Listen to the Stock Club Podcast

Stock Club: Is 2021 The Year of the Acquisition?

The team takes a look at the recent increase in mergers and acquisitions in 2021, while pitching their favorite wild card stocks right now.

In this episode of Stock Club, we look at over $3.6 trillion spent globally on mergers and acquisitions already this year, 2021 is on course to be a record-breaking year of deal-making. What’s driving all of this activity?

We also discuss some of the biggest recent acquisitions, including Intuit(NASDAQ: INTU) buying Mailchimp and Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) buying TakeLessons.

The latest in the App Store battle between Apple and Epic Games.

And Emmet and Rory pitch two Wild Card stocks.

James

Hi there. Welcome to Stock Club, the weekly podcast brought to you by MyWallSt. I’m James and joining me on today’s episode is Emmet Savage, chief investor here at MyWallSt. And Rory Carron, our head analyst. Today we’re talking about the latest in Apple’s battle over its App Store policies, recent merger and acquisition news, including Intuit’s purchase of Mailchimp. And Emmet and Rory pitch me their wild card stock ahead of Emmet’s free webinar next week.

James

So, guys, great episode with Jason Moser last week. Really, really interesting to listen to but, Rory, I thought you were getting a little bit too comfortable with the hosting role.

Rory

Yeah, I thought it was great. It’s funny. It’s a totally different thing. I was preparing for it, thinking, God, I have no prep to do it all. This is great, being the host. You just ask questions, and then I realized you have to do loads of prep to be those.

James

Yeah, that’s it. This is what I do every day, all week.

Rory

Well, I don’t know if you do it, but I thought that I have to. In order to keep up the standards.

James

We won’t get too deep in that. I’ll just say I won’t dust off my P-45 yet, Rory. So let’s get into some of the stories we’re gonna cover this week. And the first one is a story that we’ve covered multiple times in this podcast. I’m talking. Of course about Apple’s various run-ins over its App Store policies. The latest in this long-running saga came last week when a judge in California ruled that Apple was not unfairly monopolizing the mobile app market through its App store purchasing system.

But developers like Epic Games, the makers of the massively popular Fortnite game, should be allowed to tell their users about different ways to pay for subscriptions outside of the App Store system. On the surface, I thought this kind of looked like a bit of a win for Epic, but Epic have actually already appealed the decision because they’ve been ordered to pay for damages, number one. But number two, they still believe that Apple acts like a monopoly, which the ruling obviously thinks differently. Rory, this has been going on for so long, and it feels like every new development makes things more complicated. What’s going on? What’s your take on this latest ruling?

Rory

Well, so, as you just pointed out, it was quite a complex case, and the ruling delivered by the judge last week did cause even more confusion. I know when I first saw the Tweets land in my timeline, just like you, James, I thought at first glance, Epic has actually won the case. But I think as the dust settled and people actually read the ruling, it became obvious that this was actually a huge win for Apple. A little bit of background, last year, Epic Games, the maker of the massively successful Fortnite, updated its app on both iOS and Android to include their own payment systems.

And at the exact same time, they reduced the cost of their in-game currency by exactly 30%, which, as we know, is Apple and Google’s standard commission on any revenue generated through the respective app stores. Now, this was direct flouting of Apple and Google’s rules. Both companies basically removed Fortnite from their app stores. At this stage, Epic started campaign called ‘Free Fortnite’ and launched a legal battle against both Apple and Google alleging antitrust.

Now, like, I’m not a lawyer. So —

James

We know that!

Rory

If any lawyers out there want to school me on what actually happened, feel free. But I’m going to give it my best shot here from all the stuff I’ve read over the last couple of days. The case kind of came into three points here. The first was Epic claimed that Apple is a monopoly because it controls basically every aspect of the App Store.

James

Okay

Rory

Yeah. And that’s what they were kind of arguing. Apple said that this wasn’t about the App Store at all. Actually, it was about gaming in general. And in that market, Apple is far from a monopoly when you think about all the different ways that people consume games.

James

Yeah.

Rory

The second point was Epic were arguing about Apple’s, what’s called their anti-steering provision, which basically prevents developers from linking to payment options outside of Apple. And they say that’s anti-competitive. And the third point was that Epic alleged that Apple was behaving like an illegal monopolist. Now, on the first point, the judge found that she didn’t actually agree with either Epic or Apple in terms of what market was at stake. And she noted that it’s the digital gaming transaction market that is important here, which basically means all the money that’s spent on buying games and all the money that’s spent within those games.

James

Yeah

Rory

Now, she did rule that Apple’s anti-steering positions were anti-competitive, so Apple can no longer do that. But, of course, as we’ve discussed before, Apple is already heading in that direction on their own. So Apple has 90 days to appeal that. But if not appealed, we will start seeing some changes to the iOS systems in the next kind of 90 days. And the final question of is Apple an illegal monopolist. Well, the easy answer there was no. Because again, now the judge says we’re not talking about apps in general.

James

yeah

Rory

She said we were talking about gaming and in gaming. There are loads of competitors out there.

James

Yeah.

Rory

So that’s kind of the breakdown of what the ruling said. And essentially, it was a big win for Apple because Apple didn’t want to be thought of as a monopoly, essentially. So the fact that was defined as a gaming issue, not a whole app issue means that Apple kind of essentially won the case and Epic are gonna appeal that.

James

So Apple managed to avoid that monopoly branding, which I suppose is crucial to their argument. But it seems like they kind of expected a lot of this. We spoke on this podcast a few weeks ago about Apple’s announcement that they would allow developers to contact users about alternative payment methods outside the app ecosystem. Do you think this was Apple preempting the decision in this court battle?

Rory

Yeah, certainly Apple have taken steps over the last couple of months to try and put themselves in kind of better stead with public perception. Of course, they pushed the fees on the first million from 30% to 15%. That was kind of seen as an olive branch. Google quickly followed suit afterwards, and they’ve kind of done a little bit of kind of engineering where they’re like, oh, this was already kind of allowed before the judge even said they have to do it’s kind of already allowed. And we’ll just kind of clarify that now that this was always allowed, there’s no reason to actually change anything, but they will, I think, take steps to protect themselves in the best way they can.

We talk about this anti-steering provision and letting developers at least tell people, first of all, that you can pay in a different way, which is kind of a big, big point of contention. But also, how are they going to let developers now link to other places. My guess is they’re going to make it pretty tricky. It’s not going to be well, first of all, you have to remember that most developers probably don’t have the resources it’s going to take to build their own payment system, and none of them have the resources to build one that’s going to be comparable to Apple’s.

So it may be the in-app payment system will always be there. And then they might be able to say, oh, look, there’s another way to pay, right? But that could mean clicking on a Safari link that brings you to a website that makes you fill out all your credit card information, things that aren’t going to be particularly appealing to users. And so they’re going to have to do the discount is going to be quite big. The 30% that Apple takes, they’re going to have to pass it on to the consumer in order to even get them to look at this alternative payment method.

And in my experience, consumers typically take the road of least resistance when it comes to these things. So if you’re getting a 30% discount, fine, if it’s a small purchase, which a lot of these are, are you just gonna go through Apple’s system knowing that all your credit card information is there, knowing how secure it is? I feel like that’s kind of what’s going to end up happening here.

James

Yeah, absolutely so no real worries about threats to Apple’s revenue really. Let’s get back to that question of monopoly and something I want to ask both of you. Obviously, the interpretation of what this court case is about, whether it’s about App Store in general or about gaming or about in-game payments? What do you guys think? Do you think Apple acts like Monopoly? Rory, I’ll come to you first on this.

Rory

What I think is that I look back 10-15 years ago. Let’s say even longer than that, 20 years ago, when the Internet was, when I was first starting to use the Internet. And there were lots of applications out there that you could download. And there was ways that you could buy things on the Internet. And I remember asking my mother if I could borrow a credit card to buy something on the Internet about 20 years ago and she looked at me as if I just slapped her in the face like, you want me to put my credit card on the Internet? And all these applications that were out there, you were like, you’re taking your life in your hands, downloading them. There was viruses and malware and all this stuff on.

I think what Apple did when they created the App Store was they created an entire ecosystem where people felt comfortable buying stuff from developers. You think about the change from pre-App Store days. It’s black and white. I don’t think there would be this amazing economy without what Apple created. And in that sense, I do think that they deserve to be able to make money out of it. Well, I think what’s happening at the moment is if I was using analogy of the pharmaceutical business, right? You know, when you create a new drug, you typically get about kind of 20 years where you have full ownership of that drug and no one else allowed to copy it. After 20 years, you have what’s called the patent cliff. And this is when your patent expires and generic drug makers basically flood the market with cheaper alternatives. I think what’s kind of happening here at the moment and it’s happening with kind of Google as well, and kind of South Korea, is that there’s definitely a feeling out there in the world that Apple and Google have had their 20 years at this point, or at least they’re kind of approaching it.

And this Epic case was one of those kind of first real tests of that. And I don’t think Epic actually expected to win this case. I really think this was Epic kind of poking the bear going, how far can we get in here? And what could we kind of disturb about Apple’s, what they think is a monopoly? And it could lead to a lot of other things further down the line. I think even the judge kind of expressed it, she said that she wasn’t saying Apple wasn’t a monopoly, but she was saying that Epic had failed to prove was a monopoly in this particular case.

So perhaps another business or perhaps Epic themselves could come back again, kind of be a bit more refined in what they’re looking at and start changing, at least hammering out a bit of Apple’s kind of wall.

James

But there what’s your feeling on this Emmet?

Emmet

Yeah, well, I love that analogy, Rory, about the drugs and the patents to 20 year protection when you discover a molecule that’s addressing a specific condition, and that is really what they did. They created a molecule that addresses the specific condition, but they currently have monopolistic profits. Their App Store profits last year came in at something like I don’t have to almost like $75 billion in 2020, and that’s like super normal profits. So they really are in a duopoly with Google with monopolistic practices, as we’ve all seen.

James

Yeah, absolutely. And we see you mentioned there Rory, Google are in trouble over in South Korea. They were fined, I think $170 million for prohibiting other companies from building alternatives to Android OS, so I think we can definitely concur. I think we can definitely see a crackdown on these kind of so-called wall gardens of OS systems. Let’s move on then and this year 2021 has already been a bumper year for mergers and acquisitions. So far this year already there’s been $3.6 trillion spent on M&A setting us on a path to beat 2015 as a record-breaking year of deal-making.

To get into specifics, we’ve seen some pretty big acquisitions even just the past few days. So Intuit, a company best knowing for selling tax software spent about $12 billion to buy the email marketing platform Mailchimp earlier this week. Microsoft has also let lose with its wallet, snapping up both a video editing app Clipchamp and online education company TakeLessons, in just the past week. This means that Microsoft has acquired ten companies  this year, so far by my count, which is a pretty impressive tally. Emmet I am going to come to you on this first and thinking about the year as a whole and why there’s been so many of this deal making in 2021. What do you think is the cause for it? Why are we seeing such a flurry of companies being snapped up by larger competitors at the moment?

Emmet

I suspect that giant businesses are recognizing that SPACs are a new competitor and that they need to accelerate their M&A activities before viable growing businesses are snapped up and sent out the listing door as it were. And I think it’s useful to remind ourselves of the reasons that a company makes an acquisition in the first place, because there are loads of reasons and they’re not all mutually exclusive. Well, first up, a buyer is generally taking out a competitor, and at a first glance, the benefits of that are clear because you’re no longer chasing the same or similar customers. After an acquisition, you should have greater market share and often instant diversification into adjacent products or markets, ideally with products that add value to your product set and for which you can power charge the sales method.

Like, for example, Atlassian, a favorite of mine. They acquired Trello back when from a private company, which I think was called Frog Creek Software. And that was genius from a complementary product acquisition perspective. It gave the entire tool set for companies who are operating on a digital basis. So there’s also an opportunity to take out costs of either or both businesses, which for good are bad very often comes in the form of human capital laying people off. But despite all of these benefits, when you look at mergers and acquisitions in the MBA textbooks, they are notoriously difficult because cultures get crushed by the mechanism.

And the acquired companies very often find that or the acquiring company very often find that the value they identified didn’t actually materialize or it wasn’t even sustainable. But in short, there is a SPAC and M&A gold rush of sorts, and I suspect they’re fueling each other.

James

Yeah. I just want to get back to that initial SPAC point you make. Do you think these companies, do you think SPACs are making it easier for smaller companies to go to market and that the larger companies are trying to snap them up before this happens?

Emmet

Oh, they are certainly like if you take it, there’s no doubt that Microsoft has a watchlist of dozens or hundreds of companies that would fit into their product portfolio. And equally with that intelligence, they’re aware in this kind of SPAC brigade are out trying to take those businesses down a different route. I personally have high conviction that there is a rush of SPACs that is fueling M&A. And I think M&A is kind of expediting certain SPACs. So I think there’s a kind of a circular reference going on in the marketplace.

James

Yeah, that’s very interesting. I hadn’t heard part of that aspect before. So let’s talk about some of those companies in question then, and we’ll go to Intuit-Mailchimp. First, we actually use Mailchimp here at MyWallSt, and I can’t say that I can immediately see the synergies between a tax software company and an email platform. What am I missing Emmet?

Emmet

Yeah, I do agree with you. And Intuit are very well versed in acquisition. So you see, there are a lot of businesses that we discussed about the risks of acquisition, but there are big businesses that have nailed the process. One from our app is Hain Celestial, which pretty much scale through acquisitions. I don’t know, Rory, if you’d have the number, but they just acquired, I think, hundreds of companies. So there’s businesses that just grow through acquisition. Intuit did both, they fuel their growth through acquiring businesses and, of course, through organic growth.

And by my count, they’ve acquired about 60 companies of which about ten in the last five years. And just earlier this year, they acquired Rocket Science Group for $12 billion, which is more or less what they paid for Mailchimp — £12 billion with cash and stock. The fit for me just doesn’t make sense. When I read the press release, it says Intuit thinks that the deal advances its powering, prosperity around the world and its strategy to become an AI driven, expert platform, which just doesn’t read right to me. I don’t really know what they’re saying.

James

After that sentence, you’re kind of like, what did I just read?

Emmet

Oh, yeah.

James

It sems that every company kind of slaps the AI tag on their branding as well. It’s like, yeah, we’ve AI here somewhere.

Emmet

Sure. Well, when you think about the principles of AI and neural networks, there’s an information loop that refines, and ultimately the algorithm gets smarter. I don’t know, in fact, what data are feeding into this loop. But clearly, you don’t drop $12 billion on a business without having very clear intent. And I suspect that we’re missing — there’s a lot of data in email campaigns. And as you said, we use Mailchimp. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of other businesses use it, too. And I think Intuit see a very clear value point that isn’t identifiable to me anyway.

James

Yeah, and you mentioned that part of this deal — it’s a cash and stock deal. The fact that the likes of Intuit, their share price has been on such a run over the past couple of years and driven by the Pandemic and things like that, do you think that increases the velocity of these mergers and acquisitions, too, that they’ve got a bit more capital to play with?

Emmet

Yeah. I mean, generally the businesses will try and preserve cash unless they’re sitting on an absolute mountain of it. And when the acquired company is being acquired with stock, obviously, it’s in everyone’s interest, both parties’ interest to make sure that the whole thing succeeds. And I think that they, of course, have a kind of stronger checkbook with their equity when they can show that there’s past price appreciation, because Intuit has been an absolutely wonderful investment, and it is growing extremely quickly despite its scale and size. So I would imagine, despite the fact that here on this podcast, I cannot tell you why Mailchimp was a good acquisition. I bet it was.

James

Let’s move on to Microsoft then. And this acquisition of TakeLessons than particular. I think that’s very significant because the company actually said back in January that it had over 100 million students using its Team product for teaching. Obviously, online remote teaching during the pandemic. Do you think Microsoft are gonna make a big play into online education with an acquisition like TakeLessons?

Emmet

I do, TakeLessons, I think, is a wonderful acquisition. It is the Teladoc of learning. You go onto the website, you type in what it is you want to learn, and they’ll match you with a tutor in various areas. And again, if you look at Microsoft’s pedigree and their history of acquisition, it’s absolutely colossal. Since summer 1987, when they first made an acquisition of a company called Forethought for $14 million, they’ve successfully closed 260 acquisitions, taken stakes in dozens of other businesses, the one that’s most notable is they invested $150 million into Apple in August 1997.

I mean, that alone not a bad return on that not a bad return. Absolutely. Right. So the fact that they’ve bought TakeLessons and also Clipchamp. Clearly, they’re well versed in successful acquisitions. To your question, I do think that Microsoft is gonna push further into the education space. And when you think about other products they have and I suppose tier-A suite of products like Teams, you would imagine TakeLessons could click into the workplace with Teams.

And all of a sudden you’ve added a new layer of value, as Scott Galloway would say, rounding one of the things, one of the Scott Galloway has a T algorithm or a trillion-dollar business algorithm and the attributes that a business needs in order to build and sustain a multitrillion-dollar business. And one of them is rundling. And the example that he uses when you go through that curriculum, as a lot of us did in MyWallSt, just keep adding new value. And Amazon Prime is the poster child example of that where there is you get about ten things when you subscribe to Amazon Prime, so it’s entwined in the way you work and think. And you’re kind of psyche on cancellation has been reduced because there’s a different reason for everyone. I think that that is ultimately for Microsoft is going with a lot of these acquisitions.

So Teams, for example, will just get more and more valuable if they start to offer things like TakeLessons where you can advance yourself and your lessons in your workplace during your lunch break.

James

Absolutely. Rory, what about you, any of those acquisitions standing out to you?

Rory

I think the Intuit one’s actually probably the most interesting because, yeah, it’s like, what are you doing with this? First of all, you know, it’s particularly interesting is the founders of Mailchimp never took in any investment over the years.

James

Wow

Rory

So they’re basically splitting that $12 billion between themselves, I think well done, you guys.

James

That’s a great story.

Rory

Yeah. It’s one of those things. The lesson is always launch your minimal viable products.

James

Yeah

Rory

You never know what’s gonna happen. But I think, yeah. When I heard about it, I went and I looked back and I looked into Intuit’s forward thinking strategy, and they are definitely attacking this idea of the small to medium business market. They’ve got a kind of five big bets that they’ve highlighted in their strategy. I’ll read them out here just for the sake that people can read further into it if they want to.

It’s revolutionize speed to benefit. Big Bet two is connect people to experts. Big Bet three was unlock smart money decisions. Big Bet four was be the center of small business growth and Big Bet five was disrupt the small business mid-market.

And when I think about Intuit, I do think of this company that has been very much part of that market for an awful long time with their tax software, and if they have that relationship with them already, is this a kind of almost Salesforce kind of play where they want to become the company that’s connected with those small businesses and providing them with this kind of suite of products? And I do think email is still a fantastic driver of conversion, and this could be kind of where they’re going with that. They want this to be kind of part of the kind of Intuit-Salesforce=esque kind of customer 360 vibe. I just have no idea whether Mailchimp is worth $12 million, but look we’ll see how it works out.

James

It’s a lot for a few emails but I’m sure they know more about it to me. So let’s talk about some of the things going on in MyWallSt at the moment. So Rory and I sat down earlier this week to record the latest Stock of the Month podcast. If you haven’t been looking at our social channels, you’ll see that I did a pretty good impression of Owen Wilson on that episode, so make sure to go and check it in the MyWallSt app. We’ve also brand new stock coming to MyWallSt shortlist this Monday, so don’t forget to check that out as well. And the last thing I want to mention is that next Tuesday, September 21 at 05:00 p.m. Dublin Time Emmet is holding his Wild Card and World Changers Workshop. In this, Emmet is going to discuss the concept of wild card stock and how they can make a massive short-term impact in your portfolio. And he’s also gonna tell us a few potential wild card stocks that he’s found. Emmet, given that you’re hosting this Wild Card and World Changes Workshop next week for this week’s mailbag, I wanted you to tell us what is a wild card exactly? In your book, when you’re talking about these wild card stock, what would you constitute as a wild card stock?

Emmet

There was a book written by a guy called John Peterson called ‘Out of the Blue’ and ‘Out of the Blue: How to Anticipate Big Future Surprises’. And he kind of came up with the best definition that I’ve read for what is a wild card. He describes a wild card as a low probability, high impact event. So when you bring in that thinking to your investment life and try and put parameters around, well, what is a low probability, high impact event for your portfolio? What stocks might actually have a high positive impact? They will generally come at a higher level of risk than normal. They are businesses that are broadly misunderstood or have too many unknowns with them. They can be early-stage companies that are ignored or they have headwinds and they’ve been abandoned. They’re stocks that have been just maligned and destroyed — and turnarounds as Peter Lynch defined — they may be wild cards, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that a wild card is a turnaround. Basically, a wild card is a stock that can gain a lot of ground in a short period of time, and they’re very exciting to find and potentially very rewarding.

And I recently reread Jason Zweig’s book ‘Your Money and Your Brain’, where he studies how our brains react to two forms of stimulus, which is simply gains and losses. It’s a really good book, actually, for anyone, whether you’re into investing or not. It’s one that I recommend our listeners should read. And he says, and I quote, the best investors make a habit of putting procedures in place in advance that help inhibit the hot reaction of the emotional brain.

So when the market crashes, stocks become cheaper and they’re a better deal for longterm investors. But these feelings of panic make it really tough for investors to buy stock. Like, look, we all lived through the coronavirus crash. Mid-March 2020 was the sharpest, fastest, most precipitous decline and stock prices ever seen. And everybody who’s in our game looked at it and realized, wow, this is ridiculous. Like Disney has halved in price. But there’s this part of our brain which stands in the way, and it’s kind of this, fight or flight reaction.

James

Yeah, Lizard brain

Emmet

Lizard brain. Exactly. So a wild card is a stock that I believe can make huge returns in a short period of time, but it comes with a higher level of risk.

James

Yeah. I was just gonna say that the term wild card definitely screams risk. How might something — and I don’t want you to give away the whole shebang — but with a wild card and investing wild cards, how does that sit alongside a long term buy and hold portfolio?

Well, it sits very well. And one of the things that I learned by running Horizon is that I pass on great opportunities because they fell outside the parameters that I’m applying for, finding businesses with the potential to grow 10X. And that’s Disney example is one. I looked at Disney, I can’t quite remember what the stock price was. I think it was like 80 bucks, and I was like: That’s ridiculous. That is ridiculous. But did I buy? No, because I have kind of a framework in which I’m operating Horizon.

Now, what I should have done is said, I’m buying Disney right now because ultimately this thing, it’s been cut in half. So really I’ve punished myself while running Horizon by applying rules that sometimes have to be bent. And I think with wild cards, which I will be introducing at the Webinar next week and then introducing into the Horizon service, I think we have a potential for really fast returns. And in fact, two stocks I just bought two weeks ago were up 52%, and I think 30%, respectively, by applying the parameters that I’m going to be discussing.

James

Okay, cool. So don’t forget that workshop is next Tuesday, September 21 at 05:00 P.m.. Dublin Dime that’s GMT plus one. You can find a link to register in the notes for today’s show or just go over to MyWallSt.com and you should find the link there. I suppose, in the spirit of wild cards for the elevator pitch today, I’ve asked both of you to pick me a stock that you think is going to be a potential wildcard. Rory, I’ll let you go first. What’s your wild card stock or potential, I should say wild card stock?

Rory

Yeah, there’s a company I’ve been looking at that is completely outside my circle of competence, but it’s something I really want to learn about is something I really it’s a business I’m interested in. It’s an industry I’m interested in. It’s a small company called AppHarvest, and they’re developers and operators of largescale indoor farms. And essentially what they do is they create these massive kind of farms inside, essentially be like massive greenhouses, and they claim they can produce 30 times more produce than an open field of farm by using 90% less water with zero agricultural runoff.

Now there most recent report was a disaster. They basically had to drop all the guidance they previously had. The stock got absolutely destroyed, but I’m interested in learning more about it, and I think it could be a potential winner.

James

That’s what you want to hear. You want to hear a bad recent story that really tees it up nicely. Emmet, what about you?

Emmet

Well, I’m gonna save my best idea for the Webinar, but I will tell you about one of the two wild card trades I mentioned a few moments ago that I made on Horizon or at least broadcast on the Horizon community before making the trade. And it’s a company called Select Quote, which I bought on the last day of August, which is just 17 days ago as we record, and it’s currently up 52% for me. Actually a shave above it. And I think it was a perfect wild card as it was dumped by the market on the day I bought, but the signals were there that this was an irrational oversell.

When you look at the things that Peter Lynch would look at, like price to earnings growth ratio of the company was 0.6, return on equity, 21%, insider ownership 25%. But more interestingly, there was insider activity, which I will be elaborating on in the Webinar next week. And I still think that Select Quote has some room to grow even though it’s recovered somewhat. I still think it’s going to grow a little more.

James

Wow. Okay, that was a good one, 50+% return in 17 days. It’s pretty good going so far. So that’s it for today’s show folks. Remember, if you have any questions you’d like to answer or elevator pitches you’d like us to tackle, make sure to get in touch. You can find us on Twitter  @MyWallStHQ or on TikTok, that’s @MyWallSt, or simply just email us at pod@MyWallSt.com. If you’re enjoying the show, make sure to tell your friends about us and don’t forget to do a review for us on whatever platform you listen to us on. Thanks for joining us today and we’ll talk to you next week.

If you want to catch up with all the latest stuff in MyWallSt, just tap here to Start your free trial now.