Wall Street has infamously had its share of ugly Octobers, so Alison Southwick and Robert Brokamp chose this month to offer their listeners a special treat: a four-part series on the history of market crashes in the United States.
In this Motley Fool Answers podcast, guest and Former Fool Morgan Housel leads the discussion on a topic near and dear to the hearts of online-based operations like the Fool -- the dot-com bubble, and the subsequent long and painful crash.
A full transcript follows the video.
This video was recorded on Oct. 17, 2017.
Alison Southwick: This is Motley Fool Answers. I'm Alison Southwick, and I'm joined, as always, by Robert Brokamp, personal-finance expert here at The Motley Fool.
Robert Brokamp: Always a pleasure to be with you again, Alison.
Southwick: Today is part three of our four-part series on the history of market crashes, thanks to the help of Morgan Housel of Collaborative Funds. This week we're visiting the excitingly nerd-tastic days of the dot-com bubble. We'll also answer your question about getting a job in the exciting field of finance. All that and more on this week's episode of Motley Fool Answers.
It's time for "Answers Answers," and today's question comes from Jason. "In my mid-30s, I discovered a passion for all things finance and decided to return to school for a second bachelor's. Totally crushed the derivatives class. Your options guy would be so proud." -- I'm sure Jeff would. "My question is what a typical entry-level position is for a stock analyst, and is that something a person with all the middle-age responsibilities -- mortgage, family, etc. -- could jump into?"
Brokamp: I would say that about once or twice a month we get a question about getting into finance in some way. It might be becoming a stock analyst. It might be becoming a financial planner. I've been resistant to answer the questions, because it's been almost 20 years since I was in the traditional financial-services industry. Here at The Motley Fool, I would not consider us the typical career path for someone who wants to do it, so I'm not sure I'm an expert, but I'll share a few thoughts, and hopefully, Jason, they can help.
I would, first of all, say that you have to think about whether you want to move or not. If you want to stay where you are, see what's in your area and what's being offered. And besides typical job sites, look at the finance-related associations in your area. It could be the Financial Planning Association. It could be the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors. It could be the CFA Institute. They all have local chapters. If you have one in your area, they almost all have some sort of job board or something like that.
Southwick: And that includes stuff for someone who wants to be more like an analyst? Like someone who'd want to go work for a mutual fund or something like that?
Brokamp: It could be. But that's where you'll get an idea of what's available in your area. And then if you're willing to move, then you move out to the bigger firms. A lot of people start with the big-name brokerages, but you could expand that to things like the mutual fund companies. Research companies like Morningstar or S&P. Even insurance companies have analysts and financial planners.
The one thing that I would be cautious about is there's a big debate about the future of finance-related professions. There's a big question of how many stock analysts and how many financial planners we'll need in the future based on all kinds of things, one of them being the trend toward indexing. If everyone is indexing, how many people do you need analyzing stocks? Then there's the trend toward automation where more and more companies are using computers to pick stocks and asset allocations, and even do some financial planning.
On the other hand, the industry is heavily tilted toward people in their late 40s, 50s, and 60s -- baby boomers -- who are eventually going to retire, and particularly in the world of financial planners there aren't enough people coming up through the ranks to take their places.
So if I were trying to get into the industry, I would do basically what I did when I got into the industry back in 1997, and that is I found an existing group that was already managing money. They needed somebody to be a junior planner, help with some administrative stuff, but they were going to show me the ropes. That's important, because if you want to be a certified financial planner like I am, you have to take classes and you have to pass the tests. You also have to get three years' worth of experience, but you only need two years of experience if you're being mentored by a CFP.
So if you want to get into the financial-planning profession, I would do it that way, rather than just trying to go out on my own. And ideally you'd be hooking up with someone who's a little older who's getting close to retiring so that when they retire you take over their business.
For the stock analyst -- and I asked some of the analysts here at The Motley Fool what they would do -- they all emphasized, not surprisingly, on the education part. Read lots of good books. Read all the letters from Warren Buffett. A shout-out for our latest edition of The Motley Fool Investment Guide, of course.
But they also said you have to somehow start building up some sort of a record of your picks, but also your ability to communicate analysis and why you did it. And one way to do that is something we have at The Motley Fool called CAPS, at caps.fool.com. You create a profile, you pick investments, and you can basically blog there about why you picked certain investments.
That will show you, No. 1, if you really like doing this, No. 2, whether you are good at it, and No. 3, if you do decide to apply for jobs, you can send that link and say, "See, this is my record by an objective third party, and you can read my analysis." Hopefully you'll impress them that way.
Southwick: But here at The Motley Fool we do things a little differently than most of Wall Street.
Brokamp: I think what you have to do, and it's the way I got into the financial-services business and the way I got into the Fool, is you just have to find a way to get your foot in the door, show them that you're capable and you know what you're doing, and then work toward the specialty that you're most interested in.
I should also add that because of this trend toward automation, one of our analysts here, Brendan Mathews, suggested you should probably also be looking at skills related to programming, data analysis, and things like that. There's more demand for that type of analysis than the traditional bottom-up stock analysis, depending on which firm you go to. So where you join the stock analysis, but you'd also be able to create the algorithms companies are trending toward.
Southwick: Isn't that funny? Like with every job it would help if you know how to write code. It doesn't matter what job. Augh! I'll get back on my Python classes, I swear.
Brokamp: Brendan said to me that saying you want to be a stock analyst now is like saying you want to be a newspaper reporter or a deejay at a radio station.
Brokamp: Could be a fun job, but it's an industry that's kind of, in terms of that typical job, we don't know what kind of future there is 10 or 20 years down the road.
Southwick: It's the late '90s. Everyone is going crazy about the internet. Could tech companies take advantage of this series of tubes and make heaps of money? Sure, but the key is having a foosball table and knowing how to work hard and play hard. Or just play hard and throw equity around like confetti. Whee! What could go wrong? Well, Morgan Housel joins us to explain exactly what went wrong. Hi, Morgan!
Morgan Housel: How's it going?
Southwick: So this is Part 3 of our series on market crashes, and today we're going after the dot-com bubble.
Housel: The most recent one. Kind of. I guess we've had more craziness since then.
Southwick: The Great Recession was a little crazy.
Housel: Yeah. But this is an important point, too. I think the Great Recession in the stock market wasn't necessarily a bubble in the stock market. It was a bubble in housing that spilled over to the stock market, but the last big stock bubble that we had was in the late '90s.
Brokamp: When you look at the Great Recession, there was only one calendar year that the stock market was down. The dot-com, you had three years in a row of down years.
Southwick: And there's just so many jokes to be made. Like I think by law we have to make a Pets.com joke. I don't know what it's going to be, but it's coming.
Housel: Should we do it now?
Southwick: Go for it. Do you have one that you can break out?
Housel: No. Do you?
Southwick: That may have to be the joke. You joke that there's a joke. It's kind of meta.
Housel: I think people bring up Pets.com because that's like the standard joke.
Southwick: It is the joke.
Housel: And eToys and Webvan. All three of those companies, the idea behind them, are viable businesses today.
Southwick: They're great! They're great ideas!
Housel: That's one of the craziest parts about the dot-com bubble, is that all these things that we still use today as a sign of how crazy things were back then, they weren't that crazy. They were great business ideas that were maybe just 10 years early.
Southwick: Augh! Boy! All right. Let's get into it. I was kind of around for the dot-com bubble. I was kind of alive. Not an investor. From my outsider perspective, it seems like this perfect storm of exuberance over this new thing, the internet, and not quite understanding it. These companies coming in. We know it's big. We don't know exactly why. But then investing in these companies also becomes a lot easier. That's my quick take, but you're going to give us the longer take.
Housel: I think that's exactly it, and those two points coming together at the same time is really what made it crazy, versus other times in history when there was a new industry that was coming along that was going to change the future. One, in the 1960s, was plastics -- which is almost funny to say. But that was the 1960s. Plastics was going to change the world, and the companies that were making plastics were the big, innovative companies that had huge growth in front of them.
But plastics didn't change how anyone invested at all. So you had a lot of excitement and you had overvaluation, but with the internet it was, "Hey, not only is this going to change the world, but now you can invest far easier and faster and cheaper," and you're just bombarded with more information than ever before. So you put those two together, and I think that's the backbone of what led everything to get out of control so quickly.
The other thing about this period is that when people talk about the dot-com boom, they talk about the late '90s. This is how they'd say it. Sometimes they'd say the 1990s. It was really only a 12-month or 18-month period in 1998 and 1999 that it got really out of hand. It really happened pretty quickly. And for most of the '90s, even when this was going on, there was growth and the stock market was doing well, but it was mostly rational and made a lot of sense for what was going on. It was just this blow-off top right at the end, where things started getting really crazy.
And a lot of that craziness was really only captured in a small number of companies in that period at the end. If you take a look at the stock market, most individual companies peaked in 1997-1998. It was the gains that the market experienced in 1999 when things were really getting crazy. The market was going up 30%, 40%, 50% and was driven by like five companies: AOL, Wal-Mart, GE. Just a few big tech companies. Cisco, Microsoft, Yahoo! That's where all of the overvaluation was.
But a lot of the hype ended way before that. So there's a lot of nuance in what happened that I think gets missed when we just lump everything into, "Oh, the '90s were a big, irrational, crazy time to invest." I think that's directionally true, but there's a lot that went on in between that that takes the story in different directions.
Southwick: When did things start warming up with the internet? It's like, the internet! It's a thing! When was that?
Housel: I think you have to take it back to personal computers, which was the '70s and '80s, and even then that's when Microsoft and IBM really started getting into the game, particularly like the mid- and early '80s. But even then it was still seen as something that a tech hobbyist would have in their house. We had people like Bill Gates who were the visionaries saying this was going to be on everyone's desktop, but very few people outside of Bill Gates and his...
Southwick: Core Radio Shack customers.
Housel: Exactly. Those people really started believing it until the early '90s, which is when Windows, as we know it, took off and the interface of personal computers really started making sense for people who had no tech background whatsoever.
Southwick: Oh, the mouse. The mouse! Clicking on things.
Housel: And not just the mouse. They had the mouse for a decade before that. But previous versions of personal computers, like MS-DOS, you really had to know what you were doing to get any usefulness out of it, and it was really the first version of Windows when it made sense. Like, oh, you have folders and you click on the folders and you have stuff in there. So that was the early '90s when it really started taking off and average, individual people could get something useful out of this.
And then in terms of when the internet started, really the first event that gets cited a lot as the birth of the dot-com bubble, when people really started opening it up to not just the internet's potential but the investment potential, was when Netscape went public, which was, I think, 1994. Shares doubled on the first day that it went public, and that was the first signal, the first example of what was to come, not just in terms of how this was going to change people's lives, but how it was going to change how people invested as well.
Southwick: Spoiler! Our young kids listening to the podcast have no idea what Netscape even is. So they're only the one that started it all.
Housel: That was a big deal, because before that you had the internet, but again, it was something that you needed to be a tech genius to use, and the browser was the first one that brought it to average, everyday people in a form that they could use.
Southwick: I always used Ask Jeeves.
Housel: I did, too. That was a good one.
Southwick: Ask Jeeves was a good one, too. And then Google came along and all those other ones, too.
Brokamp: I was a teacher when the internet first started taking off. I got my first email address in 1994, and I still have that same email address.
Southwick: You do not!
Brokamp: I do! And for me, being a teacher, that just opened up your world, being able to show kids different things, to be able to pull up a video. YouTube wasn't around at that point, but you could still get videos. It was just mind-blowing.
And then from there I went to the financial-services industry. I started as a broker in 1997, and one of the first jobs you have to do there is cold call people. And every time I would cold call people they'd say, "I don't need you. I'm doing better on my own," which is not something you could say even in the late '80s, because you needed a broker to buy a stock. But that gets back to how things changed so much that you didn't need a financial advisor. I think also, looking back, that people were doing well because they were concentrated in tech stocks. Once the downturn came, they probably didn't do so well.
Housel: And what so many people did when they could start investing on their own was not investing on their own but day trading on their own. It was kind of the first iteration of, "Hey, I don't need a stockbroker. I can do this by myself. I don't have to ask anyone's permission. What am I going to do?" These are not buy-and-hold investors.
The whole concept of day trading was born in the 1990s when, here's your E*Trade account, or TD Ameritrade-Datek. That was one of the big ones. Here's your Datek account. What are you doing to do? Are you going to just trade stocks all day? And because there was so much momentum in tech stocks, they were just going up day after day. That just made the concept of day trading that much more enticing. They not only had the opportunity to day trade, but maybe you could double your money in a day or a week. That just drew in all kinds of people who had no idea what they were doing and no business doing that.
Brokamp: Earlier this year, Bespoke Investment Group published a table of the composition of the sectors of the S&P 500 over various increments. So you look back at 1990. Tech stocks made up 6.3% of the S&P 500. By 1995 it was 9.3%, so growing. By 1999 it was 29% of the S&P 500. And they have all the sectors going back to 1990 up until 2017, and at no point do you see any other sector making up that much of the S&P 500.
Housel: And so much of a gain in that way -- back to what we were saying earlier -- was really just a handful of companies. Yahoo, Cisco, AOL...
Housel: Lucent. There were a few companies that were worth hundreds of billions of dollars and that were really driving the bulk of that.
Southwick: So when you think of the dot-com bubble, I do think of the foosball table. I think of the cool Northern California company to work for. Leadership giving everyone stock options, and we're all going to get rich while playing foosball together. Did most of those companies never go public and they just burned private investors?
Housel: The other thing that happened at the same was the birth of VC investing. VC is a pretty young industry. A good example of this: Phil Knight, who is the founder and CEO of Nike, wrote a really good memoir recently, and he was talking about running Nike in the 1970s. His only source of capital was bank loans, because there was no VC industry back then. So even as Nike was growing 100%, 200% per year, there were no VC investors to fund him.
And it wasn't until the '80s and early to mid-'90s that VC, as an industry, really got its act together and started raising enough money that they could go out and seed all these new tech companies. And I think because of that, it was just like a big hurrah among entrepreneurs and the VCs themselves that didn't have a good idea of what they were doing at this time.
Because the industry itself was so young, there wasn't a lot of generational knowledge that was passed on by their supervisors and past generations of investors. So it was just a big party of money getting thrown around at the time. You had VC investors that had a ton of money to invest but didn't really know how to deploy it very effectively.
Then you had a lot of legitimate innovation that brought in a lot of other entrepreneurs that maybe thought they were innovating but really weren't doing that much. You just had so much momentum in the industry that it collected a lot of money, which is just a long way of saying there was a lot of money-burning going on at the time.
Southwick: Well, VC also seems like such a virtuous circle. Not virtuous depending on who you are and how you feel about it. It's like, "I'm a tech entrepreneur, and now I'm going to become a VC and invest my money in other tech entrepreneurs." And it just keeps going and going.
So the internet is going to be the next big thing. Everyone's investing in it. At the same time, The Motley Fool is getting swept up in this.
Brokamp: Right. We were going through it right along with everyone else. We've talked about this on previous episodes. I joined The Motley Fool in 1999, when we were at 150 employees. At one point we were over 400, and then things changed. By the time we were at the bottom, where were we, Rick? Like 70 people or so? Something like that?
And I'll say living through that that one thing that is a part of this, in terms of the stock market and how bad it got, is the Sept. 11 attacks happened in 2001. You could look at some things. For example, 2001, small-cap stocks actually did pretty well. It was the tech stocks that were suffering, but you could look elsewhere in the stock market and find good returns.
But then Sept. 11 came, and I think that changed a lot. I remember being in the company and David Gardner saying that there's some things you can't predict when you're running a business, and one of them is terrorist attacks.
Southwick: By law, are we also required to talk about the AOL-Time Warner deal?
Brokamp: As we sit here in the Time Life building?
Southwick: It is. We are in the Time Life building, which is crazy. That feels like such an iconic moment of the dot-com bubble, too.
Brokamp: Right. Well, in 1999 AOL was the 10th biggest publicly traded company in the country.
Southwick: And we all had their floppy disks and CD ROMs.
Housel: "You've got mail!"
Southwick: You've Got Mail. It was a movie starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. I mean, come on! They peaked! They peaked right there quite literally. So what made the bubble burst in addition to Sept. 11?
Housel: That's one of the big things, too. We're talking about the crash of '87 and even the crash of 1929, where there's not one specific event that you can pinpoint in the newspaper on the day the stock market peaked and said this is what caused it. Things kind of get out of control, and I think when enough people start to question what they're doing and enough people start whispering to their co-workers, and their cousins, and their neighbors, "Hey, this is starting to get pretty crazy."
I think those moods can shift pretty quickly. And then it just snowballs as fast in reverse as it did on the way up. So you don't need that much momentum on the way down before enough people throw in the towel, and then just as buying begets more buying on the way up, selling does the same thing on the way down.
So stocks peaked in March of 2000, and a lot of people have gone back and said, "Why March 2000? What happened at this time?" There's really not any specific event that triggered it beyond just people's moods and attitudes changing, and it wasn't until 18 or some odd months later that 9/11 hit.
That's a specific event, obviously, that took the economy and the stock market down to a whole other level, but before that it was really just a big change in moods. There were some events of companies that were going to go public and their IPO was canceled because there wasn't enough demand. But that in itself is triggered by the same change in investor moods. People start giving up at some point.
Southwick: What did we learn from the dot-com bubble?
Housel: If you look at other new industries that changed the world, one I think of is the birth of the car industry in the early 1900s. There were hundreds if not a thousand car manufacturers in the early 1900s, and three of them survived -- Ford, Chrysler, and GM. I think the same thing happened with the internet, where you had thousands of people try their hand at this new technology that clearly was going to change the world, and a very small handful of them survived.
You talked about Ask Jeeves earlier. That was one of the big search engines. There was AltaVista and all these other new search engines. Dozens of people that could see the opportunity and tried their hand at it, but in the end it was pretty much Google that won. You have one company that won it in the end.
And there's always that big culling of the herd that happens whenever you have a new industry. Thousands of people trying and only a few will make it. And because of that, in hindsight, you're going to have all these horror stories from the 99.9% of companies that didn't make it. And then you have investors that lost a ton of money on those, and that scars them for a whole other generation.
But the car industry itself changed the world and changed how we live, and the internet did the same thing, even if along the way it burned not just a few people but most if not almost everyone who partook in it. That's the risk of new industries. Even when you can identify this industry is going to change how we live, identifying the specific company -- I don't want to say a needle in the haystack -- but close to it that's going to be the survivor is incredibly difficult to do. And if you are going to play that game, I think preparing yourself that the success rate of these companies, that are not only going to survive but thrive for decades after it, is in the single-digit percentage in terms of success rates.
David Gardner is one who is not only good at identifying companies that are going to do well, but more importantly I think he has the disposition to deal with the loss rate that comes along with identifying new industries. It's not that he's happy about it, but I think he has the disposition to be OK if half the companies in his portfolio do extremely poorly, knowing that one or two are going to do really well and drive that portion of his portfolio.
Brokamp: Warren Buffett famously stayed out of all this. He said it wasn't in his circle of competence and he wasn't going to buy these types of stocks. But I remember him saying that the internet is going to be very good for consumers. I don't think it's going to be all that great for most investors. And I think it's true. It did change our lives, but it didn't do much for a lot of investors.
Housel: We could sit here and come up with 10 companies that probably make up more than 90% of the money that's been made in the internet in the past 20 years. Google, Facebook, Amazon. It's not many for thousands of companies that went public during this time.
Southwick: I was in college in the '90s, and I went to school with a guy. We were in Walla Walla, Washington.
Housel: You just say that because it's fun to say.
Southwick: It's fun to say. And Google was just becoming a thing, and so he decided to go out and buy different variations on Google, because people couldn't remember to type "Google" into their search, and so he bought Boogle. He bought Woogle. He bought Floogle thinking that someday Google would pay him...
Housel: He just opened a Dr. Seuss book and came up with all these different variations.
Southwick: He just rhymed "Google" with everything. He thought someday Google would pay him to get these domains to redirect them to Google because no one would be able to remember Google. And it worked! Google called him up. They were like, "You need to sell us Boogle, and Moogle," and whatever. But he should have held out longer, because this was still in the '90s when they paid him off.
Housel: That's smart. I know there are people that do that. As soon as a celebrity, or a singer, or a movie star has even a tiny bit of success, they go in and buy every different variation of their name as a Web address to do that. And related to that, tesla.com just became Tesla's website address six months ago. Before that it was teslamotors.com because someone else owned tesla.com and just sold it back to the company very recently.
Southwick: Oh, I bet they made so much money for that. I would have charged them all the money.
Housel: It was probably quite a bit.
Southwick: Well, Morgan, thank you for joining us for this journey through the dot-com bubble, and of course, you get to stick around and answer a few questions about the decade.
Southwick: All right, please?
Southwick: So it's Part 3, also, of our Trivial Pursuit game and of course, today, we're covering the '90s leading up to the dot-com bubble, so the '90s and the early 2000s. Categories, of course, are geography, art and literature, entertainment, history, science and tech, sports and leisure. Morgan, you always get to go first, because you're our guest.
Housel: Let's do entertainment.
Southwick: Entertainment. This Pixar-Disney movie was the first feature-length animated film to be completely computer generated.
Housel: Was it Toy Story?
Southwick: It was Toy Story.
Housel: It was really a total guess.
Southwick: It was the highest-grossing movie of 1995. Fun fact. In the original plot, Woody was the villain who picked on all the other toys until they revolted...
Southwick: Toy Story 4 is slated for release in 2019. All right, Bro, your turn.
Brokamp: Let's go with history.
Southwick: History. And as you remember, history is always based on Time's Person of the Year. While Time's Person of the Year list is usually dominated by political leaders, the 1990s saw three CEOs make the list. I'll give you a hint as to who they were by the titles of their books. Are you ready?
Southwick: Call Me Ted.
Brokamp: Ted Turner.
Southwick: Yes, 1991. Only the Paranoid Survive.
Brokamp: Andy Grove. Or Steve Jobs. One of the two. Andy Grove.
Southwick: Andy Grove. CEO of Intel. He was the person most responsible for microchips being awesome. Now the third person who won hasn't actually written a book yet, but you can learn all about him by reading The Everything Store.
Brokamp: Jeff Bezos.
Southwick: Yeah! That was a tough one.
Brokamp: I was looking for a Jack Welch one.
Southwick: That leaves geography, art and literature, science and tech, sports and leisure.
Southwick: In 1999, control of the Panama Canal was fully transferred over to Panama from what country?
Housel: I have no idea.
Brokamp: The United States.
Southwick: It was the United States.
Brokamp: Jimmy Carter negotiated that, I think.
Southwick: While we were the first to succeed in building the Panama Canal in 1914, we weren't the first to try. So the French took on the effort in 1881. They ultimately failed after spending $260 million on the project and losing 20,000 lives due to tropical diseases and accidents. Overall about 25,000 people died building the Panama Canal. Your turn, Bro!
Brokamp: Sports, I guess.
Southwick: Sports and leisure. After becoming the most famous getaway car in history in the 1990s, Ford ended up discontinuing this line of trucks in 1998. Morgan's got a face that says, "I know this one."
Brokamp: I know nothing about... the Bronco. The Ford Bronco.
Brokamp: OK, there we go.
Southwick: It had been around since 1966, but following declining sales and the infamous 1994 car chase by O.J. Simpson and Al Cowlings through LA, Ford replaced it in 1996 with the Expedition. The crazy news is that Ford announced last January that they will be bringing back the Ford Bronco in 2020. So get one.
Rick Engdahl: Is that the O.J. Anniversary Edition?
Brokamp: I was going to say. It only goes 15 miles per hour.
Southwick: Isn't that crazy? Science and tech or arts and literature?
Housel: Science and tech.
Southwick: Initially named a $1.5 billion blunder, this telescope was launched into space in 1990 and began transmitting images back to Earth, including the deepest images of the universe ever recorded.
Southwick: Yes! Good job! Either my questions are getting easier or you guys are getting smarter.
Brokamp: We were cognizant human beings during this time period.
Southwick: Oh, there is that, too.
Housel: Different than 1920.
Brokamp: Yes, we were able to use the bathroom and everything at this point.
Southwick: The last one, art and literature. As if. You maybe thought this 1995 movie starting Alicia Silverstone as a Beverly Hills high school student who dabbled in matchmaking was just a teen flick, but it's actually based on the Jane Austen novel Emma.
Southwick: That's right!
Brokamp: That's right.
Housel: Bro's favorite movie.
Southwick: And if you love the movie Clueless, like I know you do, Bro, then you're going to want to read our co-workers wife's -- Jen Chaney is the wife of a co-worker of ours, and she wrote, I would say, the definitive history of the movie Clueless, called As If! You can check it out if you love that movie. You know what?
Brokamp: Perfect scores, almost.
Southwick: You know what? I think everyone was a winner. Yeah, you guys got, like, a perfect score. You guys managed to get them all right. Nice work.
Morgan, thank you so much for joining us yet again. You're going to be back next week for our fourth and final installment, but in the meantime, listeners can find you at the Collaborative Fund's blog, collaborativefund.com/blog.
Housel: That's right.
Southwick: And on Twitter at...
Housel: @MorganHousel. One word.
Southwick: And anywhere else?
Housel: No, that's it. That's all for now.
Southwick: In Del Ray, Virginia.
Brokamp: That's enough. On airplanes, criss-crossing...
Southwick: Do you want to share your address?
Housel: Don't come to my house. You'll make my wife mad.
Southwick: You can also find him flying to New York just about three times a week from D.C.
Brokamp: That's right.
Southwick: So just hang out near the shuttle.
Housel: Just hang out at DCA and you'll find me somewhere.
Southwick: You're like, "Morgan? Morgan? Is that you?" Oh, Morgan. Thank you again for joining us.
Housel: Thanks for having me.
Southwick: We'll see you next week.
Housel: See ya.
Southwick: That's the show. Thanks again to Morgan for joining us. If you want more Morgan, he writes for the Collaborative Fund, and he does other stuff for the Collaborative Fund, but the piece of him that you can get is on the blog. It's collaborativefund.com/blog. He writes columns. They're great. They cover investing, behavioral finance. I mean, you guys know. Morgan's awesome.
The show is edited dot-com-ily by Rick Engdahl. Of course our email is firstname.lastname@example.org. We will do our best to get to your questions. You guys give us a lot of questions, and we love them, but we can't always get to them. But still, send us a question. Please? Or just drop us a line and tell us how much you love Robert Brokamp.
Brokamp: Or Alison.
Southwick: Or me. Oh, yeah.
Brokamp: Or Rick.
Southwick: Or Rick.
Brokamp: You all love Rick.
Southwick: Some people love Rick.
Brokamp: If you love the music in our show, it is because of Rick.
Southwick: And you love Rick. All right. For Robert Brokamp, and Rick, who you love, I'm Alison Southwick. Stay Foolish, everyone!
Teresa Kersten is an employee of LinkedIn and is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft. Alison Southwick owns shares of Walt Disney. Morgan Housel has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Robert Brokamp, CFP owns shares of Facebook and Tesla. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Amazon, Facebook, Ford, Nike, Tesla, and Walt Disney. The Motley Fool recommends Cisco Systems and Time Warner. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.