You know what really bothers us? Well you're about to. In this episode of Rule Breaker Investing, it's time for a little nit-picking and self-indulgence from David Gardner, but all in the name of making the world just a little bit better for everyone.
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 Oct. 2, 2019.
David Gardner: What exactly is a growth stock? What's a classically tired bit of sports analysis which analysts lean on but never actually document? Did you win the birth lottery? Is that the way you view the world? Really? Does it sound like I might be complaining? Well, maybe that's because once or twice a year on Rule Breaker Investing, I do complain. It's a Pet Peeves episode. And it's not just I who am complaining. I have some of your best complaints, too. It's Pet Peeves: Volume 4 this week on Rule Breaker Investing.
Welcome back to Rule Breaker Investing. Happy October! Well, I've been talking about this the last few weeks so it's time to do this. Let's look hard at the world around us and see what might be a little bit flawed, poke some fun, maybe poke some holes in some of our thinking and acting sometimes, or what we're exposed to. Yeah, I call them pet peeves. And since this is volume 4 -- two things to say about that. There are three previous volumes. If you enjoy some of my observations and the community observations I'll be sharing with you this pet peeves episode, please know that there are three other classic earlier episodes, and I stand by everything I was saying back then. Things like deplane -- yeah, that's a word that shouldn't exist. But, I'm not going to bring past pet peeves to this episode, even though I think thinking out of the box is such an in-the-box phrase; and, yeah, that holiday jingle, that advertisement you'll hear, saying things like, "Give yourself a gift," all of those things do still annoy me. But I'm not going to talk about them this particular episode because it's time to present a slate of, I don't know, seven or eight new ones.
I'm often very focused on language. There's always going to be something in there about sports. But we got some wonderful listener submissions. Halftime of today's show, I'll be presenting my top three favorite listener pet peeves.
Now, I realize the phrase "pet peeve" has a negative connotation. I don't think most of us want to spend a lot of time hearing about other people's pet peeves -- unless they spark better thinking or acting for you or for me. So, yeah, I guess the reason I'm up to episode 4 right now is because I enjoy this sort of thing, and I enjoy it when you share it back to me. When somebody has really identified a great pet peeve, they're asking a more beautiful question, to think about what Warren Berger said on this podcast in August. Beautiful questions, where we question what's happening in the world around us, often lead to better answers. So, I think, in many ways, a pet peeve is just starting to ask a beautiful question of the world around us. That's my very positive view of the phrase that bears its negative connotation, pet peeves.
Without further ado, I think we should get started. Pet peeve No. 1. It's the phrase "growth stock," or I guess I could as easily have said "value stock," or "growth company," or "value company," especially the perception that these things are opposed, they're opposites, or their own schools. The more that I've thought about the investment world and picked stocks on my own and helped run a business of our own here, the more I realized that there are manifold ways of thinking in the world at large, especially about investing, and the idea in many people's minds, I think, that value is a school, and it is opposed by this other school, growth; and you can study value stocks and growth stocks -- I think it's just off.
Let me go right to the dictionary, because I like to do that. I have to admit, I didn't know how growth stock would be defined. I believe I found Oxford here through my friend Google. And Oxford defines growth stock this way -- a company stock that tends to increase in capital value rather than yield high income. In case you're wondering from the top of the show, when I said, "What is a growth stock?" according to Oxford, a growth stock is a company stock that tends to increase in capital value, like it goes up, rather than yield high income, pay big dividends. So, there's the definition of growth stock.
Here's now the definition of value stock, again, from Oxford -- shares of a company with solid fundamentals that are priced below those of its peers based on analysis of price to earnings ratio, yield, other factors.
Now, if you've heard me on the definitions of growth stock and value stock, you will see that they are not opposed to each other at all. It's perfectly plausible to find a company that has solid fundamentals priced below that of its peers, that gives you capital value primarily over the course of time that you hold it. So it seems to me, the concepts of growth stock and value stock, if we want to accept those definitions, are in no way opposed to each other.
However, I prefer not even to think about stocks. I don't think stocks are value or growth. They're stocks. You're buying it because you're trying to make money off of it. Yes, there is a group of stocks that pay dividends. And often, investors make more on those over time than they would on capital growth. I prefer the phrase "dividend stocks" for that class of company. Many of them, we hope, will go up over time. And certainly, we've picked a lot through Rule Breaker Investing. We're focused a lot on capital value. I also hear people talk about growth companies versus value companies. I'm still not really sure what that means other than, most companies are trying to increase their sales and profits over the course of time doing good work in this world. You will almost never have heard me say the phrase "growth stock," at least in the last 20 years on fool.com in my writings. I don't say I'm a growth stock investor. I say I'm an investor. I don't have any problem with so-called value investors, because that's what also happens -- we start talking about value and growth stocks, value and growth companies; we start ascribing those to investors themselves. You're a growth investor, you're a value investor. I reject that. Wherever you wind up with these words, I would encourage you to know what you mean. When you hear somebody else say, "I'm a value investor," ask them very specifically what they mean by that phrase.
For me, of course, this is the Rule Breaker Investing podcast, so I would say that I'm a Rule Breaker doing Rule Breaker investing. And I have a very specific meaning for that. We have our 6 traits that we've talked about that we look for in our companies. And, we have six traits that we look for in ourselves. Bringing all that together, that's Rule Breaker Investing.
I think the key takeaway here -- and it's going to run through a few of our other pet peeves this week -- is to really understand what you mean when you use a phrase. And especially, I wanted to lead off with this one because, in the investment world, which is where we spend most of our time with this podcast, this is an ongoing, assumed, label-driven culture. It's reinforced by the media. But it doesn't have people thinking freshly about what they're actually doing, or accurately categorizing what other people are doing. I'm a big fan of taxonomy, which is the science of classification. I really think we can do a better job classifying what we mean by different stocks, companies, and investment styles.
I have put in place in the past my dead arm rule. If you ever hear me say the phrase -- and I'm just saying it here without a dead arm -- "long-term investor," I think that's a tautology. I believe this is a past pet peeve point. I believe investing is, by its very definition, long-term. The opposite of investing would be trading, which is short-term. So, I never say long-term investor. And, you can give me a dead arm if you ever hear me say that at a speech or a Motley Fool member event. Similarly, if you ever hear me say I'm a growth stock investor, or, "This is a growth stock," or, "That's a growth company," I will also invite you to give me a dead arm.
All right, pet peeve No. 2. I guess this one stays generally within the realm of business and investing, but it's streaming. It's streaming shows. It's channels that stream. There are already too many of them. I am excited about Disney+ coming out in November. I know a lot of other people are. Netflix's stock has sold off by about a third this year largely in reaction to worries that Netflix and its leadership position in streaming will be diluted by things like Disney. But really, the more I cast my gaze about, I see everybody's got their streaming service. Even within a good streaming service -- like, let's say, Disney+ -- I'm starting to question the amount of content that they're streaming, specifically within the superhero genre.
I like the Marvel Cinematic Universe -- people abbreviate that to MCU. I'm a fan. I've seen most of the movies. But, hearing that there are now going to be four to six new streaming shows within the Disney Channel for different Marvel superhero characters -- again, I am among Marvel's biggest fans, having recommended the stock and owned it since way back when, when it was Marvel, before Disney bought it. It's been a spectacular investment all the way through. But even now, I am starting to question, are we at peak superhero?
I may or may not be right about that. I rarely say something like that. People have been saying that for years, and I've said, "Actually, that's not the case. In fact, look how much bigger it's getting." When Marvel was first bought by Disney, people thought at the time they were way overpaying for Marvel. We as Marvel shareholders were like, "What do you mean? They're underpaying!" We wished we could keep holding Marvel stock. We couldn't. I believe we've been proved right. So, all along, I've been saying, "We are not at peak superhero." But I'm starting to wonder, if we're not at peak superhero, are we nearing peak number of streaming choices? The sheer number of channels? And then, even within any given channel, how much can we keep up with?
I want to say, this is a great problem to have. I love that you and I are living at this time. I am amazed by the number of board games coming out every year. 5,000 new board game titles came out last year. I'm amazed by the number of wonderful books that are coming out. And video games -- I think I've talked about that on this show before. And streaming shows. It's amazing how much content is out there. And yet, is there possibly too much content coming out? In the end, we're all filtering. That is one of the inevitable technology trends that Kevin Kelly wrote about in his book, The Inevitable. He was a wonderful interview on our podcast couple of years ago. Filtering, something we all have to do. So, I'm already confident that I'm doing the best I can, filtering across all of these content categories as I can. My concern is not so much for you and me, for how much we have to filter, because the internet can make that easy. I'm actually wondering about the economics of so much content.
I'm a big fan of long-tail thinking. For those unfamiliar with that jargon phrase, we're talking about how, you'd be surprised how many content choices or how many websites there can be, because there's so many different interests. Even if only five or 10 or 15 people are interested, that can be an internet community on its own. The long tail is very much alive and well today. But especially, I'm seeing all of this streaming, and I'm starting to think a lot of us can't keep up, and we're probably just going to focus on a few choices. I as a Netflix shareholder feel pretty good about that, because I think there's going to inevitably be some consolidation in this industry because we can't keep subscribing -- can we? -- to so many different streaming channels.
And I didn't even talk about YouTube!
All right, pet peeve, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5. It's time to go to language. Pet peeve No. 3 is this phrase -- here it is: "I would argue." Like, your friend will say, "I would argue there might be too many streaming channels today." And I would say back to that friend, "You mean you're arguing?" Because when people use the conditional, "I would argue," I think they're coming from a place of humility. They're just wanting to nudge it forward with "I would argue." But they're ultimately asserting something. They're typically arguing.
I've been pretty annoying with my friends. I think I've changed some of their habits for the better by saying, "Actually, you are arguing," or, "Shouldn't you argue?" or, "Why just conditionally talk about how you might argue? Argue." I would argue this point is possibly too small for a pet peeve inclusion on a pet peeve episode. But, again, as a graduate of English language and literature at the University of North Carolina, class of 1988, I've held my interest in language all the way through here to the age of 53.
On a slightly more serious note, I think I've really been benefited as an investor for poking holes at some of the jargon that we see in Wall Street and in the business world. So, I would argue, you should rarely if ever say "I would argue." Feel free to annoy and badger your friends as I have when they say, "I would argue."
Pet peeve No. 4, staying within the realm of language. There are two beautiful words in the English language -- thence and whence. When you say thence, it's from there. Whence, it's from where. You should never really say "from whence" or "from thence." You could have just said "from there" or "from where," but you have a more elegant choice with the word thence.
Now, why do I even think about this? Well, most Sundays -- certainly not every Sunday -- I can be found at National Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., and there's an affirmation of faith. Perhaps some of you know this as well. We say, "From thence, he shall judge the quick and the dead." So, right there, at least in the Protestant affirmation of faith, there's a clear grammatical error. A total miss of the beautiful, strong word that stands on its own, thence. Sorry, I had to get that one off my chest. But especially when you're saying something in a corporate way, with other people all around you, and it's a solecism, and you're doing it almost every single week, it starts to grate.
No. 5. This is, again, about the power of powerful words and letting them stand on their own. Here's a beautiful word: unique. Unique means one of a kind. It's an amazing thing to say. You, my dear listener, you are a unique person. That piece of art is unique. Nothing is very unique. Nothing is very one of a kind. It is by its nature one of a kind. So, yes, I'm taking a shot here at "very unique." It's kind of like saying "really excellent." "That was really excellent." It's a much more beautiful and stronger statement to say, "That was excellent." I suppose I'm encouraging each of us to think about the adverbs, and that we often don't need them. And, in fact, by using them, we dilute the strength of the adjective itself, but especially in the case of the word unique.
As usual, the internet is full of different opinions about this, but I particularly appreciate -- I'm going to excerpt something brief from clearvoice.com, which says, can something be quotes "very unique?" They going to say no, it can't. Neither can it be somewhat unique, or rather unique. Unique means, quote, "one of a kind," and you can't modify that. It's either unique or it's not, just like I'm either pregnant or I'm not. I'm certainly not. Nobody can be somewhat pregnant or rather pregnant. It's an absolute, and you can't modify absolutes. The word unique, when used properly, is a strong and beautiful word. Not only is it reduced when it's modified, but it is in fact corrupted.
I know that I have a lot of smart listeners across this Foolish world. I bet a lot of you already knew this. But in my experience, too many of our fellow humans don't know that you should never say "very unique."
All right, well, let's call that halftime. Yep, our pet peeve podcasts are usually shorter podcasts, and I think mercifully so. By the way, I should point out, one of my consistent pet peeves is people who have really long lists of pet peeves, and/or people who do podcasts about their pet peeves. That's a pet peeve of mine. Having a little fun there.
Before I share back my top three listener submissions, I do want to mention briefly that we didn't have an official sponsor for the podcast this week. You probably picked up on that. But I did want to talk a little bit more about what I said at the top of the show, which is that The Motley Fool has just finished its 26th year in business. It was the best year in our history. We have you to thank, because so many of you support us in so many different ways, including just listening to our free podcasts like this one. But I did mention, therefore, that this episode was brought to you by The Ascent, Millionacres, Motley Fool Ventures, Soapbox, and The Blueprint. I want to explain briefly what I mean by that. Some of you may know one or more of those brands or phrases. If not, here we go.
One of the things that we have started to do as a holding company -- The Motley Fool overall, the Motley Fool Holdings -- is to start sister companies and start-ups to address new needs that our business was not previously meeting. I'll give a great example. For about two or three years now, we've been running The Ascent at theascent.com. Like ascend a mountain, that kind of ascent. If you're looking for a better credit card, if you're looking for a better interest rate, and you want to read and learn about those topics, go to The Ascent. You can both learn and take action. That's a great example of a business that The Motley Fool always could have been running, really, for a couple of decades, because it helps the world invest better; but it's in a new area -- interest rates, credit cards.
Similarly, Millionacres. Google Millionacres. You're going to find some great content, free content about how to diversify into real estate investing. Or, Motley Fool Ventures. For those who are interested in venture capital, and maybe getting invested in tomorrow's companies today while they're still private, The Motley Fool in the last couple of years has opened up that. Soapbox. If you're a blogger on finance, if you're a podcaster, if you're a YouTube streamer, if you're a Fool, we'd love to help you grow your venture. Check out soapbox.com. And finally, The Blueprint, where we do software reviews and other recommendations to help entrepreneurs. That's at https://www.fool.com/the-blueprint/. You can Google and find any of those.
Very naturally, my focus every week is typically on the stock market and investing. I think that's the way our company will continue to butter its bread in the main for the years ahead. But I'm really happy to say that my brother Tom Gardner, our COO, has done a great job in getting The Fool to be more and more externally focused, asking new questions, finding new unmet needs, and trying to serve you up our best stuff.
So, there's our sponsor this week.
All right, well, we got about a half dozen pet peeves submitted by you, our listeners. I've selected my favorite three. Let's go to my two runners up before giving you my winner for this episode. First, runner up No. 2, in third place. Eric Easton, thank you for this! Eric, you wrote, "Hi, David. I was delighted to hear you saying during your latest podcast you're having the next pet peeves episode, as I've been wanting to share a pet peeve of my own about one of your very own pet peeves. It's your pet peeve with the words frankly and honestly." Now, I should mention briefly, my pet peeve is that typically, when people say frankly or honestly, it starts making me wonder, "Weren't you being honest with me all along? Did you need to qualify that and say frankly or honestly?" Now, Eric has a little bit of a beef with this. And I understand your point, Eric. Let me share it. You say, "Your annoyance with them is that they imply to you that the speaker has heretofore been dishonest with their listener. I look at these two words from a different perspective. The word frankly is not expressing a sudden turn away from dishonesty toward honesty, but rather a turn away from reticence toward openness and forthrightness. People have every right, indeed a social imperative, to choose when to be frank and when to be reticent. The use of the word honestly in such a situation is but a synonym for frankly. Which brings us to an intriguing nuance in the English language, which makes a distinction between an antithesis and an opposite. While the antithesis of honest is indeed dishonest, I submit that the opposite of honest is reticent; just as the antithesis of love is hate, while its opposite is ambivalence. An antithesis, therefore, is contrasting two polar extremes, while an opposite is contrasting presence versus absence. With that said, however, the words can readily be overused, much as my own pet peeve word, potentially, is being increasingly overused, much to the detriment of journalistic quality. Cheers, Eric Easton in Portland, Oregon."
Eric, I really appreciate your distinction between antithesis and opposite. I will try to remember that. And I think we generally agree on this point. In particular, I feel like honestly and frankly are overused. And when I hear a friend say it and say, "Well, I thought you were being honest with me all along," it usually sparks a fun conversation or at least a giggle. Honestly, I get it.
All right, runner up No. 1. This comes from Joseph Crevelli. "Hi, David. My pet peeve is that the media always talk about the looming, expected, unavoidable market downturn in its many forms -- recession, of course, being the most commonly thrown around term these days. But, and here's where my pet peeve comes in, its inevitable arrival is envisioned in so many tired metaphors -- as a cliff, a precipice or severe drop-off, whatever, without any mention of its duration or impact felt on average, or how long it takes to get back up to where we were before, or by any other metric, really. I'm sick of hearing it. How often do we see in the market index histories where this drop in the market that finally comes brings us back to a level not too far in the past even a few months, or a year or so at the most? We can actually remember where our portfolios were way back then. Not too scary, if you ask me."
I think it's a really good point. It's one I've tried to make as well on the show. Joseph, I think a lot of us remember the recession of 2008 and 2009, the so-called Great Recession. Certainly the Dotcom, Dotbomb drop of 2001. Those were really bad economic times. I think the fear around a recession and the constant reporting about how maybe a recession is going to start this fall, or, are we already in a recession, recession watch, all of that talk, is in part because within the last two decades, we've had two of the severest in American history. So, I think a lot of people are dialed in to think it's going to be really bad, because it was bad in those times.
But certainly, recession is just a normal part of the cycle. After all, I think recessions are typically defined -- just like we defined growth stock and value stock according to Oxford earlier -- as two consecutive quarters of a drop in gross domestic product. That's going to happen from time to time. Anybody who's investing the way we talk about here at Rule Breaker Investing, at The Motley Fool, making a lifetime commitment to being an investor, not jumping in and jumping out -- your stocks might change over the course of time, but your commitment to being invested over the course of your life should not. We're going to see any number of recessions.
I certainly agree with you, Mr. Crevelli. The constant focus on whether we're in a recession or when it's coming is overwrought.
My listener submission winner for this episode comes from Keith. Going back to just straight language. You know I'm a sucker for this. Thank you, Keith! "I love listening to all the Fool podcasts and having fun along the way. Thought I'd throw in this pet peeve, as I know you have an English major and I'm interested to hear your opinion. I hate the word utilize. This is one of the most often overused and misused words in the English language. Every time I'm in a meeting, listening to a speech, or reading the news, and this word pops up, I die a little inside. In my opinion, it's the laziest way for a person who wants to sound intelligent to employ a synonym for the simple word use. Anyway, thought I'd share. Thanks for the recommendations over the years, especially OLED," that's a ticker symbol for Universal Display, "which has been particularly kind to me. Fool on, Keith!"
I'm delighted to know, Keith, you've been invested in Universal Display. It's been a wonderful Rule Breaker.
A lot of bad English is traditionally tied up in the idea that we're trying to flummox people or sound smarter than we are by using a longer word where a shorter one would do. I have heard it suggested that utilize can be effective if you're talking about really making great use of something, like really optimizing the use of something, to really utilize that. Utilize might in that context be superior to the word use. But most of the time that I hear the word utilize, I also just think use. We're with you, Keith. That's why I made you the winner of this episode. By the way -- there's no prize, you're just a winner. Winners win.
All right, two more to close this episode. I led off with this one. I understand where this one comes from. It comes from a place of humility, which I can appreciate. You might have said this yourself, and in some ways it's true, but as a Fool, I like to look at the other side of the coin. You might have said to people before, "I won the birth lottery." Or, you were lucky to be born in whatever the context is that's being used -- the culture, or this day and age, or that country, or to the family that you were born in. I can absolutely appreciate the concept of a birth lottery.
But I also want to look at the other side of things, which I don't think gets as much play. That is that it takes two to tango with birth. Some people are born; others cause the birth to happen. This is where I wanted to put in a word for good parenting. The other side of every birth is a decision, in most cases made by two consenting people who cause a birth, but then, if they can stick together -- and God bless you if you have -- if you can stick together and actually be effective, loving parents to one or more kids, or even if you're just mentoring kids over the course of time, that part, there's very little luck.
Sometimes the birth lottery conversations and language that I hear, I can understand that from the point of feeling like you just emerged on this planet, and you're lucky that you showed up where you were, but there really wasn't much luck at all, looking at it from a parental standpoint.
Now, it sure is true that there's a ton of luck, good and bad, all through our lives. But I really want to put into words for the decisions that are made by adults to make good choices -- set a child up for success, make sacrifices for them. One thing we talk a lot about on Motley Fool podcasts. This one in particular, is getting kids aware of the stock markets, getting them to save, getting them invested. All of those things might feel lucky to them, but I charge you and myself as well -- I'm speaking just as much to myself as to you -- to think about all of the responsibility that we have to make things good for kids and for the next generation.
So, while there's always going to be some truth to the birth lottery, I think life's a lot more than just a lottery. It's the choices that we make.
All right, No. 7 to close. This one goes back to sports because I watch so much sports. I'm excited about the baseball postseason. I know there are a lot of baseball fans listening right now, and a lot of people who don't care one jot about American baseball. But as a lifetime Minnesota Twins fan, I'm really excited by the upcoming series against the New York Yankees. I hope the Twins finally win at least one game. They have lost 13 straight postseason games, I believe, [laughs] so it would be exciting just to win one game, maybe in Yankee Stadium, as a Twins fan. I enjoy college football. I enjoy professional football. I enjoy soccer, hockey, basketball. I love watching sports.
I don't love going to the games, by the way. I often feel like I'm paying too much for food, I have to wait in line for an unclean bathroom, I could be at my couch, my home, with my friends or family, and enjoy it just as much. There's a little bit of cranky old man who doesn't want to go to the games anymore that I will admit is part of me.
But I spend a lot of time listening to commentators and analysts about sports. Before I get to this pet peeve, let me digress very briefly. I spoke at Georgetown University to the business school a couple of weeks ago here in Washington, DC. And I was asked, who was my investment mentor? Whose school am I in? Who have I followed to make Rule Breaker Investing happen? And my answer is Bill James. Bill James isn't a stock picker, as best I know. He's certainly not a growth investor or a value investor. Bill James is the great mind that changed professional baseball. If you've ever read the book Moneyball, or maybe some of you saw the wonderful movie Moneyball, even though Bill James got only a small cameo mentioned within the movie Moneyball, it was his questioning of all the conventional wisdom, the inherited wisdom about how to win baseball games, and when to bunt, and how to set your batting order, and what is really valuable out there. He came from outside of the baseball world and asked questions about it. And he found new answers. And while initially, he was dismissed, he looked like a fool, indeed, his genius began to catch on and to spread. You know why? Because it worked. It won out there in the field. Today, most of the things Bill James was railing against 20 years ago are now the new conventional wisdom in baseball. So, he's gone from rule breaker to rule maker. I've always been inspired by that. Instead of applying great questions and unearthing new truths in the realm of baseball, I've tried to do it with the stock market. And here we are with Rule Breaker Investing. So, my favorite thinker and writer about the stock market is Bill James, even if he's never really written much about the stock market. But the questions that we ask, and the analysis we provide, especially when it starts to get repeated and becomes the conventional wisdom, is worthy of questioning and sometimes puncturing. This interests me in every field.
Now, back to sports. Especially if you're a football fan or a basketball fan, I think you'll recognize this. Here it is. We're getting late in the first half. And here's one of the analysts saying something like this: "You know, the last five minutes of the first half and the first five minutes of the second half are so critical. Let's watch specifically what happens during these two-five minute periods because they're so telling." Now, I understand some coaches think that and coach that way. That might work for them. If so, I think that's great. I would also remind them and any other fan of sports that all of the other minutes also count a lot, too. In fact, every five-minute period of a football game or basketball game really counts.
But especially when I hear an analyst or commentator say this, I cry foul. Here's why. While it sounds compelling to get viewers laser-focused on these last five minutes of the half, or, coming out of halftime, these first five minutes really count -- if it really did count, there would be statistics to back that up. Announcers themselves would point to all the statistical studies that show the importance of entering halftime with a great final five minutes of the first half, and the incredible importance for winning of those first five minutes of the second half. And I ask you, as a fellow fan, perhaps, where are all those studies? Where's the postgame commentary that comes back and says, "You know, those first five minutes of the second half, just like most games, that was really the clincher." Actually, I think the last five minutes most games are probably more telling in more cases.
Maybe a simple point, but the reason I like to point this out is, this has become so conventional that people say it on a regular basis. And then fans listen to it and repeat it back to each other. You hear it on sports talk. And people are all of a sudden talking about those last five minutes of the first half, or starting really well, those first five minutes of the second half. And yet I don't see any of the commentators pointing to any statistical studies to back any of that up. In fact, the cynic, or in this case, maybe my producer Rick Engdahl, who just whispered in my ear, might suggest that there are a lot of ads coming at halftime, so getting people really focused on those last five minutes of the first half and the first five of the second half might be in some way commercially related. If so, I don't begrudge it. The only thing I do begrudge is sloppy analysis that's put forward as pablum constantly and repeated from one analyst or sports talk fan to the next. And yet, A, where's the statistical backup? And B, where's the postgame commentary that goes back to talk about those really important minutes? OK, we'll leave that rhetorical.
You know, the last five minutes of every podcast are the most important for every podcast, right? Does it sound like a quick ad is coming? Why not? If you're looking for even more stock ideas and recommendations, you can check out my Rule Breakers service. You're going to get stock recommendations every month, Best Buys Now, and a whole lot more. Just go to rbioffer.fool.com. We've got a special 67% discount for listeners of this podcast. Check it out at rbioffer.fool.com!
In the last minute of this podcast, let's talk about what we're going to do next week. In fact, a couple of years ago next week, I did one of, I think, my most important Rule Breaker Investing podcasts. It was called Nine Foolish Truths I Hold to Be Self-Evident. And in a lot of ways, next week's podcast, which will reflect on and repeat some of that material, in a lot of ways, these are the eternal verities that I like to hold on to and remind you of and promote to new listeners and people who are looking at the stock market for the first time. Nine Foolish Truths I Hold to Be Self-Evident. I'm going to go back and listen to it. I'll be curious to see if I still agree with all nine. If so, I think I'll just present them to you again. Every couple of years, in good markets and bad, we need to be reminded of the most important Foolish truths. I look forward to sharing those with you next week. Fool on!
