In the third week of our four-part SPAC series on Industry Focus: Financials, Fool.com contributor Matt Frankel and host Jason Moser dive into three SPACs that could be very interesting for investors in the coming months and years. First, the pair discusses VG Acquisition Corporation (NYSE:VGAC) and why its pending acquisition of 23andMe is so exciting. Next, Matt and Jason take a closer look at the most high-profile SPAC merger of 2021 (so far) with Churchill Capital IV (NYSE:CCIV) and its acquisition of Lucid Motors. And finally, with a war chest of more than $4 billion, Pershing Square Tontine Holdings (NYSE:PSTH) has some interesting possibilities.
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.
This video was recorded on March 15, 2021.
Jason Moser: It’s Monday, March 15th. I am your host, Jason Moser. It’s part three of our four parts series on SPACs this week. Joining me today to dig more in some SPAC investors may want to keep an eye on, it’s Certified Financial Planner, Mr. Matt Frankel? Matt, how’s everything going?
Matt Frankel: Just great. I am here in my office finally, for the first time in a while. It’s nice to have a little change of scenery. I see your piano is still behind you there.
Moser: [laughs] Yeah, that must be nice. It must be nice to get a little change of scenery every now and then. My change of scenery comes a little bit later in the afternoon when I head out to the barn, Matt. I’m going to go stick with that one and then, as the weather warms up, maybe there will even be a golf course involved. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Frankel: Very nice. We can only hope. Hopefully, sometime later this year we’ll actually have a change of scenery and do this in the studio at some point.
Moser: [laughs] No, I don’t think so.
Frankel: We can only hope. Let’s dream big.
Moser: That’s not going to be for some time.
Frankel: We’re dreaming big.
Moser: [laughs] Well, let’s dream big for investors today and dig into some more SPACs that we have. Again, this is the third installment of our four-part series on SPACs. We’ve talked a little bit about what SPACs are, why they are an interesting way for companies to get listed on public markets. We’ve had a couple of really fun interviews along the way here. Certainly, if you missed those first two installments, make sure to go back and check those out. Today, no interview as we’re going to dig more into three additional SPACs that are out there for investors today. It looks like two of these SPACs, they’ve already identified their targets, while the other one hasn’t yet identified its target, but I’d imagine that’s coming soon. Let’s go ahead and start today, Matt, with the two companies, the two vehicles that have actually identified their targets. The first one here, it’s VG Acquisition Corporation. Ticker is VGAC. Tell our listeners what VG acquisition is going to be bringing to the public markets for investors here soon.
Frankel: Sure. Well, first of all, VG stands for Virgin Group in this case. This was Virgin Group’s SPAC. Richard Branson himself was very involved with this one. They announced they are acquiring 23andMe, the DNA testing company. After the merger, the ticker symbol will change to ME. It is currently VGAC. But it’ll be really easy to remember, just ME. [laughs]
Moser: Yeah, it sounds somewhat selfish.
Frankel: We expect that to happen in the next few months.
Frankel: 23andMe, everyone knows it’s for their genetic testing kits. I did one of those, it told me no big surprises. I already knew where my family came from. That’s for people like my wife, who don’t really know their family history too well. It can really be an interesting thing, and it’s not just the DNA testing, it could tell you if you’re genetically predisposed to certain diseases, things like that, that’s where the real value is here. First of all, just to give you an idea of the scale of 23 maybe, because it hasn’t been a public company. A lot of people don’t know the details of the operations. They’ve 10.7 million genetic tests done so far. Just to put that in perspective, that is more than any other major competitor. Regeneron, for example, has done one million. Big scale, they’re estimating that that’s going to get to over 16 million within the next four years. They’re projecting a pretty steady flow of genetic dosages. About 80% of those customers have consented to let 23 and may use genetic material for research purposes. That’s really the key statistic right there.
Moser: That’s something I was actually going to just jump in there and ask you about, because that to me seemed like it could be a big risk. But the way you framed it there, it actually sounds like it could turn out to be a real big advantage for this company.
Frankel: Right. They have more genetic material to use for research purposes than any other company out there, and people are letting them use it. They are not only going to get it for free, but people are paying for these genetic testing kits. It’s really cool, economics are really cool. They have a partnership with GSK, GlaxoSmithKline, to develop therapeutics based on their genetic material. They have already identified eight potential candidates. As we know, other than the COVID vaccine, it takes a while to develop drugs. The government is not going to fast track and for billions and billions of dollars at every drug, it takes time, about 10 years in most cases from start to finish.
I think the first of 2and me’s drugs they’re developing is in Phase I trials. There is a viable path going forward. The partnership with GSK, it’s a 50-50 cost and revenue split for research on the drugs. Anyone who has followed the pharmaceutical industry knows that 50% of the revenue on a successful drug, one successful drug, can be in the billions and billions of dollars, so that’s really where the potential is here. 23andMe is not projected to be profitable for at least the next five years, that’s where they projected out. But that’s not really the point, they’re getting a ton of cash in this deal. They’re getting $759 million of cash to fund their growth in this deal; including that cash, it values their business at $3.5 billion. A lot of their worth will be in cash that they can use to really expand and grow on these pipelines of products that they have going on. $3.5 billion for a company that has the most impressive collection of genetic material in the market, could turn out to be a really small price to pay.
Moser: Yeah. It really could. We live in a world now, I mean, obviously, privacy is a big topic of discussion for a lot of folks. Obviously, that’s been more internet related, social media related, and whatnot. In a case like this, I mean, a company like 23andMe, they’re explicit about what they are doing with this data. They are very explicit in regards to what they’re doing, they clearly are getting buy-in from the folks that are purchasing those tests. It seems like initially they saw around the corner, so to speak, and really have been approaching it from the right perspective. Because once you get buy-in from someone, the consumer says, “Yes, you can use my genetic data to help research causes into advancements in medicine.” That right there, that really seems like the biggest hurdle to clear almost. I’m not sure that there is a bigger hurdle, unless maybe it’s from a capital perspective. I mean, a business like this is going to really need to invest a lot in R&D in the coming years. I mean, you noted they are not going to be profitable for the next five years. Possibly longer, you never really know. I mean, maybe this is a process of the upside, but creating that expectation upfront is, I think, crucial in a case like this, because if you get investor optimism, if you get investor buy-in at the beginning, even after creating those expectations, it sounds like maybe they’ve really got something here.
Frankel: Like you alluded to, there are some privacy concerns when it comes to genetic material, and that’s a big obstacle.
Frankel: I personally don’t care that whatever company knows that I’m of Eastern European descent, [laughs] and that I’m prone to high cholesterol. I really don’t care that people know that, I’m telling that on a public forum right here.
Moser: There you go. [laughs]
Frankel: But a lot of people do have legitimate privacy concerns when it comes to their genetic material. That’s an obstacle that needs to be addressed. But now, like you said, that’s a really high potential business. Developing a drug is capital intensive, they are very transparent about that. If you were to take a guess, how much would be the average drug cost to develop from start until it’s on the market?
Moser: I would just guess around a number of like $100 billion or some just something absurd.
Frankel: $2.6 billion is the average research costs.
Frankel: With that in mind, the average drug, and this is where you said hundreds-of-millions, that average drug costs $2.6 billion to develop, and there is a 12% probability that it will ever make it to the market. When you want the cost to get one drug onto the market, the costs are in the tens of billions of dollars, so it’s a capital intensive business. Their called out proposition is that by having so much genetic information, they can make the process more efficient, more targeted, give their drugs or higher profitability of success than the average company’s drug candidates. There’s a lot of potential value to be created here. I guess, they’re getting $759 million, so that gets the pipeline going, that’s nice. They are not just focused on that part of the business, they are doing a consumer subscription model as well, where you can subscribe to your health updates as they weren’t more about genetic information and things like that based on your own genetic profile, they soft launched this in October. It already is about 75,000 subscribers that could easily go into the millions based on how many people have already given them their DNA. That’s a subscription. That’s a recurring revenue model which could be used to then really fund and accelerate the drug pipeline.
There’s a lot of potential ways to create value in pretty much everything that Virgin and Richard Brandson have their hands in. It’s not expected to be profitable all the way. If you were to ask me, who is the most forward thinking investor in the world, I’d probably have to say Branson, when you think of Virgin Galactic, Virgin Orbit, Virgin Hyperloop, they’re very forward looking and this is no exception, it really fits in well with this SPAC.
Moser: Yeah. I tend to agree with you there on the forward thinking part. There are a handful of folks out there that really do that well. Clearly, Branson is one, love him or hate him, certainly Musk is one, Jeff Bezos. That’s a wonderful mentality to have and one for investors to try to mimic, hold yourself to that standard as an investor, try to think forward. Oftentimes it’s about looking at these businesses, not thinking about what the business is doing today, it’s trying to figure out what that business might be able to do tomorrow or the next day, or the year later, or five years later, where can that business go? What could it ultimately become, because that ultimately is what the market is doing, is looking to the future. I think that’s a really good lesson there from a lot of these leaders out there. Now, before we move on to our next company, obviously we have some positive vibes for Richard Branson in there. But, we talked about SPACs being a bet on management, is there something worth knowing here in that regard? Or is it something just as simple as saying, hey, this is a Virgin brand, this is Richard Branson company? This is something where we feel really good about management.
Frankel: I’m the wrong one to really speak about a healthcare management team’s experience. I know that 23andMe is a founder-led company. I was betting on Richard Branson here, there is a limit to how forward thinking I am, by the way. The reason I don’t own Virgin Galactic shares is because I think it could be a great company when my kids are 60 years old. [laughs]
Moser: That’s a good point.
Frankel: There’s a limit to how forward looking I want to be. [laughs]
Moser: Yeah, I want to be able to use this money while I’m alive. That’s the point. 50 year rolling returns aren’t really going to do me any good at this point, Matt.
Frankel: No, but 10 or 20 years, I’m happy to wait out.
Moser: Yeah. [laughs] Well, let’s move on to our next company here. The next company out, it looks like they’ve identified a target as well. This is Churchill Capital, ticker is CCIV. Tell our listeners a little bit about what Churchill Capital is going to be bringing to the market here.
Frankel: Well, I’m sure most people know this, because I added this one specifically because it’s the one that I see in the chat all the time. [laughs] This is the one everyone says, what are your thoughts on this? So, here we go. Let’s get it over with.
Moser: Let’s get your thoughts.
Frankel: Churchill Capital, it’s Churchill Capital Corporation IV, this is their fourth SPAC. There’s I think eight altogether now, seven or eight, they just launched a couple of new ones. But they’re acquiring Lucid Motors. This was probably the most anticipated SPAC deal in 2021, at least. It wasn’t a surprise to see that they’re acquiring Lucid. This was rumored and well-known for a couple of months before, unlike most SPAC deals. Like, when we heard that Social Capital V was acquiring SoFi, that caught everyone by surprise. This one wasn’t a surprise. In fact, it was so little of a surprise that the stock ran up to $65 before it was formerly announced from $10, the par value.
Frankel: As soon as the deal was announced, it got cut in half. So now it’s trading at about $27. If you want a relative bargain compared to what some people paid for it, you can get one right now. [laughs] This is not a cheap deal. Lucid Motors is a pre-production auto company. They’re anticipating delivering their first model, which is called the Lucid Air, which looks absolutely fantastic if they can deliver, they’re anticipating in the second half of this year. We’ll get to the car in a second. The SPAC deal, they’re getting $2.1 billion of cash through the SPAC. They’re getting another $2.5 billion from the PIPE, which is the funding round that happens around the same time, which by the way, that’s the biggest PIPE in history.
Moser: Remind our listeners again, really quickly, just what PIPE stands for.
Frankel: PIPE stands for private investment in public equity. It’s an investment round that happens at the same time of a SPAC merger, where a bunch of big investors, say, BlackRock is a frequent PIPE participant where they commit money to invest alongside the SPAC investors and really just add an extra element of capital. Lucid is getting well over $4 billion in this deal. Based on what the PIPE investors are paying, which is $15 a share, it values the business at $24 billion. Remember, this is a pre-production auto company, they haven’t shipped the car yet. But if they can deliver, this is thought of as the biggest candidate to be the next Tesla, is basically the way I can describe it.
Now, don’t get me wrong, Tesla is still the next Tesla. But $24 billion could be a drop in the bucket compared to a Tesla-like valuation if this company is successful. Their vision is to really redefine performance and efficiency in electric vehicles, which I thought that’s what Tesla did already. [laughs] But they’re making some pretty bold claims. Their car is called the Lucid Air, their first model. They already have two stores, and I think one of them is in Florida, ones in California. They have some physical stores, they’re taking orders. The car starts at about $70,000, and the launch edition, which is called the Air Dream Edition, is $161,000. Not a cheap car. That one has over 1,000 horsepower, has a range of over 500 miles, it can go to 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, which, I’m a car guy, that’s pretty impressive. It can charge again, 300 miles worth of charge in 20 minutes. If they can deliver on that, that’s a car that’s worth $160,000.
Moser: That sounds impressive.
Frankel: This is supposedly the first of several models coming out, like the Tesla model where they do the mass-market car first and they do an SUV, then they go from there. Tesla is going with their semi and things like that. They’ve already introduced an SUV which they plan on in two years from now. They’re really scaling up production facilities in Arizona. They say it’s going to be able to make 365,000 cars a year once it’s fully built out. They’re expecting 20,000 deliveries in 2022, so next year. I can’t believe 2022 is next year already. [laughs] But they’re following Tesla’s model where they’re selling directly to consumers, which is a higher profit business model than going through dealerships. I call it like the ultimate speculation play. A $24 billion car company that hasn’t delivered a car yet. But if they can deliver on what they promise, it could be worth $200 billion, easily.
Moser: That’s amazing.
Frankel: I think this is a really interesting one. I’m not an investor yet. I own shares of the first SPAC we talked about, the VG Acquisition. I have not invested in this one yet. It’s a little speculative for me and listeners know my thoughts on the EV market, I think it’s getting crowded. But what do you think, Jason? Are you an EV believer? Are you a Lucid believer? Have you bought the car yet? What?
Moser: I’m absolutely an EV believer. I mean, I think that’s the direction the world needs to head in here over the course of the coming decades. I mean, it will be a somewhat slow transition. You have to remember that every non-EV car that’s purchased, that car is going to be on the road for years and years to come. Most cars out there still today that are being purchased are non-EV. But there is no question in my mind that EV is the way it needs to go, and will go. I’m not an owner in Tesla, I’m not an owner in Lucid, I don’t own the cars. [laughs]
Frankel: I think you and I both have Ford SUVs if I remember correctly.
Moser: Exactly. I will be more than happy to buy an EV when one comes down that strikes me is one that I want. One thing I wanted to ask you, this is neither here nor there. But you said you’re a car guy, so I want to get your perspective here. I’m not really a car guy. I like cars, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t collect them and I don’t study them. But one thing that always just baffles me is the focus on 0-60 in so and so seconds.
Frankel: I know where this is going.
Moser: Well, I understand, like, wow, that’s powerful. Like, man, that’s fast. On the other hand, who cares? [laughs] We live in a nation of laws. There’s speed limits. Does it matter? Why the focus on, I guess is what I’m asking?
Frankel: Right before we had kids, I had a really souped up Camaro, [laughs] the high-performance model. Right before I bought it, my wife said, I was trying to sell her. I said, these things got over 500 horsepower. It’ll do 0-60 under four seconds, blah, blah. [laughs] She said, the speed limit is 70. Which is what you’re saying to me in not so many words.
Moser: No, [laughs] not at all. Listen, let’s be very clear. I’m not questioning how fast the car can go. I’m saying who cares how quickly it gets from 0-60? I mean, whether it’s four seconds or five seconds, why should anyone care? That’s all I’m asking.
Frankel: They do.
Moser: I know. I’m not trying to discredit. I’m just asking, why does it matter? I don’t care if my car can get from 0-60 in three seconds or four seconds. For me, personally, it doesn’t matter. So I’m just asking a car guy why does it matter. I just don’t know.
Frankel: My better answer, especially for the EV market, is historically, the EVs have been around in some form or another for about 20 years, when you consider hybrids, plug-ins, things like that. Historically speaking, the better efficiency got, the worse performance got. The big proposition with Tesla is, here is gasoline car performance from an electric car. That’s what really catapulted Tesla into the stratosphere in terms of mass market adoption. If Lucid says, we could do what Tesla did even better, in so many words, I’m a car guy, I love fast performance. I love stepping on the gas a little more than I should when I’m driving in my car. [laughs] So I can’t really speak to everybody why they care about 0-60 and things like that. But from an electric car standpoint, the fact that you can get this 500 mile range on something you can charge in your garage without sacrificing performance, — and to put it in context, 2.5 seconds is what a $500,000 Lamborghini would do. Getting that level of performance from something you can plug in your garage is really why that statistic is so important.
Moser: Yeah, well, that makes more sense to me. I mean, I understand that you get that, so it’s an indicator of performance. It is a metric worth knowing. I get that. Thank you for explaining that because I was always a little bit confounded by that. Listen, EVs are the way the world needs to go. It’s the way the world is going. It’s just going to be a matter of time. I think that it’s great to see companies like Lucid getting a chance to get out there. For all of the great things that Tesla has done, Tesla can’t give everyone of the world an EV. It doesn’t have that type of production capabilities. So, we need more EV companies. It sounds like that’s what we’re getting. It’s nice to see the incumbents in the automobile industry also really starting to focus on this part of the market as well. I’ve seen a lot of Ford and GM commercials really focusing on it as well. GM recently changed their logo to really be more in line with that type of mentality, that type of future. It’s absolutely an exciting space, one that I think should continue to develop over the coming years. Thanks to companies like Lucid, it’s just going to bring more and more options to consumers it sounds like.
Frankel: Yeah, for sure. It’s one that’s on my watch list now. I know I’m going to get backlash for saying this, I would almost rather buy it than Tesla because it’s valued so that it could conceivably be like a five-bagger if things go well. I love Tesla’s product. I think it’s a fantastic automatic manufacturer, and I know it’s a lot more than that too, but they are priced like they are going to own the entire UV market right now.
Frankel: Lucid’s priced like it could [laughs] be a big player, and I like that better. It’s on my watch list. It has its issues that historically there is a tremendous amount of executioners, it’s worth mentioning. I’m watching that one going forward.
Moser: It has to be a good one to watch absolutely, I look forward to that. Well, let’s wrap up this week with one final company out there. This is a SPAC that is out there. It hasn’t identified its target yet, but there is a very familiar name associated with this one as well. This is Pershing Square Tontine Holdings, the ticker is PSTH, none other than Bill Ackman. You can say what you want about Mr. Ackman, but the fact of the matter is he’s made some pretty good investments in his lifetime. What do you think about Pershing Square Tontine Holdings and what do you think Bill Ackman is after here?
Frankel: We’re going to have some fun with this one.
Moser: [laughs] Okay.
Frankel: This is probably the most closely followed SPAC in the market that has not identified its target yet. For good reason, it’s the biggest one. This one raised over $4 billion in its IPO. Bill Ackman has a blank check with $4 billion written on it to go shopping with. It’s the biggest SPAC by far in the market, including the one that acquired Lucid. That could be a good and bad thing. It’s good in the sense that it allows the company to go after targets that other SPACs can’t. Other SPACs can’t conceivably go after a $50 billion company or something like that. It’s bad in the sense that it limits it to big companies. The target, most likely, if SPAC acquired — you could acquire a $100 million company with a billion-dollar SPAC and still give it a lot of cash if you wanted to.
Frankel: But realistically, this is going to be an acquisition target that has a valuation of at least I’d say $30 billion. When we’ve talked about Warren Buffett wanting to fire his elephant gun, that’s what Bill Ackman is trying to do.
Frankel: Just a couple of other criteria that Ackman set out, and like most facts, these are intentionally vague. He wants a company with predictable cash flow, high barrier market with a wide moat company, meaning big competitive advantages, limited cyclicality. He doesn’t want anything that would get crushed in a recession, for example, and a large cap company. He specifically noted that a company would probably be eligible for the S&P 500 if Ackman were to take it public. A couple that were kicked around that turned out to not be true where Coinbase, it was one of the companies too he was rumored to be looking at, and it’s confirmed that he had talks with Airbnb before they actually went public, but they turned him down and said we want to go public the traditional route. The multi-billion dollar question [laughs] here is, what is Bill Ackman targeting? I’ve heard about 20 companies mentioned and I thought of a few of my own. We’re going to run through a few of these and I want to see which ones Jason wants them to take public.
Moser: Great. I’m looking forward to this.
Frankel: Four that I think are on the more likely side of it: one is Stripe, the financial services company, which just raised capital. They just became a little less likely, but this has been the one that everyone has been rumoring all along, Stripe the payment processing company. They just raised capital with a $95 billion valuation.
Moser: I saw that.
Frankel: They’re definitely out of the realm of most SPACs, but not this one. The Bloomberg company is one that has been heavily rumored for this one. I think that could happen. I think shareholders wouldn’t be disappointed if that was it. That’s not a terribly exciting business, in my opinion. One thing worth noting is Ackman has really had success in restaurant investments. Subway is one that’s been heavily rumored.
Moser: Oh, wow. That’s an interesting name. I would not have thought about that.
Frankel: A less likely restaurant that he could take public will be Chick-fil-A. Everyone pretty much says that they don’t want to go public, which I agree with, but Ackman has pulled off crazier stuff before. Another one, FanDuel, currently they’re a subsidiary of Flutter, and we know DraftKings was arguably the most successful SPAC IPO yet. They’re a subsidiary of Flutter Entertainment, who has expressed interest in spinning it off. SPACs can spin off parts of existing public companies. That’s within the realm of possibility. Those are some that I see are on the more likely end of things.
Now, let’s have some fun and talk about some that are not quite as likely. [laughs] My Holy Grail — I’m approaching […] time shareholder, my holy grail is SpaceX. If you were to take SpaceX or even spin-out Startling, the Internet portion of it, that would be my Holy Grail for him to take public. Robinhood has been rumored, even though Robinhood has filed for a traditional IPO, that they don’t actually have to go through with it if they don’t want to. They could go public through this; Chime, which is essentially a bank at this point. One company I heard rumored recently is WeWork. Bringing WeWork back from the dead.
Moser: Yeah. Interesting.
Frankel: Ackman has a history of making value oriented real estate plays. He invested in a company called General Growth Properties that was bankrupt during the financial crisis.
Moser: I remember that.
Frankel: That’s where Howard Hughes Corporation came from. It was a spin-off of GGP. That’s why he is the head honcho there. Fidelity is one that I’ve heard. People don’t think it was a private company, but it is, Fidelity Investment Firm. One that as a Jersey boy, I would love to see this one be true, Wawa, the convenience store chain, is one that I’ve heard rumored, but that’s another one that’s long said, we like being family and we don’t want to go public. That’s a pretty cool list of companies and most other SPACs couldn’t even dream of acquiring. They are all within the realm of possibilities valuation-wise.
Moser: That could be interesting. That to me seems to be probably, one of the more enjoyable parts of this would be trying to identify the target, and if you’re someone like Bill Ackman, who’s obviously been at this for a while, has a lot of experience as an investor, you got to imagine he’s casting a very wide net. It’s so difficult, it seems, to be able to find those compelling targets, because either A, they’ve got their own plans on how they want to go about it, or B, maybe they just have no interest in living life as a publicly traded company. It’s always worth remembering, while that’s what we focus on, living life as a publicly trading company is a difficult thing. You are under the microscope. I would venture to say that while I think it would be cool to see Chick-fil-A out there as a publicly traded company, I don’t know if they have an interest in doing that. Maybe they do, but they just don’t strike me as really having that aspiration.
Frankel: They have to answer to shareholders if that’s the case. Shareholders may want them to be open on Sunday and they don’t want to work on Sunday, things like that.
Moser: You have to answer to shareholders, and oftentimes, you have to answer to the court of public opinion as well.
Frankel: That’s why Elon Musk hasn’t taken SpaceX public yet, because that’s his baby. He doesn’t want to answer to anybody but himself on that.
Moser: I can understand that, to me it makes perfect sense.
Frankel: But him and Bill Ackman have a friendly relationship, so it’s possible.
Moser: It might be.
Frankel: If it does, we’ll leave you alone to what you want to do.
Moser: [laughs] Better make sure you have that thing written in the contract.
Frankel: I think if it turns out to be SpaceX, the SPAC is going for soar, but I don’t necessarily think that that’s a high probability. I’d give that like a 5% chance of happening.
Moser: Well, definitely I would imagine, but yeah, maybe a smaller percentage chance there. Any which way, that is a lot of fun thinking about the potential there. Clearly, a SPAC that we’re going to keep our eyes on. To me, this sounds like a perfect one to revisit when they do identify the target and lay that strategy out. We’ll keep an eye on it, and when we find out more news, we’ll bring it back to the show here for a future episode.
Frankel: It’s also, just not to add a wrench into this thing, but it’s worth mentioning they can buy two companies if they wanted if they couldn’t find the one that’s big enough.
Moser: That’s — hey, listen, man.
Frankel: Food for thought.
Moser: A lot of ways to do it. Matt, I think that’s going to do it for us this week though. I appreciate you taking the time to jump on here and digging through these three compelling ideas. I think our listeners really enjoyed this week’s show, I know I did.
Frankel: I had a great time and I look forward to the fourth one.
Moser: Absolutely. Well, we will see you next week then. Remember folks, you can always reach out to us on Twitter at @MFindustryfocus. You can drop us an email at [email protected] As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don’t buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. Thanks as always to Tim Sparks for putting the show together for us. For Matt Frankel, I’m Jason Moser. Thanks for listening and we’ll see you next week.
This article represents the opinion of the writer, who may disagree with the “official” recommendation position of a Motley Fool premium advisory service. We’re motley! Questioning an investing thesis — even one of our own — helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.