I think knowing what to do with that data is a different thing altogether. So that wouldn't be an automatic win for competitors if that were the solution. But I think some out there would certainly find ways to benefit. I'm not saying it would necessarily be a good thing for Google, but it's like if I said, Ricky, here's $1 trillion. Now go build the next meta, right? I mean, it's going to be a little bit more difficult than that, right? Money doesn't solve the entire problem. And so it does really speak to what Google has been able to achieve over these last decades just becoming the search engine of choice for most well this case started

during the first trump administration uh i believe and there's been changes since then now you have chat gpt eating a little bit of google's lunch within the search landscape so things have happened not just within the government regulating this place or trying to regulate this space and google still is a little worried about competitors coming in. It's lawyers basically saying competitors would be able to use Google search engine to build and train their own products, while Google is essentially forbidden from making the deals and investments required to keep winning. So they're saying, if we just give our data to everyone, then yes, you could go out and build the next Google. Do you think the lawyers for Google have a point there? I mean,

if you're judge Jason, how are you ruling on this? They definitely have a point. I mean, again, I think giving that data away or making that data accessible really opens up the lanes for a lot of competition. You mentioned ChatGPT, of course, obviously, a tremendous tool, these AI chatbots. I think Google's made a lot of progress on this front as well with Gemini. If I'm ruling on this thing, goodness, I'm not. This is really tough. Generally, I'm not one to hold a company's success against it. I mean, I think I encourage that, right? With that said, obviously, there are some concerns there in regard to monopolistic practices. I think for me, I would definitely focus going forward on any acquisitions. I think that's a no-brainer, and that's something that

could be a little bit more proactive, because I think a lot of these companies have benefited from some very shrewd acquisitions in their history. And I could see the data sharing and search agreements as a more reasonable target as well. Again, kind of going back to the Chrome thing. I just have a hard time seeing that get split off. And as soon as I say that, watch, watch that be the recommendation, but I don't know that that's the most achievable outcome in my mind. And then as you're watching this case play out one potential ripple effects that Dylan Lewis pointed out is that Apple could lose the easiest $20 billion that a company can make. And that's what Google pays Apple to be the default search engine. But there's a lot of other big tech

observers seeing what's happening here. What ripple effects are you watching? Right. I mean, that money for Apple, unbelievably, is just a drop in the bucket. So it obviously wouldn't impair the business. But I think to me, and I mean, we're watching meta go through this as well right now. I think this really just, these are the signs that big tech is really under the microscope. And I think that after we look at Google and we look at meta, it's just going to be very interesting to follow how all of these companies uh sort of sort of fall into these antitrust uh examinations right because because it's it's not like this is it's not like google is doing anything that a lot of companies aren't right i mean it's just big company very successful

has a massive reach but there are a lot of companies out there that do as well and so my suspicion is we'll probably see them come under under the microscope uh here in the near future let me let me push back on that you said you said the 20 billion is a drop in the bucket for apple i would disagree with that. That's about 16% of their pre-tax income, because there's no costs on that payment. That's $20 billion for freezies. This is also a company, Apple, which has started the growth story for that company has slowed a bit. If you have an impact like that, and it slows down the growth story even more for investors, I could see that causing some concern among Apple shareholders. Well, you're correct. Absolutely. And that's very high margin free

money, right? And so there's no question there. And maybe drop in the bucket wasn't the correct phrase. But I still believe if that agreement goes away, I mean, Apple's got a number of different ways to make their money. And so I don't think it's something that ultimately would impair the business. Fair enough. Let's go to this GM story. So there's a saucy headline in business week and a good story, in my opinion, from David Welch. GM's Mary Barra has to make a $35 billion EV bet work in Trump's America. There's a few ways of spinning this. One is that GM is selling a lot more EVs. The second is that it's a tough political landscape. The third is that they're still selling these electric vehicles at a loss, Jason. It's a long article. I appreciate

you reading it, but any big takeaways for you when you were going through it? I think to me, it's just, it's this ongoing story of GM trying to, or developing their own battery technology and Ultium. And ultimately that is to drive down costs and increase production efficiency. I mean, they are really investing heavily in their own battery technology, and that is just not easy to do. So a doff of the foolish cap to them for really making those investments. And it appears they're succeeding. Mine was basically just how much 4d chess lobbying is going on behind the scenes one thing that uh gm doesn't like is the way that incentives are structured for ev leases where people can get a tax credit for leasing which

helps their international competitors so if you take that away it would hurt gm but it would hurt their competition more and there's stuff going on in this market especially in colorado that's just kind of weird um i've benefited from it jason where i i got a low cost ev lease where it was all done, $1,500 down, and then $100 a month. Even when I was getting that, I was like, there's no way this thing is going to last forever. This really doesn't feel sustainable. But there's a lot of work going on behind the scenes. Yeah, absolutely. I don't know that it is sustainable, but a lot of these companies are really trying to get EVs out in the market. It's that lost leader behavior in the early days.

You're doing what you can to get it out there, create the demand, and then hopefully down the road, consumers see the virtue, the value, and you start to realize a little bit more pricing power as things progress. Yeah. You mentioned that these EVs are being sold at a loss. For a big company like General Motors, EVs have been around for a while now. Their work started on it in the 1990s. There's a big gap there. I don't want to discount that. But for a big auto company like GM, which sells a lot of cars, why do they need to sell electric vehicles at a loss? So, I don't think that is ultimately what they want to do for the long term, right, Ricky? I mean, eventually, they hope that's not always the case.

But when we look at EVs and the differences there, I mean, there are a lot of upfront costs that come with developing these vehicles and ultimately getting them out to market. Talking about heavy research and development spending, there's manufacturing headwinds, right, hurdles to clear, factory retooling to account for these different bodies, these different vehicles, and ultimately how they can make them. Battery costs, of course, have always been a real issue. Those costs are coming down. And then the softer costs involved, like gaining market share, building the brand. They want to be seen as a credible EV provider. And that just takes time to do. Now, the goal ultimately is to get to where you've got that market share, you've got your manufacturing processes in place, and you can start to realize more profitability per vehicle. But that just

takes time. Also worth mentioning, Tesla, the politically divisive company, it does make a profit when it sells electric vehicles. And that's a part of this story. There's a little bit of a bank shot here, which is that as Elon Musk becomes more politically divisive, fewer people tend to be buying Teslas. At the same time last year, General Motors went from 6% of the EV market share in the United States at the beginning of 2024 to 12% by the end. Its EV sales doubled, and that seems to be maintaining at nearly the same pace in the first quarter of 2025. Maybe GM eating a little bit of Tesla's lunch here. You blame Musk or you credit Barra for this? Can I hedge my bets and say a little bit of both. I mean, I think it is a little bit of both. But I mean, you saw,

I don't know if you saw, there was a recent CNBC poll that just came out this morning that showed that basically half of Americans now hold a negative view toward Tesla. Now, that clearly is up significantly. And that's compared to, I think, around 24% with an actual positive view, or 27%. The rest are basically neutral. But the bottom line is that certainly Musk's actions here over the last year or so have had an impact on the business. And I think that really shows the dangers of business leaders wearing their politics on their sleeves. So, you just got to understand that does come with a cost. I do think that Mary Barra deserves a lot of credit, though, in pursuing this strategy and gaining share. I mean, when you look at

the reasons why she feels that GM needs to pursue this, I mean, electricity, she says, simply makes for a better car, represents the future of transportation. They see electric vehicles as a corporate imperative. So that, I think, says a lot right there. That's where they are steering this company. And ultimately, they are looking to provide customers with a wider choice of vehicles. And I think that is something that's really important, because this doesn't strike me, at least in the near term, as like an all or nothing. It's not going to be all EVs and no gas. Maybe years from now, that'll be the case. But I think today, we're looking at some folks want EVs, some want hybrids, some want all gas. And as an automaker, you want to be able

to open yourself up to the widest market possible. And that makes a lot of sense from GM's strategy perspective. You said 27% have a neutral view on Tesla? 27? Either 27 or 24, yeah. Something like that. I want to hang out with them. They sound like some chill people you could talk about movies, sports with. You don't have to bring up politics all the time. Shout out to the Neutral people. I want to chat with you. That's my crew. After you read this story, long form article, a lot about innovation and how they're really working on battery adoption, playing in this EV lane. Did it get you any more interested in General Motors as a stock? Not particularly, but that's not a GM thing. It's just I'm not

really an auto stock guy. I mean, I love my car, but to me, yeah, autos aren't the most exciting market opportunity for me. I've never owned a car stock, and I don't suspect I ever will. A little bit too cyclical for me, Ricky. Fair enough. Let's move on to this last story quickly, which is about Hertz, another kind of an auto stock. It's an auto rental stock, and it has been flying lately, up almost 150%. Tough to tell, given the extreme moves in this stock. And it's on Bill Ackman's hedge fund, buying up about 20% of the company. And that's according to CNBC. There's a lot of forces going against this company where people may not want to be traveling as much. You have international tourism going down. Car rental businesses are

really difficult. There's a lot of debt on Hertz's balance sheet. But what the heck is Ackman seeing here? I think for him, this is where he sees a company that maybe was mispriced. Hertz made a big blunder a few years back when they really went all in on Teslas. They were trying to reshape their vehicle portfolio and really lean into EVs and Teslas in particular. And that just didn't work for a number of reasons. But ultimately, he sees the business recovering from this mistake. He feels like there's a return to what he called rational consumer behavior. They've got new leadership and CEO Gil West, who came on in April of last year. And you mentioned the balance sheet. Yes, it is absolutely highly levered. But that debt is

staggered out pretty nicely over the next several years. So I think that affords the company some financial flexibility. And Ackman likes posting on X. He gives out his thesis. If the price of used cars goes up, that is a big impact for the balance sheet of Hertz, as they would own a lot of used cars. And who knows, maybe if there's self-driving dreams for Uber in the future, here's a fleet of cars that Uber could use. All of this is to say, Ackman says this is a $30 stock. Right now, it's about a $9 stock. Any advice to retail investors that want to tail this acclaimed investor on a turnaround story? So first and foremost, I think it's always worth your while to do your own work and come to your

own decisions. But you said it at the top. I mean, this stock has taken off. It's up a lot in a short period of time. My suspicion is this isn't a company that he plans to hold on to for a long time. It seems more of a value thesis where he sees a short-term catalyst, maybe offering an attractive risk-reward situation. So, if you want to jump in, more power to you. But he's got a big head start. And like you said, the stock has already seen a pretty good bit of price appreciation. Jason Moser, thanks for your time and your insight. Appreciate you being here. Thank you. Choose the coffee you love with added B vitamins, like Coffee Plus B12 to help support immune function and Coffee Plus B6 to keep your day moving.

Or go with the flow and choose Ginseng Delight, our new double espresso with ginseng extract. Whatever lies ahead, don't change your morning. Let your morning change you. Discover Coffee Plus on Nespresso.com. All right. up next, Robert Brokamp answers some of the questions you emailed us about tariffs, 401ks, and backdoor Roths. If you have a question for the show, shoot us an email at podcastsatfool.com. That's podcasts with an S at fool.com.

The first question comes from Fool Up North. I have a basic question about how tariffs work. Let's say U.S. Company A buys widgets from a foreign company, B. Let's also say that Company B charges Company A $100 for the widget. Now, that foreign company has a 10% tariff levied against it, which means that if Company A wants to buy the widget from Company B, they must now pay $110 for it. Who gets the other $10, and what do they do with it? If a branch of the U.S. government receives the $10, then which branch? And what is that money earmarked for it since it's essentially all new revenue that wasn't already planned for a budget somewhere. Bro, this feels like an SAT question, but I'll let you take a crack at it.

Okay. Well, so here's how it works, right? So when an item crosses into the U.S., whether by air, land, or sea, a division of the Department of Homeland Security called U.S. Customs and Border Protection, otherwise known as CBP, classifies the item and assesses any tariffs, although often it's actually classified before it even comes in. It's the importer who classifies it, and then sometimes the CBP checks to make sure they got it right. CBP employs more than 60,000 people to monitor the 320 official ports of entry into the U.S. Classifying the item can be tricky because sometimes something is assembled in one country, but it has parts for many other countries. There's a huge compendium called our Harmonized

tariff schedule that helps with the classification. If it were printed, it would be more than 4,400 pages long. And many, if not most, importers actually hire customs brokers to help with this process of getting stuff into the U.S., properly classifying it, and then paying the relevant tariffs. As our foolish questioner points out, the tariff is paid by the company that imports the goods, which most often is a U.S. company. The foreign company that made the item does not pay the tariff. So, where does the tariff money go? Well, it gets collected by CBP, and then it gets sent to the U.S. Treasury and goes into what's called the general fund, which the Treasury Department actually affectionately calls America's checkbook.

And from there, it could be used in all kinds of ways, such as maybe paying for future tax cuts or supporting companies hurt by tariffs, as happened during the first Trump administration when money was sent to farmers hurt by a drop in trade with China. Basically, the money can be used on pretty much anything. The next question comes from Anonymous. I listen to the Motley Fool podcast every day on the drive to work. Great to hear. I recently switched jobs and encountered the issue of rolling over my 401k. I have a few questions about this. First, my current earnings at my new job put me over the eligible limit to

contribute to a Roth IRA. My financial advisor mentioned doing a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. Can you explain more about what a backdoor Roth is? What do I need to watch out for to make sure I avoid additional taxes. Additionally, I was told I could not do a backdoor Roth IRA as I still had my traditional part of my 401k balance in my account. Is that true? I appreciate when you guys take the time to answer questions from lesser fools. Anonymous, you are not a lesser fool, but we will still answer your question. That is very true. So yes, anonymous congrats on the new job, by the way, and the higher pay. And I just, first of all, I want you to know that you can still contribute to the Roth 401k if available at your new job, because there are no

income restrictions on that. So, yes, if you make too much to contribute directly to a Roth IRA, you might consider doing what's known as the backdoor Roth. And here's how it works. You contribute to a non-deductible traditional IRA, and then very soon after, you convert it to a Roth. And if that's your only traditional IRA, there are really little to no tax consequences, right? Because the money you contributed to the non-deductible traditional IRA was already taxed, and there isn't much time for the IRA to grow very much, so there should not be much in the way of taxable investments, earnings to worry about when you convert. Here's the tricky part. If you have other assets in traditional IRAs, and this includes employer plans that sort of

act like IRAs, like the SEP and the simple plans, then every conversion you make will essentially be considered proportionately made across all your accounts due to something called the pro rata rules. And consequently, some or maybe even most of the conversion will be taxable. I know that's kind of confusing. So let's go over an example. So let's say you already had $63,000 in pre-tax traditional IRAs. Then you made a $7,000 contribution to a non-deductible after-tax traditional IRA. So that brings your total to $70,000. So 10% of your total is after tax, 90% is pre-tax. So if you then do a Roth conversion, even if it's in just one of your many IRAs, 10% will be tax-free, but 90% is taxable.

Now, there's one way to get around this, and that is to roll the money that you have in traditional IRAs into your 401k if your plan allows it, because money in a 401k is not considered when it comes to the pro rata rules for IRA conversions. Now, the pro rata rules can apply to 401ks when converting 401k traditional money to a Roth within the plan, but not when doing the backdoor Roth IRA. As you can tell, this can get very complicated. So speak with your financial advisor about doing this to make sure that actually makes sense for you and that everything is done right. The next question comes from V. Can a parent open Roth IRAs for grandparents with a grandson

as the beneficiary, then use that money to pay for college? I thought the last question was complex, bro, but this one doesn't seem easy either. No, a lot of moving parts with this one. Okay. So let's start with grandparents opening Roth IRAs. They could do it if they have earned income and that is income from a job. So not interest, dividends, capital gains, social security, pension, anything like that. And they have to sign all the documents themselves. I suppose if someone had power of attorney, they could open the accounts for them, but I would check with the IRA provider to find out if that's possible. Now, once the IRA is open, the money can come from anywhere. It doesn't have to come from the grandparents' bank accounts.

As for using it for college, it's possible because contributions to a Roth IRA, not 401k, Roth IRA can be withdrawn taxability-free at any time, and then the money can be used for whatever, including college. Also, a rule unique to IRAs, not 401ks or 403bs, but IRAs, withdrawals from IRAs can be used for qualified higher education expenses for the IRA owner, their spouse, children, or grandchildren. And it would bypass the 10% early distribution penalty if the owner is not yet 59 and a half. But the money still will be taxed if it comes from a traditional IRA. And it might be taxed if it comes from a Roth IRA, depending on how long the account has been open and the age of the owner. So a likely better way to do all of this would be for the grandparents to contribute to a 529 college savings plan. And if they don't have the money, you can give the money to them and then they open the plan. The growth and withdrawals would be tax-free if used for qualified expenses.

And any unused money can be gradually rolled over to a Roth IRA for the grandson. But this is subject to a lot of rules, including the total that is gradually rolled over can't exceed $35,000 and the account has to have been open for at least 15 years. There are plenty of other rules to consider, so understand all of them before trying the rollover to the Roth. But I think most financial planners would recommend the 529 over a grandparent Roth IRA when it comes to saving for college. Is there a general advantage to having a grandparent contribute to a grandchild's 529 plan versus just having the parent do it? Some of this seems like we're just doing this on hard mode. Yes, there actually is. And this is a relatively new development and I'm kind of

surprised at it. I almost feel like it's a loophole that's going to be closed. But when you apply for financial aid, you have to put the child's assets and the parent's assets. You don't have to put the grandparents' assets. So basically, if it's a grandparent-owned 529, it's kind of invisible when it comes to financial aid, which is a nice little benefit. The next question comes from Karen. Is there a book on the origin story of the 401k? I'm curious why pensions disappeared and how we got here with self-funding retirement. Wish we saved more. It's hard. Yeah. So there are a few books, Karen, but I'll instead recommend a podcast episode. It was the December 7th, 2021 episode of Motley Fool Answers, a show that no longer exists, but the episodes

are still available out there. And in that episode, I interviewed Ted Benna, who is the father of the 401k. So here's the short story, right? So Ted Benna was a benefits consultant working for a company outside of Philadelphia. There was a law passed in 1979. He's sitting in his office on a Saturday in 1980, working for a banking client. And this new law allowed for employer contributions to a tax-deferred account. This new law, by the way, was codified in Section 401k of the IRS Code. And he figured the law would allow employees to make pre-tax contributions, and these accounts would be done in such a way that employers could match those contributions. But it wasn't written for that. It was not designed to create a retirement savings plan for the average Joe.

But he thought it could be possible. So, he proposed it to the banking client. The client's said no, they didn't want to be the first company to try this new benefit. So, Benna's Company actually decided to try it. They created the first 401k on January 1st, 1981. Fortunately, for those of us who like 401ks, it was helpful that one of the clients of Benna's Company had a connection to the Reagan administration, who then put Benna in contact with some folks at the Treasury Department, and that helped get Uncle Sam's blessing. It took a few years for the 401k to catch on, but then when it did, it just took off. As for why companies move from traditional defined benefit pensions to defined contribution plans like the 401k. I think it

ultimately comes down to cost and complexity. It's just easier for a company to say, you know what, I'm going to give you a 3%, 4%, 5% match and then be done with it. As opposed to when you have a pension, you're constantly doing calculations about whether there's enough money and you're essentially responsible for the employer till the day they die. And I think it's just easier. They decided that's just too complex. We're just going to give you some money, and then you do with it what you want. I do understand that it's hard to figure all this out. I think most people, once they get to a certain age, wish they had saved more. Karen says that she wished she had saved more. When you look at surveys that ask older Americans

about their financial regrets, in almost every case, the number one or number two response is they wish they had saved more. Karen, you're not alone. I know it's complicated, especially since once we've moved to the 401k system, people have to decide how much to save, how to invest it, how much to withdraw when they retire. Unfortunately, though, the good old days of traditional pensions just aren't coming back. So, I recommend that you just learn as much as you can. And in the meantime, follow some rules of thumb, such as you should be saving probably 15% of your household income for retirement. That includes the match. If you're not yet an experienced investor, start with target date funds as a starting point, which have a prudent mix of

cash, bonds, and stocks based on your age. And then once you retire, I think the old 4% rule is still a good starting point. It's probably too low for most people, but I think it's a good place to start. Companies really like getting long-term liabilities off their balance sheet, bro. Our last question comes from Jonathan. A potential new employer offers a capital accumulation plan. I've never heard of these. They offer an 8% contribution of your pay after the first year. It seems almost too good to be true because I don't need to contribute to get the 8%. Do these function like a retirement account? If I left after a few years, would I be able to roll it over to an IRA or a 401k plan?

For more background information, the organization is a nonprofit which sells life insurance. Yeah, Jonathan, these plans aren't very common, but you're kind of onto something when you say that they really are similar to a 401k, except that the employer makes the contribution often as a profit-sharing arrangement. Each company will have its own criteria, but in some cases, if the firm reaches a certain level of profitability, all eligible employees get money deposited in their accounts. There usually is a vesting schedule. If you leave the company within a certain number of years, you won't be able to take all the money with you. Often, any money that is left behind is often used by the company to cover the cost of administering the plan.

Also, you may see more restrictions on how soon the money can be withdrawn. Like I said, aren't that many of them, but one example of such a plan is the NFL. NFL players have a capital accumulation plan. Their team deposits the money and invests after three seasons. The player determines how it's invested, and they can choose from among several mutual funds, just like a 401k. The way it works now is your first season, the team deposits nothing. Seasons two and three, the team deposits $2,500. But after seasons four or more, they're depositing $40,000 or more each year. So you got to stay in the NFL for a while to really get the benefit. In most situations, they can't withdraw the money before the later of age 40 or five years after a lap since the

player's last full season. And like a 401k or IRA, the money can be rolled over to another plan like an IRA or 401k. Withdrawals will be taxed as ordinary income and withdrawals before age 59 and a half may be penalized. So again, very similar to an IRA or 401k. The NFL's plan is just an example of a capital accumulation plan, definitely dig into the details of your plan. So you know how to make the most of it. Any advice on how to stay in the NFL for more than three seasons, bro? Uh, you know, I'll call up my friend Tom Brady later on and I'll pass along what he says. I'll say stretch. We'll leave it there. Thanks, bro. As always people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about in the Motley Fool may have formal

recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and are not approved by advertisers. The Motley Fool only picks products that we personally recommend to friends like you. I'm Ricky Mulvey. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.