Motley Fool Money - PayPal Looks Beyond Payments

Episode Date: October 29, 2024

It’s not just a payments company. (00:34) Jason Moser and Ricky Mulvey discuss: - PayPal’s move to become a commerce platform, and how it’s impacting the business. - What’s next for Venmo. - McDonald’s traffic problems. Then, (16:35) Robert Brokamp and Motley Fool Senior Analyst Buck Hartzell finish their series on Berkshire Hathaway, and discuss some lesser-known names trying to follow Berkshire’s path. Visit our sponsor at www.landroverusa.com Companies discussed: PYPL, MCD, BRK.A, BRK.B, MRK, OTC: CNSWF Host: Ricky Mulvey Guests: Jason Moser, Robert Brokamp, Buck Hartzell Producer: Mary Long Engineer: Rick Engdahl Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Indeed. Stop waiting around for the perfect candidate. Instead, use Indeed sponsored jobs to find the right people with the right skills fast. It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate C. According to Indeed data, sponsor jobs have four times more applicants than non-sponsored jobs. So go build your dream team today with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsor job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply.

One quarter pounder. Please, you're listening to Motley Full Money. I'm Ricky Mulvey, joined today by award-winning podcaster Jason Moser. Jason, how you doing, man? God, I feel a lot better the way you announced that right there. Award-winning podcaster. I mean, that's, and that's obviously a team effort, but holy cow, that sounds good. Talk about it a little later. You know what we want to talk about up front? The reason you're an award-winning podcasters, you get straight to the facts, Jason, and we got PayPal learnings to talk about. Alex Chris wrapping up his first year on the job,

his fourth quarterly earnings call for those doing fractions in math at home. We can get the immediate reaction to the quarter, which was a little bit negative. But we're long-term investors here. We're long-term focused. What has been your long-term reaction to Mr. Chris's first year on the job heading up PayPal? Yeah, I think that negative reaction today. And it seems to be muted, but I mean, that's just day-to-day stuff. So I don't worry too much about that.

But, I mean, generally speaking, all in all, very positive. I think, I mean, clearly the stock has done very well. It's up around 56% over the last 12 months. It's had a good year thus far. You know, the way we are with the companies that we follow, we're focused less on the stock price and more on the business. And I think in regard to PayPal's business, you look at it, the business fundamentals are all very strong.

All of the key performance indicators, right, those KPIs, they all continue to trend in the right direction. And so when we see that, you can kind of issue the quarter to quarter movements, the daily stock price movements. You know the business is doing the right stuff. And it seems like in this case, PayPal is doing just that. Yeah, I've got some PayPal shares. And when I'm looking through the earnings, when I'm looking through the conference call, I'm liking what I'm seeing. Business is getting more focused.

Sure, it's got a little bit of payment transaction pressure. But it seems like Alex Chris is really right-sizing this business in hitting monetization lever. where it makes sense. Let's get into some of the details. Revenue up 6% from a year ago. It's a little bit lighter than expectations. But hey, the financial modelers, those at home drive in the short-term stock fluctuations, got non-gap earnings guidance. They got a hike in that. They didn't seem to be too pleased. Also, 1,000 merchants taking up Fastlane. This is a rollout from PayPal, which is a one-click payment option that is intended to compete with something like Apple Pay. And Fastlane also getting an interesting partnership with Adyan, who you normally think of as a competitor to PayPal.

And you're also seeing take rate slipping just a scosh, but PayPal is improving its transaction margin, which is how PayPal measures its core profitability. That's still in the 40s. That's a word salad. Jason Moser, what stands out to you? Yeah, I think it's reasonable to expect that take rate to continue to be challenged a little bit sort of incrementally, maybe the cost of moving money. I think just continues to come down. We as consumers, we just don't want to pay a lot for having to send your money wherever it needs to go. But I think, again, when you look at the key performance indicators with this business, they are all moving in the right direction.

You noted some partnerships there. I think that's really something to keep in mind. I mean, partnerships with FISA, and Adion and Amazon, global payments, Shopify, They're actively discussing more collaborations here in the coming quarters. And so that, to me, is really interesting in regard to PayPal because they continue to find new positions in the value chain. And if you've studied the payments industry, you know that value chain, it's very extensive and it's complicated, right? I mean, it's not the easiest thing to understand. And there's a lot of opportunity there.

And PayPal continues to find their way into a lot more parts of that value. chain. But, you know, speaking of key performance indicators, I mean, total active accounts actually increased almost $3 million from the quarter previously to up to $432 million now. And monthly active accounts were up 2% from a year ago. So I think that when you see the way the company continues to sort of focus more on its core business, right? What they really do well, I think, I think that makes a big difference for investors. When you think about, like, you've got the PayPal core business. You've obviously got Venmo, which is very strong, young, but still growing.

Their vision, and I think this is something worth thinking about here, because we think of PayPal as just traditionally a payments company, right? But they are trying to make this shift to becoming more of a commerce platform. And I don't want to get that twisted, right? They're not trying to become Amazon or something like that. But they're just trying to sort of cement their place in the industry as a place where commerce is done. And you consider the fact that total payment volume was up 9% from a year ago. $423 billion went through that network over the last quarter.

That's really impressive. And getting almost 2% of those hundreds of billions of dollars, going through your network, ain't a bad business. The commerce platform that you're talking about, we saw that with Venmo. And what Chris has been saying is, hey, we're not just, this isn't a place just to do a credit card transaction.

We're going to give you a little more data about your consumers. We're going to make it so you can give them special offers to really reduce that cart abandonment. And while I think it's easy to kind of roll your eyes, hey, we're much more than a payments company where a commerce platform, I think the results have been showing it.

Yeah. Let's get to Venmo, because Venmo is going to be, I think, a larger focus in Chris's sophomore year. And there's a couple short-term things. And then he hinted that there's more long-term stuff going on with Venmo. What's been rolled out so far, number one, is Venmo debit cards where people are getting cash back on debit cards. And number two, which seems to be significant, is pay with Venmo checkouts.

This is where they're getting partnerships with companies, including DoorDash and Ticketmaster. First, what do you think of the short-term? plan here to monetize Venmo. Do you like what you're seeing? Well, I do. I mean, I think Venmo for the longest time has just been seen as sort of complementary to the bigger PayPal network. But now what we're seeing is that they are learning how younger consumers in particular are using Venmo. And they're finding ways to capitalize on an opportunity. So, you know, Venmo for the most part, it's just been peer to peer, right? It's a way for you to send money to a friend or that friend to send money to you. But now, you know, that they're looking at other options or other opportunities within the business,

things like the Venmo debit card. The Venmo debit card, for example, the average revenue per account with Venmo debit card is actually 4x, four times that of all other Venmo accounts. And yet only 5% of active Venmo active accounts are monthly active active Venmo debit card users. So that just goes to show you there's this, you know, we talk about this sort of banking relationships, right, in the unbanked, and sort of the new way people are doing their banking. And I think Venmo, PayPal, and other options in the space are absolutely choices consumers can have there, but there are opportunities for companies like PayPal. And so with

Venmo there, I mean, the debit card absolutely seems like an opportunity there. And pay with Venmo users, were actually up 20% for the quarter. And the average revenue per account of those Venmo debit card users is actually 3x, three times of all Venmo accounts. So you look at that, you look at the way they're trying to monetize Venmo. They're trying to monetize Venmo ultimately the same way they've been able to monetize PayPal to this point, but maybe even a little bit further as this payment's landscape continues to evolve.

I mean, long term, I see this turning into a sort of every, I'm going to use the word everything app, but everything finance app. Right now, you can do payments, you can get a debit card, you can buy crypto on there long term. And I know it takes a little bit more time. I ultimately see PayPal maybe moving into a place, maybe more like Robin Hood, where you can buy and sell stocks and investments and ETFs on there as well. It definitely could happen. Now, I will push back a little bit on that. Push back. Well, so you remember Dan Shillman, right?

former CEO of the company. And he had kind of that everything app vision, wanting to be able to do all of your stuff within this one app. But I think there's sort of a line that maybe needs to be drawn, right? And so with PayPal and Venmo, for example, there are certain things that seem very complimentary. And, you know, one of those is commerce. I mean, I don't know about you,

but whenever I log into PayPal or whenever I log into Venmo, I see more and more commerce relationships, deals from retail customers and, you know, the opportunities for advertising and whatnot. I think that's a big deal. I think there's going to be the opportunity there for incremental revenue growth. There are very high margin dollars when it comes to advertising for sure. I look at PayPal. I think, why don't bother with stuff like stock brokerage stuff?

I don't want to buy and sell stocks within the PayPal app. That's not really what I use it for. But giving that functionality with things like crypto, with things like buy now, pay later, makes a lot of sense because that's how people are spending money more and more. And let's not think about this in the context of quarters, but let's think about this in the context of years and perhaps even decades. I mean, you know, 10 years from now, I think we'll probably see more and more things, more and more retail, more more commerce being done through apps like PayPal. And that absolutely is very complimentary with things like advertising. So those are the things I think that make more sense for them to focus on. Don't necessarily have to be in everything app, but they can certainly do a lot of things.

I think we have different friend groups on Venmo. I'm looking through the public transactions right now. J-Mill, I'm like 30 years older than you, Rick. I'm seeing. I'm so late to this. Don't tell Robert. And then also one that just says prison brunch. Let's move on to McDonald's.

The threat of an E. coli output. meeting the promise of a $5 value meal. After an E. Kool-A outbreak, a lot of it in Colorado, visits to McDonald's have dropped 10% nationwide, 30% here in my state. This is sort of happening as earnings are announced, but the foot traffic has not been included in the latest release. This just seems to be another blow to McDonald's, which is already struggling with traffic a bit,

but do you think this is a long-term problem? I don't think it is. I mean, I think it's something that they'll get through. to me, whenever you talk about the restaurant space, it's more a matter of when, not if they go through these types of issues. I mean, that's just the nature of slinging food, right? You're going to have to deal with this kind of stuff. But you have to think beyond that and try to address the question of how will a company handle it.

And I think in this case, with McDonald's, I mean, scale is a big deal here. Now, scale can work both ways, right? I mean, supply chains can be somewhat nebulous at times. You don't quite understand where everything is coming from. But I think in this case, you look at McDonald's, you think, well, okay, it's a big enough company. You have to ask yourself, why is there not a bigger reaction to the downside with something like this? Well, we know it was somewhat limited. They have been able to at least identify the problem.

I think this is one of those situations where we talk a lot of. about AI and the benefits of AI and how companies are utilizing it. And I think restaurant companies are doing a better job of utilizing AI to better understand their supply chains. And I think in McDonald's case, this applies because we've seen where it's not necessarily the beef, perhaps it's just the onions, but when they're able to kind of pinpoint where the actual problems are coming from, then all of a sudden they know how to correct it very quickly. And with McDonald's, I mean, now We've got what the CDC is saying. It's extended to 13 states, something like 75 people.

But yet the CDC says the risk to the public is, and I quote, very low. And so I look at something like McDonald's. They're able to cope with something like this, where if you compare it to something like a Chipotle that went through this back from 2015-2018, a much smaller company, a bit more of a startup, at least in relation to something like a McDonald's. And now they're obviously starting to incorporate a little bit more transparency into their supply chain and exactly where all of this stuff is coming from. I don't know that I necessarily worry about this is a long-term threat.

Again, because of that scale, because of their ability to invest in the business, sort of the forward-thinking, the nature of the business, I mean, they've obviously been investing in technology for a long time. They have a little bit more transparency into this stuff in exactly how to try to sort of cut it off the past, so to speak. It's a big business. Let's focus on it. McDonald's is still having trouble getting customers in the door, and this was before the E. coli outbreak. Traffic declining 1.5% across the world, ticked up in the U.S. a little bit with a lot of the $5 menu offers. And when you hear Chris Kizemski talking about it in the conference call, there's a lot of blame on the macro, people eating at home, things hitting their lower income consumers. But for this traffic decline, is the macro the biggest culprit here? Did McDonald's also? so, you know, do some things with pricing to themselves. Well, I think the macro is definitely a question. I mean, that's definitely a concern, but it's not a McDonald's specific issue.

And I think that's why McDonald's investors should feel okay about this. I mean, value has been the underlying narrative for most of these companies, even companies in, you know, McDonald's market. But the nice news, the good news is that for a company like McDonald's, you know, that quick service restaurant space, I mean, value is their sweet spot. So I don't know that it's something that I view is really a long-term issue. I think that it's something they're more or less going to have to deal with for the short-term. But I think what will be very interesting to see in regard to things like traffic numbers in the value narrative,

we've got Chipotle reporting numbers later this afternoon after the market closes. I'll be very fascinated to see what those numbers look like in regard to traffic and transaction. And even more so, you know, the ticket size, right? I mean, that's ultimately what we're getting at. They're a little bit different markets, but they're still kind of the same, right? It's all kind of fast food at the end of the day. But that's something that McDonald's can really utilize is that value lever, and I suspect they'll continue to do that.

And the CFO, careful to point out that the $5 value meals are profitable for the franchisees. You know, before we go, Jason, I want to say thank you to you, and I want to say thank you to the listeners. We found out this morning that Motley Full Money has won. the Listeners Choice Award and the Gold Award for Best Money and Finance Podcast in the Signal Awards, taken down two of them. And in the judging category, going up against some big dogs from large financial publications. It's good to take home a win. And Jason, I want to thank you for being a part of it. And I want to thank our listeners for helping us get there. Well, thank you, Ricky. It's always

nice to get a win. And I feel like we've been at this for a while. And hopefully the listeners continue to get a lot of value of out of what we continue to offer. All right, up next, Motley Full Senior Analyst, Buck Hartswell, finishes off his series on Berkshire Hathaway with Robert Brokamp. This time they look at the cultural advantages that Berkshire has and a couple of companies that share some striking similarities. What does leadership really look like? On the power of advice, a new podcast series from Capital Group,

you'll hear from athletes, entrepreneurs, and executives who've led on the field in the boardroom and in their communities. It's not about titles. It's about impact. Discover what drives them and the advice they carry forward. Subscribe and start listening today. Published by Capital Client Group, Inc. So let's start with discussing what you think makes Berkshire as a company,

maybe some cultural aspects that make it so unique. Sure. There's lots of things that have helped make Berkshire successful over five plus decades now. But I think it's important to point out some cultural things first. So I'd say, first of all, it's built on a way. Web of Trust, right, from the company. So there's a lot of trust at the corporate end where Warren Buffett and his kind of 25 other people sit.

And then all those companies that sit below them, there's a lot of trust in freedom that's given to all those companies that run underneath Berkshire Hathaway. So that's the first thing. I'd say a web of trust is kind of unique in the corporate world. The other thing I'd say is they've treated shareholders very much like partners. And Berkshire was originally founded as a partnership. So that kind of makes sense. And Warren Buffett himself is an owner operator, right?

He's the largest shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway. He's given away tens of billions of dollars, but he's still the largest shareholder in the company. And he treats all those passive shareholders like us as partners. And that's kind of unique. And then the last thing I'd say is it's a very unique corporate structure that's driven immense value for shareholders and Warren Buffett himself. And we'll talk more about that, I think, as we get into things. Yeah. So that's sort of like an umbrella way to look at it.

What makes it special. Let's take a little bit more into the unique operating models. You find that there are three things in particular that you'd like to highlight. Yes. And when you look at other companies around the world, it's rare to find all three of these things. And let's just jump into it. I'd say the first thing is extremely decentralized operations. I mean, to a fault.

And to give some context for that, Berkshire has, at last count, and I looked it up, 396,500 employees. Almost 400,000 people work across all the entities within Berkshire Hathaway, but there's only 26 people that reside in the headquarters, right? So they have duplicate finance, HR, accounting, all these different functions within the 80 or 90 wholly owned businesses of Berkshire Hathaway. And so all these companies run independently. And that's really unique. Usually, you know, Robert, when we see an acquisition,

the big guy that acquires them wants to come in and they'll get rid of all the other people and consolidate things. And that's not what Berkshire does. They want them to run independently, right? And I'd say even within that structure, the decentralized part, there are some people in executives that talk to Warren Buffett almost daily. Ajit Jane, who runs their insurance operations is one that him and Warren Buffett talked regularly throughout many years. And then there are some CEOs that never choose to talk to Warren, maybe once a year or maybe less. And he's okay with that as long as they're doing great. So that's the first part of it, extremely decentralized operations across this huge

entity. But the second part is, so there's this decentralized operations, but centralized capital allocation. Yes, yes. And so here's the thing. If you have a really profitable enterprise and you're making lots of money, I think the first, you know, the goal for Warren would be like reinvest that money and earn me great returns. But there are some businesses, and we talked about those in a business. previous episode like Seas Candy, they can't reinvest all those profits. So what he says is

send that money back to us at HQ and there's four of us now that'll take care of that problem for you. We'll reinvest that capital and earn good returns onto it. Obviously Warren Buffett is one of those people. Greg Abel, who will be the next CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and assume all those kind of oversight of capital allocation duties is the second one. He came out of Mid-American Energy and runs their utility businesses. And then the two other people that most invest in stocks or Todd Combs and Ted Weschler, though Todd also runs Geico now. So those are four people so all those entities can send back their excess capital if they can't reinvest it and earn high returns. And those four people will allocate it. And then the final thing is the three-legged

stool. Yes, yes. So this is important, right? This is what has helped Berkshire become so resilient through good times and bad times. And there's three parts of their stool. The first part I would say as the insurance companies started with national indemnity. That provides float and profits that Warren Buffett can reinvest. As long as they underwrite profitably, there's excess earnings there, and he can invest that money in anything he wants. Turns out, one of the things that he reinvest those profits in is buying whole businesses. Those are companies like Seas or Brooks or flight safety.

There's a whole bunch of 90-some companies in there. Marmon is another one. They buy whole businesses. Those businesses, in turn, provide, a solid state of free cash flow to Berkshire Hathaway that's not correlated with insurance or catastrophes or weather or hurricanes or any of that stuff. They're just money coming into the coffers. And then the third leg of the stool is they buy publicly traded stocks.

Obviously Apple is their largest position now, but he's had a long history of performing really well with buying stocks. So those three legs, the insurance business, non-insurance businesses they buy the whole companies of, and then a large portfolio of equities. So you mentioned, Berkshire's been around for a long time. Warren Buffett is now well into his 90s. So people listening to this might think, well, I've missed out. I should have bought Berkshire a long time ago.

But there's good news because there are other companies that do something somewhat similar, in some cases very similar to Berkshire, but also do some things different that might be worth considering. So we're going to talk about some other companies. Number one company, we're going to go to the Great White North looking at Constellation Software. Tell us about that company. Yeah, so Constellation Software. Most Americans have never heard of Constellation, even Canadians.

It's a Canadian company. It's run by Mark Leonard, who's a wonderful owner-operator, and Constellation has earned about 30% a year for its shareholders since its founding. And the really amazing thing is, even as its size now, it's about a $66 billion U.S. market cap company. It's still growing at about 30% rate, which is pretty remarkable. And I call it the best company that no one's ever heard of, despite its size and everything else.

And so a couple of things unique about it. First of all, it is Canadian. So it trades on the TSX, ticker is CSU there. Or for U.S. investors, you can buy it over the counter on the OTC, and it's CNSW. Dot F. And one kind of trick, I think, for some of these companies, and it's not different than Berkshire Hathaway is they have a high share price. I don't mean a high multiple to earnings or book value or anything like that.

This one does because it's a great company. But the actual, to buy a share is expensive, Robert. I mean, so if you're buying on a TSX, we're talking about $4,300 Canadian or in the U.S. about $3,100 just to buy one share. And I'll tell you a little secret. Companies that have high share prices tend to perform very well. Which people would find surprising. Yes, because, you know, if you ask most people, they'd rather buy $100,000.

shares at $10 and $1,000 share, you know, one share for $1,000. But it turns out that high-priced stocks tend to outperform. So that's a good kind of lesson right there. It is a founder-run operation, and it's a serial acquire of really small vertical market software companies. What this means is mission-critical software companies, typically their acquisition sizes are $5 to $50 million. So these are really small, and they've done a ton of them.

And there's a huge advantage here. Usually as companies grow, they want to make bigger and bigger and bigger acquisitions because it takes a bigger company to move the needle. Well, what happens when you do that is you tend to pay a higher multiple. When you buy smaller companies, you can pay less. And they've done over a thousand acquisitions in their history. And what that means is if they're buying one company a thousand times, they've optimized their acquisition engine to an incredible degree.

They are unbelievably efficient and great at, identifying, acquiring, and integrating these companies just to provide vertical market software. So that's great. But there are some things that they've gotten from Berkshire Hathaway that I think have made them great. They are an owner operator model. Mark Leonard is the owner operator in this case. They have decentralized operations. We're talking a thousand acquisitions, Robert. They kind of group them in areas, but for the most part, these companies are very decentralized. And they do have centralized capital allocation oversight. All right. It's a lot. It's not as centralizes Berkshire Hathaway or send us up all the money and everything else,

but it is centralized oversight. So if you want to acquire a company of any size and you're one of their kind of subsidiary businesses, it has to get approved by the board at Constellation. But there are some things that are different at Constellation. First of all, it's a lot smaller than Berkshire Hathaway. It's about 7% the size of Berkshire Hathaway. So it's got room to grow yet. The other thing is they've started to push capital allocation down in the company, right? Instead of just having people at corporate do all that, they're encouraging and training people throughout the company to smartly make their capital allocation decisions instead of it having to be done at the top. They've also spun off companies where Berkshire likes to be run as a conglomerate and there's some tax advantages from sharing money and profits between those businesses. They're actually pushing some of their companies out to be public on their own.

And they think in that way they can be more focused on what they do. They can provide stock and incentives and those types of things just on how that business does instead of having be part of an umbrella of many different companies. So that's something that's different. And then the other thing I'd say is their subsidiaries share a lot more information than a lot of the Berkshire companies do. So they get together in an organized way and say, hey, what's really working for you and what can we learn from you? And they share information a lot greater than I think happens at Berkshire Hathaway. very interesting that's return to the u.s to a company founded in 1930 but first became publicly traded in 1986 and that is markell yeah this is a little company down in richmond virginia uh it's another

company with a high stock price it's about 1500 dollars right now um the market cap's about 20 billion so it's about only 2% of the size of berkshire hathaway so a lot of room to grow there's a lot of deals that Markell can do that Berkshire couldn't because it just wouldn't move the needle for them. The other thing that we've seen happen recently there is they've transitioned leadership. So this has been a Markell. It's been in the Markell family and run by them. But Tom Gaynor now, their longtime chief investment officer, and he was a co-CEO a couple years ago. Now he's solely the sole CEO of Berkshire Hathaway or Markell, sorry, 3, 2, 1.

The other thing we can see is Tom Gaynor, who was their longtime chief investment officer at Markell, is now their sole CEO and chief capital allocator there at Markell. And so this company, they borrowed blatantly from Berkshire Hathaway. This is the one that we'll see as closely mirrors the three-legged stool that we see at Berkshire. So they have the same stools. They have an insurance business, it's specialty insurance, that struggled a little bit over the last few years. And they're kind of making some changes to that and fixing it.

But over a long period of time, Markell has earned consistent profits off of their insurance businesses and generated float. They also own a ventures business, which buys whole companies that are non-insurance-related. So they own one of the largest crane providers. They own the biggest maker of plants, household plants that are sold in the United States. They own the company that makes the buns, the equipment that makes the buns for the McDonald's Big Mac. So that's AMF bakeries, which is also in Richmond. So they own a weird conglomeration of companies that are non-insurance-related.

And so we've seen recently they bought back their own stock. This is something that Berkshire Hathaway has done as of late. They've slowed down recently at Berkshire. But Markell, insiders have been buying, and they've ramped up their buybacks as the multiple in this stock has gone down. Currently, Markele trades at about 1.3 times book value. And that's less than Berkshire. Berkshire trades at about 1.65 and obviously a much bigger company.

So you're getting a little bit of a discount here for Mark Al as your company. I think over time should be able to grow faster. And Tom Gaynor, who's their sole CEO, is also the chief capital allocator. He has a long history of beating the market when he buys publicly traded stocks as part of that. So what's different from Berkshire Hathaway there? I'd say their ventures acquisitions aren't as extremely decentralized as Berkshire Hathaway. There is a group that oversees all of them. They report up to Tom Gainer, but they get more coordinated oversight than Berkshire Hathaway provides to the companies they acquire.

And I'd say as much of an owner-operator model where Warren Buffett owns about a third of Berkshire Hathaway. Tom Gainer doesn't own as much, although he's been buying more. And I think most of his net worth is tied up in Markell shares. It's not as much insider ownership as you see at Berkshire Hathaway. As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about. The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell anything based solely on what you hear. I'm Ricky Malvey. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.