What do ETFs that rebalance get right...and wrong? And do you buy now, and pay later? In this podcast, Motley Fool co-founder David Gardner is joined by fellow Fools Andy Cross and Robert Brokamp to tackle these questions, and more. It's our April Mailbag!
To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. To get started investing, check out our quick-start guide to investing in stocks. A full transcript follows the video.
What stocks should you add to your retirement portfolio?
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years, potentially setting you up for a more prosperous retirement.
Consider when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $740,690!*
Stock Advisor provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month. The Stock Advisor service has more than quadrupled the return of S&P 500 since 2002*.
This video was recorded on April 24, 2024.
David Gardner: It's April, a month of optimism, a month of storytelling on this podcast and yep, it's Shakespeare's month too. It's also your mailbag this week. It's the final Wednesday of April. I'm looking forward to tackling questions as diverse as should I have gold in my portfolio to what about those ETFs that rebalanced quarterly? We're also going to talk about buy now, pay later, casinos, and I'm going to close out two five-stock samplers, all that and more only on this week's Rule Breaker Investing.
Welcome back to Rule Breaker Investing. I had a lot of fun this month on this podcast. I hope you did too. We started off with a shot of espresso and espresso shot of optimism from my friend and I hope now yours. Bill Burke. He will join me to talk on the subject. He is of course the founder of the Optimism Institute and the host of the Blue Sky podcast. We had some Blue Sky in Fooldom early this month. Then it was telling their stories. I invited Bill Burke and Robert Brokamp too longtime Fools to come on and tell their stories where they're from.
What about the stock graph of their lives? What does that look like? What were the three key moments that for both of them respectively made them into the investors they are today that was sports, family, and finance telling their stories. Volumes 6, our long-running series where I talked to some of our favorite Fools. Then last week, the 18th episode of Great Quotes, we've five more for you this time, in keeping with April, Shakespeare's month, it was all Shakespeare all the time as you like it, my favorite of Shakespeare's plays, five great quotes, making you smarter, happier, and richer from the Bard himself. This wasn't about literature though.
This is about money, finance, business life. That's what this podcast centers on. Although admittedly, sometimes we leave the reservation briefly, especially for Shakespeare from whom we take our name at the Motley Fool, in fact, from the play as you like it. That is the April that was, let's open up Hot-takes as I always do with tweets. That's right. I still say Twitter and tweets from Twitter because I know a lot of people are starting to call it acts and I'm OK with that. But what do you do when you tweet? Do you exit? It doesn't make any sense to me, so I'm sticking with Twitter. Here are some of my favorite tweets from the month that has been the first from Bill Burke himself again, my first week guests, that was a fun interview.
Bill tweeted out as I knew it would be, and David shamed me into finally changing my Twitter slash X handle. I was just trying to give Bill a little publicity there that first week by reading out as I often do, how you can find them on X slash Twitter. It was something like at WA Burke and I'm making up the number 6209 and I read it out loud on the podcasts and we briefly smiled about that. He said his kids have been tweaking them about that, and sure enough, Bill, all of a sudden is now at Burke with an e on the end at Burke optimist.
Bill I did not intend to shame you, but I think good things came from our conversation. Another tweet, this one on the subject of the same podcast, Craig Hawkins at Craig's brain, wrote, "Thank you so much at DavidGFool for entertaining my question on the podcast about optimism in difficult circumstances," Craig went on, "At Burke optimist ended his answer with the question, what's the alternative?" In my case, Craig rights, I'm often tempted to the alternative of self-pity. It promises is sense of comfort, but it just leaves one empty. For me an optimistic mindset takes constant effort, but putting in that work makes all other burdens easier to shoulder.
Thanks again. Well, thank you, Craig, for that note. Two more, both on the subject of telling their stories with Bro and Bill at Jason_ Trice, awesome episode, and two more amazing Fools. I was familiar with both Bro and Bill but came away with a new appreciation for both after hearing their stories. I'm already looking forward to volumes 7. At Fergus Colin have enjoyed this series and this episode. Fergus writes was especially good. Appreciate how Bro's family history shaped his caution and tendency to his word, awful lies. Bill made me think, of course, re subbing stats for calculus, Bhullar, Bhullar, by the way, I think that's a Yale reference.
Both sound like folks. Fergus concludes you'd be glad to have as neighbors. I can certainly back that went up Fergus now I've never lived near Bro or Bill. I would think they're pretty good neighbors. I have to admit I don't even talk to my neighbors that much. That's something we don't do as much in the United States. I understand many other countries are much more neighborly than we sometimes are here in the good old USA. But I'll say this, they've been fantastic employees.
Great folks you'd be glad to have as employees for 20 years plus. In both cases, what a delight it was to have them tell their stories. Seven Mailbag items for this the 102nd Rule Breaker Investing Mailbag. Let's get started with Mailbag item Number 1, hey, David, didn't you mean to say a couple of more things about Shakespeare in last week's great quotes? This one is just signed in quotes. David. Oh my gosh. That's because it's me.
It's me writing myself for Mailbag item Number 1 because there were indeed a few more things I wanted to convey in last week's Craig quotes that I forgot to, so here we are, mailbag item Number 1. The first thing I wanted to mention was the timing of it. Shakespeare was reputed both to have been born and to have died on the same day. My wife asked me earlier today, how many people does that happen too? I said I don't know, maybe about one and 365 or so. She said it's probably more often than that though there's something about that.
She might be right. As you like it, which was the title of last week's podcast, was timed up very specifically with April 23rd, which is the day we're recording this Mailbag on because it is known as, as I mentioned earlier, Shakespeare's birthday and his death day. We know for sure Shakespeare was baptized on May 26th of 1564. Tradition held it back then that they would typically baptize infants just a few days after they were born. We tend to say Shakespeare's birthday was April 23rd. Now, we know for sure he died on April 23rd. It was 52 years later.
That's right. Shakespeare lived. What have you done in near years? He lived just 52 years. The year was 1616, and he had signed his last will just a few months beforehand where he noted he was perfectly healthy. He just happens to have done as a state back then, so we're not exactly sure how and why he died. There's speculation. He may have gone out drinking and caught a fever. There are various stories there, but I just wanted to mention that the very specific timing of Great Quotes, Volume 18 was to celebrate William Shakespeare his birthday and his death day, which we celebrate on this day as we record, April 23rd, 2024.
I guess Bill, it's your 460th birthday. Happy birthday. I also want to mention before we move onto Mailbag item Number 2, that my final quote from last week was, of course, a Fool, a Fool. I met a fool of the foolest, a Motley Fool. I mentioned at the end of last week's podcasts, that is the exact line I was reading in the Penguin Book of Quotations when I was like, "Hey, that's what we should call our newsletter, will be The Motley Fool before we ever thought we'd be a company, etc." But I neglected to mention that was the only quote I've ever used, reused on the Great Quotes series.
If you go back to volume 6 years ago, I did that very same quote than I haven't gone back to listen to that and what I said, it's probably somewhat similar. I don't repeat. I make a real point of not repeating one great quote from one episode of the next, or just about anything else on this podcast generally. But that is one that I did. Just noting that in passing. Onto Rule Breaker Investing Mailbag item Number 2. Oh my gosh. Is it not just the Chief Investment Officer of The Motley Fool, but the world champion of the Market Cap Game Show. Is it Andy Cross joining me for a couple of mailbag items this week, Andy, welcome.
Andy Cross: David. It's great to be back after, after my close victory in the game against Bill. I'm happy to be here. Thanks for having me.
David Gardner: Does the world feel different to you in any way now?
Andy Cross: I would say maybe a little bit. I why walk around a little bit with a little bit of a lighter step.
David Gardner: I saw you walking recently it almost looked like you weren't quite touching the ground as you were walking.
Andy Cross: Floating a little bit. Exactly. That's the way I roll right now.
David Gardner: Well, let's get down not just to earth, but let's go underground for this mailbag item, Andy, for reasons you will understand immediately, Dave writes Robert school yet writing in from jacket, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Andy, where are you from?
Andy Cross: I'm from Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
David Gardner: Andy, where is my father's family from and still living?
Andy Cross: Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
David Gardner: Oh my gosh, let's do it.
Andy Cross: Coincidences David, coincidences.
David Gardner: I love it. Robert Scalia writes. Dave, thank you for all the podcasts over the years you've amused and enrich me both financially and mentally well, thank you very much, Robert. We really appreciate that. You've had my letter on your show a few times in the past. I hope you'll answer this one. What's the role? Robert writes? This is why I'm having Andy on. Robert writes, what is the role of gold in a portfolio? Would you recommend it? Now, he goes on a little bit more here. Andy, I've heard advice from another podcast. It's an insurance vehicle, just like all insurance, it's a product you buy. You hope you never have to use it. You'll never purposely crash your car to use your auto insurance or burn down your house for your homeowner's insurance. At least most people wouldn't, I think but Robert goes on, you paid for them just in case I feel gold could be the same. I never hope for some financial crash, but just in case it would be nice to have insurance. Now I know you generally stay at a politics. You're right. We're going do that here, Robert. But with our national debt going up a trillion dollars every hundred days, I don't think our economy is going to be as stable in the future. I can't say how far it could be measured in months, years, or decades. But eventually, Andy, this goes a little bit less, goes deeper, eventually, all great civilizations are no longer great. The nice thing about gold is it can be converted to any currency. If the US Dollar does collapse or we see hyperinflation, it can be converted to a more stable currency if ever needed. What is your opinion on gold? Now, Andy, I don't own any gold. At least there might be a little jewelry here or there, but this is not a meaningful holding for me. It never has been. I've generally listened to people like Jeremy Siegel who in stock for the long run points out that gold for a couple of hundred years really hasn't had a meaningful return.
David Gardner: Gold does seem increasingly of interest to people right now, Andy. Do you pick up the same vibe?
Andy Cross: I sure do, David. When you think about how gold has performed, I think it's natural that someone like Robert, my fellow Red Rose City citizen, may be curious about how gold can help support a portfolio. I think it's a natural question, Robert. I don't think it's quite like insurance because gold can go down. It's right now at about $2,300 per ounce. It can definitely go down and it can be volatile. But I think some people consider it a little bit of a difference than a counter to stocks or to other fiat currencies like the dollar because of some of the issues or reasons that Robert laid out. However, David, when you buy an ounce of gold, and by the way, you can buy gold now at Costco and it's quite a hot seller at Costco, if you've been to a Costco recently.
David Gardner: I don't go into Costco. I never really shop but I hear great things about it.
Andy Cross: Well, it's a great store and it's been a great winning stock. Frankly, I would probably want to own a little bit more of Costco rather than a little bit of gold. Gold doesn't pay anything, David. It is the great psychological safety net that investors consider. It doesn't pay out dividends. Warren Buffett, just for a few seconds, if I can go into this, has a wonderful quote that says, if you bought and owned all the gold that was mined in all of the world over all the time, over all of the years.
Right now that'd be worth, I'm paraphrasing, but in today's dollars, that would be worth about $18 trillion. He goes on to say, what you could buy for 18 trillion. $18 trillion, David, you could buy all of the MAG7 and still have about five trillion dollars leftover in your pocket to buy a baseball team, whatever you want to do, you'd have five trillion leftover. What would you rather own? The MAG7 companies for the next 10-15 years? Or would you really own a big cubic 67-foot by 67-foot by 67-foot cube of gold? The gold doesn't pay you anything.
It's a psychological safety net. The Fool as far as I know, I don't think we've ever really recommended gold. We prefer to focus on stocks because stocks pay dividends, they pay cash flow, they generate cash flows and they generate hefty returns for members over time and for investors over time. I think people might think they can be a good psychological safety net right now with stocks but overall, it's just not a great place we think for investors who are focused on businesses. If you want to own a tiny bit of it, I guess there's no harm in that. But do know that it can go down in price. Doesn't always just go up.
David Gardner: He does point out that, and I assume this is accurate, over the last 20 years, it's beaten the S&P 500, so it's worth noting, at least those are Robert's numbers. I admit, because this is not a topic of great interest to me or maybe Rule Breaker Investing. That's why I wanted to have our Chief Investment Officer on and certainly across Fooldom. At fool.com, we have more articles and more in-depth that you'll get on the subject and history of gold as an investment. I also mentioned Stocks for the Long Run by Jeremy Siegel. A great book.
That's where I learned, while gold may not really go down that much and it's an inflation hedge, it doesn't really go up very much over the course of time, which is what I want my investments to do. The idea of it being an insurance policy, especially against high inflation or fiscal irresponsibility on the part of our nation or any other, I can see that up to a point. I just don't focus much of my time there. Andy, in conclusion, we're not saying Robert, you made a mistake. We're not saying this won't be recurring of interest to people at different points throughout history as it has been. But we are saying, I think Andy agrees. I am, you're agreeing, right?
Andy Cross: I am.
David Gardner: We're investors. By definition, we're invested over long periods of time with your capital, the Cross Family Capital and the Gardner Family Capital, both of which tie to Lancaster, Pennsylvania. But we don't actually want much of that capital that don't add value to our society in more evident ways that lead to, I think, escalating returns. Is that fair?
Andy Cross: I think that's right, David. Robert says a certain percent could be useful. I think allocation strategies about gold, maybe that would work. But overall, I think the focus really needs to be continued. In my view and I think The Motley Fool's view, continues to be focused on great businesses for the long term.
David Gardner: Thank you for that and thank you Robert [inaudible]. I do want to say as we move on to Rule Breaker Mailbag, Item No. 3, that there are many different types of investors listening to us right now. My real focus is, of course, on Rule Breaker Investing, Rule Breaker stocks and the traits and habits that we build up as Rule Breaker investors. That is just one form of investing. The Motley Fool is very Motley. There are people on our staff who love gold, there are people who write articles in favor or against gold on our website. We encourage people to choose their own adventure actually as investors.
Your mileage may vary, Robert and a lot of older people listening, you remember times where gold was a good hedge and if you've got some in your portfolio, I'm not saying no. But since you're asking me, I'm not interested. Onto Rule Breaker Mailbag, Item No. 3, this one from Brian Lamaro. Brian lists himself as a Motley Fool member since 2016, tapping in from Petaluma, California. Thank you, Brian. Hi, Rule Breakers. I had a question about a Rule Breaker recommendation from a few months ago, it's a biotech ETF from Standard and Poor's. This biotech ETF has an equal-weight strategy, writes Brian. The question, Andy, is more about how equal-weight ETFs work in general, in principle, especially in light of what we like at The Motley Fool.
This isn't really, Brian says, about the biotech industry, now, he says, while some people aren't going to like ETFs at all or may not like The Motley Fool necessary recommending ETFs because they think about us thinking about stocks most of the time, which certainly has been true of you and me, Andy. He does point out that recommending a portfolio of biotech companies can make sense for a lot of investors to get an ETF, to get a basket, Andy, of biotech companies.
But then he goes on, doesn't that mean that when they rebalance that fund every quarter to reach a goal of an equal weight fund, that would be, Andy, when all positions have an equivalent dollar value? Brian asks, doesn't that mean that in effect, you're not letting your winners run? You're cutting the flowers and watering the weeds if every quarter or so you're selling down the ones that have gone up and reinvesting in the ones that haven't done so well. That is the heart and soul of Brian's question. Andy, what comes to mind when we talk about rebalancing in ETFs?
Andy Cross: David, ETFs, mutual funds, they operate by very strict rules on how they allocate their capital. In this case, for actively managed funds that are rebalancing every quarter, which as you mentioned, at the end of the quarter, beginning next quarter, they do selling and buying to match up the stocks and the positions. They have to do that so they will have to sell down some stocks that have become overweight in that quarter and buy ones that have become less weight in the quarter.
Historically for us, we find the advantages of the individual investor to let your winners run. When we look at all of our data and it's not just The Motley Fool, I think there are many investors I respect who talk about this. Just thinking about the performance of their portfolios. Letting those companies that are compounding returns for your portfolio and continue to compound portfolios, those compounding effects have really big lollapalooza effects on our portfolio when you get it right. We want to encourage people to buy and hold those great companies that compound that. If you sell, you ruin that compounding effect.
Now, the ETF strategy, there's some risk to that, David, because the balancing of a portfolio gets a little bit out of center of what somebody may expect if a stock position becomes too high in their portfolio and their actively managed ETF, in this case, doesn't do that so they keep that balance as they go. Hopefully, the boats all rise over time and the ETF overall does well enough overtime to account for that buying and selling.
David Gardner: While I don't exactly know what ETF he's referring to because I'm not sure what was recommended. I will say that in general, I understand why people might prefer for biotech or an industry like it, where it's more opaque and there might be fewer winners and a lot more losers. You feel more diversified when you buy into an ETF. But I do agree with Brian's supposition and I agree with your response, Andy, that in general, that is why we prefer to invest directly into individual stocks so you can allow them to grow up and win in your portfolio, it does seem inevitable then that if an ETF is focusing on a sector and trying to be equal weight, it will continually sell-off the ones that have gone up in order to buy the ones that go down.
Now I guess the hope is that the ones that go down are coming back anyway and so you're getting a good deal on them. In the end, you can see from any ETF via Morningstar or other resources. I think the Fool probably has some help here too. You can see how a given fund has performed over time so it doesn't have to be a mystery. Of course, we can only look backwards and see how they've done. We can't necessarily know going forward. I do notice that coming on board for Rule Breaker Mailbag, Item No. 4 is my friend and yours, Robert Brokamp. Robert here to talk about something else. But Robert, since you're hopping in at this timely moment, we're talking about ETFs. What are we missing? What do you want to say to Brian that we may not already be speaking to?
Robert Brokamp: Well, I think a lot of people choose ETFs because they want exposure to some segment of the market. It might be an industry, it might be a sector, it might be a type of stock that has certain risk and return characteristics. But they don't want to spend time sorting through the stocks, choosing the winners or the losers, staying on top of the research, whatever it may be. They just want exposure to that type of investment strategy, in this case, biotech.
The reason the ETF will do some rebalancing quarterly or annually and all ETFs will probably do at least annually, is that if you don't do that, the ETF will become gradually dominated by one to two to three companies. If you're an investor and you look at that ETF and look, why would I buy that ETF? Why shouldn't I just buy these companies themselves? Why should I pay an ETF company an annual fee to own an ETF that's dominated by three individual stocks? I think there is an investment perspective. I really want this exposure to this industry, not to just the two or three biggest players but there's also a business perspective like, we don't want to be just these two or three stocks wrapped in an ETF wrapper.
David Gardner: Really well said. I guess in conclusion, we can say Brian, that we generally agree with your intuition about these things. Do remember that not every investment makes sense for every person. In this case, it sounds like Rule Breakers members might benefit or appreciate that recommendation because while they may or may not end up owning lots of the biggest winners, biotechnology is a field as interesting enough with enough dynamism impossibility that it probably, well let's hope so anyway, is a good investment over the course of the future and for a lot of people, they may not have invested at all, Robert and Andy because they would have not wanted any biotech.
They don't feel they know it well enough with a single ticker, a few tickers in their portfolio companies they may have a hard time following. I can see why the team may have recommended this and why this can still be a good investment, even if it doesn't capture the top performance of the top stocks fully. Well Andy, always great to see you. Thanks for joining us for this April Mailbag. Happy spring, happy Shakespeare's birthday.
Andy Cross: Happy Shakespeare's birthday, David, thank you. Thanks for having me. It's always a pleasure to be here on the podcast and especially answering some Mailbag questions. Thanks so much.
David Gardner: Great job and fool-on. Well, I'm about to head to number four, but Robert, you're raising your hand. You want to add something to our ETF discussion?
Robert Brokamp: I will just point out that our buy-and-hold strategy, if you own an individual stock for years, if not decades, and it's in a taxable brokerage account, does a very tax efficient way of investing. These ETFs whenever they're buying and selling, they're creating taxable events. Now they tried to offset the gains and the losses. They can do some tax loss harvesting themselves, but if you're holding ETFs like this, especially if they're doing quarterly rebalancing, they could be rather tax inefficient, set something to pay attention to and if it is tax-inefficient, but you still like it, then you might want to keep it in an IRA or your 401(k).
David Gardner: Really appreciate that important point. You're reminding me one of your heroes one of mine too. Robert, that will be John Bogle, the founder of Vanguard. He really went after his own industry, the mutual fund industry for not sufficiently transparently reporting the actual returns that you would get from holding managed funds over long periods of time. You and I both know that indexing is more efficient for the most part than manage mutual funds but you would see a return. Bogle would say, it might say it's up 8.2% a year, but they're not actually factoring in the tax that you have to pay as an investor and if there's a lot of buying and selling in an ETF or an index fund, all of a sudden what looked like an 8.2% return is not over time. Bogle would really went after that as the firebrand that he occasionally would be.
Robert Brokamp: It's really surprising because you get this tax bill at the end of the year, even though you didn't sell the shares. You bought and hold those shares for the long term, but you get a tax bill every year based on the capital gains distributions. You can find out how tax efficient your fund or ETF is by going to Morningstar and they'll have something called the tax efficiency ratio or something like that, or the pre tax and after tax return and you compare that and just look. If you're looking at a fund that is rather tax inefficient, again, put it in a tax advantaged account.
David Gardner: Love it. Such an important point. We probably don't make it enough on Rule Breaker Investing, but that's because we tend to talk more about stocks anyway. But let's not talk about stocks. Once again, as we go to Rule Breaker Mailbag item number four, we can break our own rules on this podcast. I think we're speaking to really relevant things though that aren't always about stocks, but they are about money and that's where Jam is headed with Rule Breaker Mailbag item Number 4. Robert, she starts, "Here's a dark cloud I can't see through.
Credit card debt and the buy-now, pay-later system." Of course, BNPL is the acronym which we may rock a little bit to save breath. "While these businesses" Jam goes on, "thrive with e-commerce growth, their success masks potential risk to their clients. Credit card debt has surged from $240 billion, that's about a quarter of a trillion 25 years ago to over one trillion dollars today, raising concerns about the systemic stability reminiscent of our 2008-09 financial crisis. Many" Jam goes on, "including financially savvy people I know carry high interest credit card debt thinking it benefits their credit scores despite the financial drawbacks.
Now BNPL, buy-now, pay-later is increasingly embedded in transactions that offers people what can sometimes be deceptive affordability leaving people to overextend financially and are not." Jam mentions, "Hey, you could get this for $30 now, or you could get it for six installments of $5 each that may have additional fees, even sometimes interests tied to those, Robert, as an example." She goes on "Unlike tobacco products which carry health warnings or gambling services, FanDuel, for example, actually the disclaimers on their commercials sometimes lasts longer than their sales pitches." She says, "Unlike those, BNPL lack transparent warnings about the potential financial dangers.
A mandatory clear warning before transactions might be in order here." She calls it a financial shock collar that might help prevent poor decisions if you had to for example, say, "I understand I'm using a potentially dangerous thing here. Thank you for making me sign a disclaimer to purchase this thing." Jam even goes on to say, "We could turn that into a business idea at The Motley Fool, you could call it the foolproof collar." She concludes, after starting our book, You Have More Than You Think, which Tom and I wrote a couple of decades ago, she felt compelled to write this. "I plan to finish it." She wrote, "seeking more insights into combating this issue and spreading financial health awareness to continue the Motley Fool's legacy. Forever a Fool." She always says she's my biggest fan, jam. Let's talk about buy-now, pay-later. Robert Brokamp.
Robert Brokamp: It's something that has been around for many years, but it was mostly in the apparel and cosmetics industry. In fact, it was 80% of the sales up until maybe 2018-2019. But it has spread all over, mostly through the websites you buy something from. When you're checking out it says, "Hey, instead of paying for it all right now, how about we split this up in four payments and you only have to pay it over the next month and a half?" It is actually now moving also into apps so where you can use it on your phone and not only use it to pay for things there, but then because they're collecting all this data on you, they are suggesting things that you could pay.
The reason people find it compelling is that it varies from the service you're using but generally speaking, there are no fees and there's no interest. People will say, "Well, look. Why wouldn't I do this? Why should I pay for it all now when I can spread it out at no cost to me?" The problem of course, is that sometimes you don't get around to paying it off and that's when the interest rates start hitting you or the fees start hitting you and it could have knock-on effects. I will say that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is also equally concerned. They released a report in 2022 and 2023 and said that it's probably about time for us to have more say in what goes on in this industry and regulate them. Because currently, the buy-now, pay-later, that is not regulated the same way credit cards are, but I think that is going to change at some point in the near future.
David Gardner: I think Jam's concern is well-placed. I didn't read the full letter. She's a nurse and a lot of the people that she knows both who work with her and the people that she serves are generally not that financially savvy. For a lot of people, I could imagine they might make the mistake of, " I will pay this off." Maybe they even do, but if you find that you can buy a whole bunch of stuff at a present, very near-term discount, you might buy even more stuff.
She speaks to this a little bit in her note about how people maybe are buying things they don't even necessarily need and don't realize how much they're spending. I guess a lot of things, whether we're talking about tobacco or gambling, a topic I'll take up a little bit later, these things are legal. They have disclaimers, and generally I would say Robert, there's enough societal awareness that they're serious problems.
Gambling can be addictive, tobacco can be killingly addictive, that these things have disclaimers on them. Now, we love commerce. We want people spending. I think that's a big part of our economy, and so it's hard for me to picture people actually having to sign through a disclaimer in order to make these purchases. I didn't even think about how was true of cosmetics and true of apparel but now it's spread to other things. Do you have any thoughts about how to raise more awareness or how to do this effectively?
Robert Brokamp: It's a good question. In the end, I was thinking about things like, why are stores offering this? They're not actually usually the ones doing the buy-now, pay-later. It's usually a company offering that but why would an online store do this? Obviously, they believe it will lead to people spending more money and that's what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found, that the people who do these loans are more likely to have high levels of debt and more likely to be delinquent in their debt.
About three quarters of the people who do this have household incomes below $75,000. It's definitely a concern. I would say this, stores and the providers of these services are not going to regulate themselves because the whole appeal of this is that it's so easy to do. When you sign up and do one of these buy-now, pay-laters, you just have to prove that you're over 18 and that you have a bank account or a checking account. At the most, they do a soft credit check, not a hard credit check so approvals are pretty high.
That's the appeal, that lots of people can do it and it's so easy. I think it will require some regulation for there to be some disclaimer related to these. I think what we'll see is it's not going to happen until it really harms a lot of people. Jam is right that credit card debt is at very high levels. These programs are becoming more popular in 2022. There's about $25 billion used through buy-now-pay-later, it's going to be almost $40 billion in 2024. But the economy is going well. While the music's playing you got to keep dancing. During the next recession when a lot of people get hurt, I think that's when things will change.
David Gardner: Well, in the meantime, what we can do is what Jam's doing, which is to raise consciousness of those around us. That we feel comfortable enough saying, hey, how are your finances doing or how much debt are you writing, or those questions that we can have with friends and family, those topics. I'm trying to fight this battle, educate whomever will lend me ears, Jam wrote in a note who would ever would like to improve their financial health. That's something that we've been trying to do for 30 years or so.
The book you have, ''More than You Think'' that was a big part of that book when we first wrote it in late 1990s. Robert, you've done a lot on behalf of many fools and those connected to them to help them be smarter about their finances. Here, I guess, is just one more topic. It's funny because buy now pay later is exactly what credit card debt enables when credit cards emerged as a new technology about 60 years ago. That really is the concept at heart: buy now, pay later.
But for it to have further evolved, it's probably not surprising at all, but it does mean we have to watch ourselves and our finances even more carefully. Robert, thank you for joining in once again, by the way, I don't think you've got to hear this because you weren't in the studio at that point. But you got called out on a tweet, read out earlier on the show by one of our listeners, who said, after hearing you tell your story along with Bill Burke in the middle of the month, said Fergus Colin said, in fact, sounds like you'd be pretty good to have as a neighbor. Are you a good neighbor?
Robert Brokamp: I think so. Yeah. I'm thinking I live in a little pipe stem, and there are three other people around us. I think specifically I've helped every one of my neighbors at one point, and they've helped me. We have a nice little group, so yes, I do.
David Gardner: Do you have a neighborly tradition or ritual or what makes you a good neighbor?
Robert Brokamp: Well, it's actually, honestly, we have one collective snowblower for our pipe stem. It's in my garage and when the snow is falling, I'm the one who gets the snowblower out because two of the neighbors are well into their 70s and one other neighbor is a doctor who is always too busy. I guess that makes me a good neighbor.
David Gardner: Fergus Colin, you had it. Thanks, bro.
Robert Brokamp: Thanks, David.
David Gardner: All right. Three mailbag items left. Let's go to Number 5 and Number 5 for a reason, I guess I'm putting a little bit because Mark Minor begins, David, with your final five stock sampler review on the horizon. Wouldn't this be a great time to start a new stock-picking tradition since you've retired from the stock-picking game yourself? Perhaps bring guests, stock pickers onboard either from the Fool or outside the Fool. Since you love games, you could even choose to have two stock pickers go head-to-head on a given theme.
The five stock samplers, their reviews always have been great episodes. A great way to teach about investing. Let's revive that. Yours in Fooldom. Mark Minor, Esquire, Mark, thank you for that. Of course, this has been on my mind for the last couple of years. My final five-stock sampler was picked in June of 2021, and when it reaches its 3-month destination, which would be indeed June of 2024. Well, I've already mentioned on previous episodes, I will be closing out the 35 stock samplers with that 30th when we review it in June.
Then I committed to the week after that, reflecting on the overall learnings from picking 30 different times five-stock baskets along a given theme. Keeping track of our scoring, and what can we learn from that? I will definitely be doing that this summer. But yes, I've also thought Mark and others about what would come after, and I am a gamer, as you well know Mark and your thoughts are running fairly consonant with mine.
I just wanted to think a little bit more about how to do that in a way that would be fun and foolish. But believe me, I've been thinking about that. Thank you for writing in and using this opportunity with Mailbag item number 5. In fact, to close down two other recently expiring five-stock samplers and those two five-stock samplers, let's take them in chronological order. The first one I want to close out here was five stocks rolled up at random. Now, I first picked these stocks in January of 2021.
In fact, it was January 20th, 2021. Yeah. 1202021. It reminds me that this podcast comes out on 42424, but it was very close. One twenty-twenty twenty-one, when I, unfortunately, had this notion that I would pick stocks that particular basket the 28th of the 30 in Rule Breaker Investing history, that I would roll them up at random from my universe of a few hundred stocks, I decided I will dice up which five.
I'll pick this time, and it wasn't pure randomization because I actually chose 10 out of that larger universe of a couple of hundred stocks, 10 chosen at random, and then I faced them off against each other, that pair, which one would I favor that first pair? What about that second pair? It was really close to randomization, but not pure randomization. Of course, I'm randomizing from University of stocks that I've picked for Stock Advisor and Rule Breakers.
Yes, I suppose it was a fateful day because three years later, I'm sorry to say this basket, this sampler was fated to underperform. Let's take a look at the particulars for this first one, five stocks rolled up at random. All right, and what were the five stocks rolled up at random? Well, in alphabetical order, they were Apple, AtlassianCorporation, SolarEdgeTechnologies, Starbucks, and Teladoc. Now, regular, longtime listeners will know that when I pick those three years ago, January, one year later, and two years later, I updated did reviewer paloozas, as we call them, when I would take a number of different samplers and update them for the year all at once as a full weekly podcast.
But now that we're down to the last few, it didn't make sense to reserve full podcasts for just one or another expiring sampling. That's why we're doing two at once now. But my tradition is to talk about the one that did the best, talk about the one that did the worst than anything else I want to share. Let's start with the one that did the worst. This is Teladoc, ticker symbol TDOC. It's not; it's only appearance in a rule-breaker investing five-stock sampler.
It was a very hot stock, as you'll remember during the pandemic. I took a shining to it. In fact, we owned it several years before the pandemic, but there we were at the height of the pandemic in January of 2021. I said I like this stock rolled up somewhat at random for this sampler. I'm very sorry to say the stock was at $246 a share in January 2021 when this sampler expired on January 19 of this year, a few months ago. Teladoc, we've talked about this before on this podcast, Teladoc had dropped 246-20, that's down 91.8%. The market over the three years for this sampler was up 25.7%. You can imagine that put us deeply in the whole Teladoc is still trying to figure out its business model in a world where demand for its services, all of a sudden and somewhat understandably, but all of a sudden has receded.
The company, in the midst of a large merger over the last couple of years, has hit a wall in terms of not showing growth and not showing profitability either. That explains Teladoc the worst performer in this five-stock sampler, the best. Unfortunately, only one of these randomly rolled-off stocks beat the market, and that would be Apple on the other side of the ledger, Apple up 45.1%, that's 19 plus percentage points ahead of the market, not nearly enough to bring this sampler into profitability. Apple has enjoyed a good three years ago when the stock was up 45% over the last three years.
This is for the company with the largest market cap in the world among public companies. Apple, especially in these last three years, began to build out that services component of its overall business. The apps that we were buying digital subscriptions now are a very significant for us on Apple's income statement and its balance sheet and cash flow statement in a way that was not true five or 10 years ago, wasn't even that true three years ago.
Top of mine, that's my number one reason that Apple has been a good and winning stock. It doesn't hurt either that Apple is the best known to me, the best-loved brand in the world today, even if you don't love and use Apple products as I do, you certainly know the brand and I hope for the most part you esteem it as well. It's been a fantastic growth story. This company for 40 years and route to becoming one of the largest companies of all time. Apple will continue to be in my portfolio, maybe yours too. I just wish I could have loaded up on more of it for this sampler.
The other three stocks, Atlassians, SolarEdge, and Starbucks. Well, Atlassian and Starbucks both write around a 0% return. With the market up 26% there in the red and SolarEdge Technologies much closer to Teladoc in terms of its underperformance. This company's lost 75% of its value over the last three years. Reminding me of the incredible volatility that we've seen among many companies during COVID, through COVID, and now a little bit post-COVID, what a crazy world this has been. Unfortunately, SolarEdge underperformed by about 100 percentage points.
On its own, this is a company obviously benefiting from our conversion to solar, but in the same way that electric cars didn't necessarily hit their demand quotient last year, not as many people bought electric cars as the automotive industry expected. That has also been true of the solar industry. Rising interest rates and weaker demand, SolarEdge lost 67% of its value last year, two-thirds of its value in a single year, it was dropped unceremoniously from the S&P 500 as well. Take it all in all four, five stocks rolled up at random. On average, these stocks declined by 25.9%. The market, almost the exact opposite up 25.7%.
Andy Cross: As we send five stocks rolled up at random to full halla, queue the music Dez and also Rick, but we'll be talking about Rick in a few minutes. I have to feel sad as I watch this live stock sampler stumble. I won't even say into obscurity because we never forget and we keep track of our numbers. I'll be speaking to that a little bit later in June, so thus much for 5 stocks rolled up at random. A brief review palooza for the most recent five stock sampler to expire and that would be five stocks to teach Rule Breakers.
I picked these three years ago this month, the date was April 7 of 2021 again a harsh environment, we were about to experience some more up in 2021 and then a huge downdraft in 2022, 2023 a year of resettling for a lot of us and for many of us, 2024 has been equally volatile. It was interesting for me to think about what would be some stocks? I could pick a stock and then tie it to a key point about Rule Breaker Investing and that's what I did on April 7, 2021 and if you're looking for a little bit of an introduction, if you just happened upon this podcast this week or in recent weeks, and you're still wondering, well, what is Rule Breakers really about? That would not be a bad one to go back and listen to because I summarize some of our key points.
But all the while I'm tagging a stock to each of the five points I make on that podcast, which is how this five-stock sampler came to be the 29th all-time in Rule Breaker history and I was having a little bit of fun because I decided when I'm looking over a couple of hundred stocks, which is my universe of recommendations, as I just mentioned earlier with the previous sampler. I thought I think I can pick a letter and just pick companies that start with that letter to teach each of my five points. I hop upon the letter A, it starts the alphabet when you're learning things, it's the ABCs.
I lighted upon these five stocks here presented alphabetically by ticker, which is how I did it three years ago Airbnb, AxonEnterprise, AeroVironment, ActivisionBlizzard, and Apple. Those are my five A stocks picked three years ago this month. Let's right away go to the worst performer of the five and the worst performer over those three years was Airbnb. Airbnb at about $180 a share. It had only recently come public and even though I don't often go after IPO stocks, I'm happy to make exceptions here and there and I thought back then, Airbnb is an enterprise that is going to be around a long time and it is very much a Rule Breaker. While the stock has recovered grandly over the last year or so, I'm sorry to say it's down about 10% from where I picked it three years ago.
The market, by the way, up 27.5% so we start with a -38 in the loss column for this five stock sampler, let's go from our worst to our best. The best performer here was Axon Enterprise, A-X-O-N. Of course, the company that serves the law enforcement industry with its Taser non-lethal weaponry. It's Axon body cameras and the Cloud Services business that harbors all the videos that police are required to take these days as they apprehend criminals. The cameras start, it's right there on their body cameras and all of that video is a big part of Axon Enterprise's business model as well.
The stock was at $147 a share that week, 3 years ago today, it ended April 5, which is by the way, when this five-stock sampler expired earlier this month, that's why we're reviewing it now in this mailbag, it expired at $309.90, so it was up 110% catapulting five stocks to teach Rule Breakers into the green. Overall, three of the five did beat the market but there was only one big winner and it was Axon Enterprise, the company by the way, just a couple of months ago, it was February of this year, reported its 2023 results very strong once again.
Annual sales for the year of 2023 up 31% and the company said we don't see any slowdown right now in this business going into 2024. The market liked that a lot. The stock popped about 12.5% one day in February and that helped Axon Enterprise toward more than double, slightly more than a double over these last three years. By the way, of the three, I haven't spoken to Activision Blizzard was bought out a couple of years ago.
That was announced and it closed out in October of last year and so Activision Blizzard was down 2%, the market was only up 6%, comparably over time. A very small difference of minus eight, that was also true of AeroVironment and Apple. You have three stocks that were right around. Market performers treading water with the market. You have Axon Enterprise up over the market 80 percentage points and as I mentioned, Airbnb behind by about 40. Take it all in all this five-stock sampler, five stocks to teach Rule Breakers up 32.4% versus the S&P 500's return of 23.2%, directly comparable to those five stocks over the last three years and outperformance of nine percentage points.
There you have it. Two, five stock samplers that we're closing out with this podcast will do the 30th in June and then I'll speak to the whole enterprise a little bit later in the summer. I want to thank Mark Minor again for his inquiry about our five-stock samplers, giving me an opportunity here with mailbag item number 5 to form a mini review of palooza. Lots of numbers, lots of stocks. Not that much time but I'm really happy to say for these 30 samplers, a majority of them did beat the market and they've done even better than that if you just keep holding the stocks over time again, I'll speak to that in June but it is a resounding demonstration of the benefits of Rule Breaker Investing.
Those stocks picked freely for my listeners here over the years for Rule Breaker Investing. Onto Rule Breaker mailbag, item number 6, this one from William Smith. Thanks for writing in William. David, listening to your most recent podcast with Bill Burke earlier this month, you mentioned, you don't recommend gaming stocks because they, in my words paraphrase basically just make money by taking your money and that's generally how I do feel about it Williams, so that's accurate. You go on to say, I will grant you that some people harm themselves at casinos and other gaming businesses. However, when you go to a movie, you leave without anything. Theaters just basically make money by taking your money. Same goes for concerts, you don't receive anything tangible for your dollars. The same goes for many other forms of entertainment.
The expectation is for you to have fun while you were there at the casino or the movie theater or the concert. That's the exchange. Love your podcast and The Motley Fool in general. Thanks. William Smith. I appreciate the point, William and I do get it that you can call casino gambling a form of entertainment. Especially for those who own a cruise or briefly walking past a resort, might pull a one arm bandit or take a roll of the dice. You're right, it is entertainment for them and there's even the chance that they might win money, which you can't necessarily do at your local movie theater or concert.
I grant you that the risk involved in gambling does have its upsides. But I think for me, the business model and the value proposition that gaming companies provide is very different from what movie theaters or concert venues offer. I agree it's all entertainment on the one hand, but the possibility of losing, not just what you paid your movie ticket or your concert ticket, but maybe a lot more. For some people certainly to walk out very disenchanted because they lost more than they thought that they would either because they were surprised or because they have a gambling problem, strikes me as a lot more serious than movies or concerts.
I also want to say that there are aspects of our society that also are made worse by gambling addiction than I think it's different for people who like me might be addicted to streaming entertainment or video games, it's been well-documented. Increased crime and bankruptcy rates in areas where gambling is prevalent. I think these are points you appreciate and would make in my place. I don't think we're having a big important debate here. I do just want to say we're all investors and we each have choices with where we want to invest our money and at least just for me, I remember speaking to it in the podcast earlier this month.
The headline that Americans have given $66.5 billion of their money over to casino gambling and the gambling industry. It just strikes me as sad and a real misuse. I realized it was entertaining in the moment but this is a very substantial outlay of cash that really could have grown at 8-10% rates annualized if more people understood the benefits of capital allocation that have a history of going up, I will mention I didn't speak to it much then but I'm not a big fan of sports betting, even though I love sports and I even like betting.
But expected rates of return that are negative. Because in a sports bet with somebody else, typically someone's going to win, someone's going lose and the house extracts its portion. Therefore, your expected rate of return even with sports betting, which is very entertaining for many people, is a very poor way to allocate your money. You will lose money over time if you do bet on sports regularly. That's why FanDuel and up with long disclaimers in their television advertisements, as we mentioned earlier. I do think there are some important differences. If you want, you're more than welcome to invest in gaming companies.
Many people do and I'm sure there some things that I enjoy investing in that you might not either in the end. I think each of us should be trying to put our money where our mouths are and also where our actions are. It makes a lot of sense for you and for me to be invested in the things that we think lead to a better world and not everybody has the same view of what that might be. Now best for last, you tell me onto Rule Breaker Mailbag item number 7.
David Gardner: On to Rule Breaker, Mailbag item Number 7. Let's call it lucky seven. Although in some ways it feels a little unlucky TV, but not really when I get above, when I click out one level and I look down, this is a beautiful thing that's happening because Rick Engdahl, this is one of your first true guest appearances on the podcast. Welcome back to Rule Breaker Investing, Rick.
Rick Engdahl: Is this more than a cameo?
David Gardner: That's what we're used to. Lots of cameos over the years, and so many of us have gotten to enjoy and learn. In little bits and pieces here and there. But you came to me a few months ago, and you said, I've been at The Motley Fool since the year 2000.
Rick Engdahl: Yeah.
David Gardner: What day was it, Rick?
Rick Engdahl: January 3, I think. Whatever the first workday in January was.
David Gardner: Excellent. It's been 24 plus years, and it's time for a Foolbatical for Rick Engdahl. When you mentioned it to be a few months ago, I was immediately sad and felt that this is unlucky seven, that you would be stepping way for some months now. But I'm so happy for you, and I thought it was a good opportunity just to kick it around a little bit here at the end of the April Mailbag. Rick, I think you start officially your sabbatical as of May 1.
Rick Engdahl: Monday, so technically April 29. But, yeah.
David Gardner: Excellent. April 29. When are you expecting to be back?
Rick Engdahl: September 14 or something like that. Sometime mid-September.
David Gardner: Excellent. Let me do the math here. That feels like May, June, July, August. Four and a half months, I think a lot of us who've gotten to know and appreciate you over the years know that you love music. You're also has such a talented photographer, and I know you enjoy traveling. Does that, in some ways, describe your next four and a half months?
Rick Engdahl: I hope so. Pretty much in that order. I hope to dive into my creative self a little bit, put some energy into music making, learning more things, and getting out performing some. Then also traveling a bit. Usually, in the context of finding more people in places that would be inspiring. Then also perhaps doing some photography along the way.
David Gardner: Rick, I think I know some of this because I've seen you perform at Fool events, etc, over the years. But I think a lot of people don't know which form of music you favor and where your talent lies. Would you brag just a little bit your [Laughs] life and music, please?
Rick Engdahl: Well, I used to be a lot more active in the contemporary folk singer-songwriter scene. Then, with family and life have been a little more dormant. Now the kids are teenaging, and we have a little more time on our hands. That is part of the reason to dive back in right now. Kicking off some rust, getting back out there. Also exploring new music, electronic production, whatever I can get my hands on. I love to learn.
David Gardner: You mentioned traveling, Rick. Do you already have destinations in mind? Are you a travel planner? Do you already know your agenda, or is it have guitar, will travel?
Rick Engdahl: A little of both. I do have. My most solid plans right now are to visit a friend in Nashville who is part of the music scene there, whom you have met, I think. My friend Laurie Kelly. She is a fantastic songwriter and will drag me around to some open mics and stuff in Nashville, which will be fun.
David Gardner: Rick, coming back in the fall, what do you hope to be able to have said about the time that you spent away?
Rick Engdahl: I hope to feel grounded in my creative self again, and I hope to be able to bring that energy back. I've been giving a lot of energy to foolish things over the last 20 plus years and loving it. But to take a little more time for myself again and just figure out what's new out there because, like I said, I'm a little rusty. Time has gone by, technology has come and gone. I hope to bring back new tools and a new spirit of exploration and musicality, and art whatever.
David Gardner: I appreciate you mentioning technology because I just think about how much technology has changed. I think about podcasts and the benefit of having, let's say, Lancaster, which is the platform that we use to do a lot of our podcasts these days. We needed a platform, just show up when, all of a sudden, we couldn't go into the office because of COVID. I just think of that as a relatively recent evolution of technology. But what about in music, Rick? I don't keep up with the trends much, but how has music changed in terms of the technology last 20 years?
Rick Engdahl: Well, definitely, it's possible to be a lot more independent with music now. Like it used to be, to record something you really needed to go to a studio somewhere and pay a lot of money upfront cost to making music. You were basically putting together an entire album or CD. It can take a long time and be expensive. Nowadays, the technology in home studios is so good. This is especially for someone who is more of an amateur musician like me. I'm not trying to go out, and win Grammys, although I'd happily accept one if one came my way.
But I'm not trying to get out and play stadiums. I'm just doing my own thing for local performances and such. The capabilities of recording locally are just fantastic. It's really gone along way. The music industry has turned on its head a bit, and that's been bad for a lot of artists. But it's also enabled a lot of new independent artists now to produce their own things and get it out there in front of people.
David Gardner: Rick, as you think about the sabbatical, are you project minded, or do you have a specific collaboration, let's say with Laurie in Nashville? Do you organize your time that way? I don't even know how you do it during the week when you do this podcast. How do you roll in terms of being a planner or not?
Rick Engdahl: I'm generally less of a planner. Although for specific points along the calendar, I need to plan certain events, like district in Nashville forum. But even that, it's like I picked the dates and picked the time and place and worked it out with Laurie, but I didn't plan much beyond that. We're just going to play it by ear little bit.
David Gardner: Who is ably filling your shoes while you're away?
Rick Engdahl: Well, primarily, you've all come to know Dez here, and she's been filling the role behind the glass. I think the whole team, the multimedia team, will be picking up pieces here and there, but I think Dez is the one that everybody here at RBI will recognize.
David Gardner: Thank you. Yes, it's been a delight to have Dez these last few weeks working alongside you as we make this transition together. Of course, this is just one of your responsibilities at the Fool Rec. There are others who are going to be a help continuing to pick up and juggle the balls that you've kept a loft here for decades, frankly. I just want to close by thanking you, Rick, for all that you've done for me personally and professionally with the Rule Breaker Investing podcasts. I just think about starting this in, it was July of 2015.
I'm pretty sure that we've never missed a single week with a fresh new podcast. About 98% of those, roughly nine years of podcasts, have been produced by you. You are sorely and dearly missed by me. I hope people will not even be able to tell you're away. Because Dez has her own talents. But I do want to make it clear you were a very special friend and collaborate or someone I've so enjoyed, and I just wish you the best for the summer.
Rick Engdahl: Well, thank you. Obviously, right back at you. It's always been one of my favorite parts of my job, is coming here and doing the show. It really isn't astounding record the fact that we haven't missed a week and all this time. I don't know if any other podcasts has gone that long without missing a week.
David Gardner: Well, it's thanks to you. Especially because I think when we started, Rick, you weren't expecting to be working with somebody who would start to realize he could retake what he just said. Somewhere in a year, maybe two, it's been a long time, Rick. But again, longtime listeners may know this. Many will not. I tend to stop and restart, and I say 3, 2, 1, and take it again. I think I'd probably did it about 40–50 times, just this week alone. Dez is getting to inherit what is now a very proud, well-established tradition. Somewhat painfully, I'm sure, for this podcast. But Rick, thank you. We didn't know how we would evolve together, but that's at least one way.
Rick Engdahl: You got to make it perfect.
David Gardner: Indeed, well, practice makes perfect, and there's no substitute for getting back out there in the field every single Tuesday, week after week, year after year. I think we've gotten better together. Again, thank you to Rick Engdahl. Rick, best wishes on your sabbatical. Give us one final line of inspiration that can still echo in our ears as we think about you somewhere out there in the hinterlands with your guitar, somewhere in a hot July.
Rick Engdahl: Well, if you want me echoing in your ears, then you can go to senseofwondermusic.com and download some of my old songs. Hopefully, one of the things you'll see there is that our website is desperately in need of some work, and that'll be first on the list to get up-to-speed.
David Gardner: Sense of wonder music.com that will echo in my ears through the summer. Rick, you'll be missed. To our listeners, thank you for this month of April, it was a delight. This is a very Motley Mailbag, and I always try to save the best for last. That's certainly is true when we get to feature our own Rick Engdahl, sending him off on sabbatical. Next week it's dividend Fools Volume 2, that's right. We're going to go back to dividend stocks. I've got Buck Hartzell coming back. We did this together a couple of years ago. Matt Argersinger, who has a lot to do and say with dividends in and around the Motley Fool for our members Buck Hartzell and Matt Argersinger on dividend Fools next week. In the meantime, happy April, Fool-on.
Andrew Cross has positions in Airbnb, Apple, Atlassian, Axon Enterprise, and Starbucks. David Gardner has positions in Apple, Atlassian, Costco Wholesale, and Starbucks. Rick Engdahl has positions in Airbnb, Apple, Axon Enterprise, Costco Wholesale, Starbucks, and Teladoc Health. Robert Brokamp has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends AeroVironment, Airbnb, Apple, Atlassian, Axon Enterprise, Costco Wholesale, Starbucks, and Teladoc Health. The Motley Fool recommends SolarEdge Technologies. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
