The planned divorce of the United Kingdom from the European Union is a complicated mess -- hard to understand even for people who live in the EU and are familiar with all the areas of conflict and debate. But for those on this side of The Pond, the arguments and debates that have been going on for the past three years are even tougher to comprehend. “Hard” exit vs. “soft”? Deal or no deal? And what exactly is preventing Parliament from getting Brexit done?
To help us get a grip on it all, in this episode of Motley Fool Answers, co-hosts Robert Brokamp and Alison Southwick have imported -- direct from London -- The Fool’s international editorial director, Sam Robson (or at least, his voice). But first, it’s a “What’s Up, Bro” segment that may bring a sigh of relief to those folks who feel as if they’re a bit behind on building a nest egg for retirement.
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 Nov. 5, 2019.
Alison Southwick: This is Motley Fool Answers! I'm Alison Southwick and I'm joined, as always, by Robert Brokamp [affects British accent], personal finance expert here at The Motley Fool.
Robert Brokamp: Cheerio, everybody!
Southwick: Yeah, that's right! Brexit! It's a thing that's trying to happen and on today's episode we're joined by Sam Robson from our U.K. office. He's going to answer [approximately] 10 questions about Brexit that you're too embarrassed to ask. But I'm not! All that and more on this week's episode of Motley Fool Answers!
Southwick: So, Bro, what's up?
Brokamp: Well, Alison, over the past year, or so, I've talked with quite a few retirees, friends, family, Fools who are on the razor's edge of retirement security. Like if everything goes perfectly, they'll probably be OK, but if something happens like an unexpected expense shows up or a prolonged market downturn, they're going to be in trouble.
The one thing all these folks had was they retired too early.
They retired at a point when they had some money, some reason they thought that was enough. It turns out that it was maybe just enough if everything goes perfectly, but they don't have a margin of safety and for some of these people they're putting off things like home repairs, medical expenses, and things like that because it's made them nervous.
Because of that, I did some digging into various studies that would quantify the value of delaying retirement just a few years. I came up with a few. I'm only going to highlight one, but repeatedly it shows that just delaying a few years is going to significantly enhance your retirement security if you are right at the edge as to whether you have enough or not.
The study was called The Viability of the Spend Safely in Retirement Strategy. A catchy title.
Southwick: It's so good!
Brokamp: I know. Basically it's a follow-up to a 2017 study that was a joint project of the Stanford Center on Longevity along with the Society of Actuaries. They got together to determine what the best retirement income strategy is for folks. They looked at 292 strategies and they decided the one that's the best has a few aspects to it, but the two keys are that one, you base your withdrawals on the same percentages that are used to calculate the required minimum distributions from IRAs. Instead of doing the classic 4% you use these IRS tables. When you're in your 60s it's actually lower than 4% but it gradually goes up. The other key component is delaying Social Security to age 70. Study after study shows that this is what people should do, but only 4-6% of people actually do it.
This is a follow-up study. It's 87 pages long. I'm not going to go into all of it, but I'm just going to highlight...
Southwick: But did you read the whole thing?
Brokamp: I did read the whole thing.
Southwick: Yeah, you did.
Brokamp: Of course, I did!
Southwick: Of course, you did!
Brokamp: Dramatic readings. I'm going to highlight one example that quantified the power of delaying but it had an interesting component to it. I think once many people reach age 62, which is a common retirement age -- because that's when you can claim Social Security -- in the back of their mind they might think they probably don't have enough money but they just can't stand working full-time anymore. This study showed what happens if you reach 62 and you just work part-time for a while.
Here are the numbers. Here's the scenario of one of the illustrations.
Let's say you're a married couple and you reach age 62. You are still working. Your household income, collectively, is $100,000. You saved 10% a year and your retirement savings is $350,000. Good, but not a lot.
According to their calculations, if you retire full-time at 62, you'll have a retirement income of about $38,000. You've gone from earning $100,000 while working and then having to live on $38,000. It's not enough.
What if, instead, you go part-time at 62 and then work to age 66 and a half, which is their full retirement age for Social Security purposes? You increase your income to $52,000. What if, instead, you work full-time all the way to age 70? You increase it to $70,000. But what if, instead, you reach 62 and work part-time to age 70, your income will be $68,000.
That's pretty good. Working full-time to 70, you can make $70,000 and working part-time to 70 and you make $68,000. Not that big of a difference. What I liked about this, again, is that for some people they think, "I just can't work anymore." But if you can stick it out and work part-time, you're essentially retired part-time and you double the amount of income you can have in retirement.
The bottom line is for any study like this you have to make a lot of assumptions that obviously don't apply to everyone. In fact, they don't apply to most people. What's important is what your situation looks like. The real power of delaying comes from delaying Social Security and it does presume that you haven't saved enough.
If you feel like you're in that camp, just go online, play with some retirement calculators, put in some different ages and you'll see for yourself, the power of delaying. If it really helps for you to delay, then strongly consider doing it because working just a few more years can increase your income for the rest of your life and you're going to enjoy your retirement a lot more. And that is what's up.
Southwick: In June of 2016, just a smidge of over half the voters in the U.K. voted, via referendum, to leave the European Union or the EU. The not-so-simple process turned out to be even more complicated than anticipated and here we are in [November] of 2019 still talking about it.
Well, yes, some people are talking about it. The rest of us are just nodding and saying, "Mm, hard exit, yes." Today I'm going to ask some really ignorant questions about Brexit so that you don't have to. And joining me to do that is Sam Robson. He is out of the U.K. and manages editorial operations for our European countries, right?
Sam Robson: That is it, yes. Glad to be here!
Southwick: Thank you for being on! So you manage the U.K., Germany and what else am I forgetting?
Robson: Canada as well, actually.
Southwick: And Canada! So you're everywhere!
Robson: Truly enjoyable.
Southwick: Yes, truly. I have 10 really ignorant questions around Brexit to ask you and I really appreciate you being open to how embarrassing and really bad these questions are going to be.
Robson: No problem at all!
Southwick: Let's kick it off!
Brokamp: Can I ask a clarification question? Sam, where are you right now?
Robson: Right now, I'm in London.
Brokamp: So you are in the heart of it.
Robson: I'm in the heart of it.
Brokamp: You're our man on the scene for this.
Robson: If I'm 100% honest, I'm actually in Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn's constituency, right now, as we speak.
Southwick: And I have no idea what that means!
Brokamp: It sounds really impressive!
Southwick: It sounds so great! I'm really happy for you! You'll have to define that for me later.
Robson: I will. Don't be independent.
Southwick: Thank you! Let's kick it off with a super-embarrassing question. What is the European Union?
Robson: The European Union is an economic union. The European Union has 28 different countries, as you might imagine as we're in Europe, and the main factor between them is that they trade with each other. That's all under one set of rules and regulations that they will abide by. Further to that, citizens are able to move freely and easily to live and work between each of these 28 countries.
That's basically what it is. It was formed post-World War II as a way to prevent further conflict between European nations. I think there are about 10 countries, or so, that joined initially but, as you might imagine, it's an open membership. As long as nations apply the European law and integrate that into their own national law, as well as go by the various EU rules, regulations, and stipulations; if they meet all these terms and conditions then they, too, can be part of the EU.
At the same time, as you might imagine and as you might have heard, you can leave the EU, which is what we're seeing currently with Brexit. As the U.K. we didn't actually join the EU until relatively late. I think it was 1972.
This is one stat I found out in my research for this, which I find personally quite interesting. There was a referendum held three years later, in 1975, over the continued membership of the U.K. in the EU and a whopping 67% of the British public, then, voted to remain which, you might well know, is in contrast to the 2016 referendum's result that 52% of the British public wanted to leave Europe.
Southwick: I just assumed that the European Union was like, "Hey, we're all cool. You don't have to worry about showing your passport when you cross borders." But now I'm learning that it's much more complicated than that. Can you talk a little bit more about what is involved when it comes to trade, and rules, and all the fun stuff?
Brokamp: Even currencies.
Southwick: Even currencies.
Robson: Absolutely. The EU has a single markets and customs union. Like I said before, all the participating countries have to abide by these laws. In terms of currency, not everyone is using the same currency. In the U.K. we still use the British pound sterling, but the euro is in most of the other European countries.
In terms of what happens -- what the EU covers -- it's essentially being part of the membership allows the free movement between EU countries of what's known as the "four freedoms." The four freedoms are goods, people, services, and capital. There are no hard borders between neighboring EU countries. There are no additional tariffs imposed on trade between these two countries.
In theory, it sounds like a good thing, right? The EU has this combined value-added tax system so everyone should trade harmoniously. It's, on paper like I say, a very fantastic thing to be part of.
Southwick: Who are the people, parties, or politicians that want the U.K. out of the EU and why? Why now? What's going on?
Robson: The why is a very good question. I'd say that it's largely the conservative party who are currently in power. David Cameron in his 2015 election manifesto actually called for the referendum to be held whether we remain in Europe or not. The irony is that he is or was pro-EU, so during this referendum buildup he campaigned to remain in Europe. But, as history dictated he failed, and the British public voted to leave in the following year. The day afterwards, Mr. Cameron stepped down because he saw it as a failure on his behalf.
Further, I believe, is that his successor, Theresa May, also was pro-EU and campaigned to stay in Europe, so you might consider the fact that here we are, three years down the line, and Brexit hasn't been delivered. You might think that that's a certainty when there are these pro-EU leaders in charge of it at the moment.
That has all changed. One man, during the campaigning, was constantly beating the drum for Brexit and you might recognize him by not only his haircut but by his name, Mr. Boris Johnson or BoJo, if I may say.
Robson: So he really wanted Britain to leave Europe. The main reason for that was so he could get the U.K. trading freely with not only European countries but other countries outside the continent. He wanted the ability to negotiate favorable trade terms with other economies.
The U.S. is one of them. I know from following President Trump's Twitter account that he's in favor of this, on the whole. In recent days and recent weeks he hasn't been too impressed with the deal that BoJo has put on the table, which isn't too dissimilar to what Theresa May had previously offered, as well. You're starting to get a sense that it's quite hard to deliver a Brexit bill that everybody is happy about.
Southwick: When we're talking about everyone, it's all of the political parties in the U.K. and the people running the EU? Are there people running the EU? It's embarrassing to do shows like this because it shows how dumb I am and how much I didn't cram for the test. What is being negotiated? Why is this taking so long and what's being negotiated?
Robson: It's probably taking so long for a couple of reasons. Article 50 was triggered under what I believe is called the Lisbon Treaty, which was set back in 2009. All of the European nations have to concur. Have to come to an agreement.
Southwick: That sounds awful!
Robson: Yes and not only that -- not only do you have to win the entire support of all the remaining 27 countries -- you have to get the bill passed in British parliament, as well. You have to get a majority vote on the bills that you're providing there. So you've got these two camps who are essentially opposed, conflicted, all of the above, and this is the reason why we haven't currently come to any firm conclusion over the past three to four years or so.
It's a mess, it's fair to say. I think you'll agree. I think some of the big problems that we're looking at is that when voters decided to back the Leave campaign, they didn't know what that entailed. There wasn't any definition in terms of what exactly was going to happen once we voted -- once we had the referendum -- and we're seeing that now with the conflict in the negotiations.
Essentially, it comes down to going back to those four freedoms -- goods, people, services, and capital -- that tried to ascertain the best way of processing those four freedoms across the U.K. and EU borders post-Brexit. Lots of different people and parties have varying ideas on how that should come about and I'll finish off by saying the main outcomes, at the moment, are that people are in conflict about which road to go down lies in the states of a "soft Brexit" and a "hard Brexit."
Now, they sound like various forms of boiled eggs to me, so I won't try...
Southwick: They really do!
Robson: I'll try and give some kind of clarification in a nutshell -- or in an eggshell.
A hard Brexit would essentially see a definitive split from EU powers. That would mean the U.K. coming out of the single market. Out of the customs union. Out of the Courts of Justice that we're currently in.
On the positive side, according to the Brexiteers, that would mean there's the freedom to set our own rules and regulations. Our own ability to make trade deals with other countries and this would be good for U.K. companies that trade solely within Britain. On the negative side of things, there would very likely be tariffs for those companies that do rely on trade with the EU. We live in a global world so that's going to be a lot. That's the hard Brexit scenario.
A soft Brexit is essentially a middle ground between full EU membership, which we have currently, and the aforementioned hard Brexit. We've enjoyed certain aspects of that membership, such as agreed tariffs, in theory frictionless trades, standardized regulations in return for Britain's cooperation with the EU all to be detailed in negotiations further down the line.
It would have to be a joint effort. Although we wouldn't necessarily be in Europe, per se, we would still have strong ties. And according to a lot of the Brexiteers, as we're calling them these days, this is simply unacceptable. They're the ones who are beating their drum saying, "Brexit means Brexit." They don't want to be tied to the EU's rules and regulations anymore in any way, shape, or form. That is a long-winded way of explaining where the conflict lies and just why it's taking so long.
Southwick: When we get to watch Parliament yelling at each other here in the U.S., it's awesome!
Brokamp: It's is quite entertaining!
Southwick: It is so great to see! We're Americans so we think that British people are just amazing. Formal and great. But then you see them yelling at each other...
Southwick: Sit down! It's like the best thing ever! This is a little side note, but what is actually going on when everyone's yelling at each other? Are they voting on stuff? Trying to convince people? What is going on?
Robson: It is a cauldron of emotions.
Southwick: Yes, it's awesome!
Robson: There's a dedicated news channel, BBC Parliament, where you can watch this all day long, so if that's your bag, then I'm sure we can...
Southwick: I wish you hadn't told me that!
Robson: To deal with this as a quick side note, I think one of the most entertaining aspects of it is we've had what's known as the Speaker of the House for the past decade, a guy called John Bercow. Sadly, as of the 31st of October, he stepped down from his post. He was the one who, in my opinion, made this whole thing so entertaining. He was a neutral party. He was essentially a schoolteacher trying to calm the unruly children.
But to your point about what is going on, then. Is progress being made? Essentially, no, and that's being proved by the fact that here we are in 2019 without any firm agreement within the MPs -- the members of Parliament -- on what the best route forward for the country is.
Through both Theresa May and Boris Johnson we've had several bills that have been approved by the EU, but when it comes to bringing it back to Parliament for their approval then they've been roundly rejected, so we return to stalemate. Then the latest news coming out of the Parliament is that Boris Johnson has a grand plan. He wants to call a general election. A quick side note: This is the third general election we'll have seen since 2015. And there's supposed to be one every five years normally. I think there's an element of voting fatigue, perhaps, but we are a highly politicized nation at the moment. Maybe we'd just rather vote at the moment.
But, yes, Mr. Johnson, to use his formal name, believes that by calling this general election he can win more seats in the House of Commons and by winning more seats than he currently has, then he can force through the Brexit bill that he desires, because at the moment he's having to essentially pander to those who want a softer Brexit than the hard or even no-deal Brexit that Boris may want himself. He believes that he can get a majority by calling the general election, now, because he believes the British public just wants to go for Brexit now. They're sick and tired of everything that's been going on. All the volleying and delays.
On the flip side, the leader of the opposition, Labor's Jeremy Corbyn, believes that this is the prime time for a general election to happen because he believes that the British public, similarly, are frustrated with the current government's inability to deliver Brexit in a satisfactory manner. He believes this is a great time for his party to win power.
And the "third" dominant party, the Liberal Democrats, broadly agree with Labor, but actually they're firmly against Brexit in any way, shape, or form. They believe that if they can win enough seats in Parliament, one of their manifesto promises is to hold yet another referendum aimed at the British public on whether we should go through with Brexit or not now that we know what we know [from] the past three years. So at this stage, anything can happen, and that's a scary position to be in.
Southwick: I was going to say that the names for things are degrading, because now we've got the "flextension," which is we weren't right. The deadline was going to be October 31st and now we're moving to January 31st. We're just pushing it farther down the road, aren't we?
Robson: We are and I wholeheartedly agree with your assumption that said the names are degrading. I genuinely thought, at the beginning, that Brexit was a horrible name and wouldn't catch on, so I've got egg on my face at the moment.
Southwick: We just keep going back to the eggs. I don't mind Brexit. I think that's an OK name, but "flextension." That's something that people suffer from and they have to go see their doctor. If you're suffering from flextension, ask your doctor.
Robson: At least it has a limited shelf life if you like it. It should be no longer than three months and we should be hearing about if it passed, like you say, the 31st of January. Potentially even before then. Like I say, it's a flexible extension. If the Parliament agrees on a Brexit bill before the 31st of January, then the EU has agreed the U.K. can leave Europe before the 31st of January. So we'll see what happens, then, but that's the state of play at the moment.
Southwick: So if I understand it correctly, everything has to be negotiated, both EU and internally in the U.K. and even though the part about negotiating with the EU involved getting sign-off from so many countries, the real stumbling block is within your own country and getting consensus? Do I have that right?
Robson: Absolutely. Like we say, we've seen so many bills try to be passed in Parliament at the moment and at this stage it's just not happening.
Southwick: Also, it sounds like because you're having this election coming up that politicians are trying to take advantage of what they feel is the prevailing emotion, here. How do you think people are feeling? I would be fatigued, at this point. How would you describe it?
Robson: Fatigue is absolutely right. I'd say angry. I'd say confused. I'd say frustrated. I think I mentioned earlier Parliament being a cauldron of emotions. I think that's a microcosm for the whole nation at the moment.
I think on one side, the people who voted to leave are frustrated. They can't see why there are so many obstacles. Why it hasn't happened so far.
You have the people who voted to remain and they now see what they believe were lies during the Leave campaign and they believe, essentially, it was an unlawful result because the British public weren't fully informed about what the whole Brexit process would entail afterwards.
And I think the one uniting factor, between the two different camps, is one of overall frustration, because the MPs don't seem to have the public's well-being first and foremost. They don't seem to be considering how it's impacting us. How it's going to impact the British public. They're not making progress toward this common goal.
Like I say, if Boris Johnson wants to call this election, we saw that happen with Theresa May back in 2017 after the referendum because she also wanted to solidify her majority in Parliament. That ended up having the opposite reaction and that was two years ago, so do we face two more years of uncertainty? Who knows?
We might even be faced with a no-deal Brexit if the EU decides not to extend deadlines any further. I think it's fair to say they've been very generous up until this point. From my personal point of view, I think a no-deal Brexit would be the worst-case scenario because that would likely see an economic crash because the U.K. would leave Europe, as it says in the title, without any deal.
Therefore there would be no trading immediately with all of the European countries because they wouldn't have had that time to negotiate, which is supposed to be between nine and 15 months, I think is the agreed period of time of negotiations when Britain actually leaves Europe. These European countries would likely have to ask the rest of Europe for a bailout because, like I say, they won't have the U.K. trade which they currently do have and they won't have had the time to make provisions for when they have to set up the new rules and regulations.
There'd be expats stranded abroad. There'd be hard borders straightaway and there'd likely be huge queues because we don't currently have the infrastructure set up to cope with all of this. And potentially, worst of all, because prices are likely to be inflated on the likes of food and medical supplies, we might see a shortage of those two things in the near term, because those provisions weren't set out because we didn't have the time to account for this worst-case scenario that's playing out.
So it really is a tricky one and I think the supporters of the likes of BoJo's no-deal Brexit say they'll be short-term paying for long-term gain because then in time the U.K. would be able to make their own policies on migration, have full control over borders, and make these trade deals; but, in the near term we would see a lot of instability and that does not fit well with the British public.
Southwick: Here in the U.S., as you probably know, we're a bit of a country divided in that when we go home for Thanksgiving or we go home for Christmas, talking about politics around the family table can be a bit tough because there's pretty [strong] feelings over what's going on in our government. Is it similar in the U.K., where if you go home for Christmas you're going to be like, "Well, we can't talk about Brexit because Uncle Nigel [believes] in a hard Brexit."
Robson: I do and his name is Uncle Nigel.
Southwick: You do not!
Robson: No, sorry! Absolutely. That's totally fair enough. I think we saw through the demographics afterwards that it was largely the baby boomer generation that were voting to leave Europe and it was mainly millennials and the younger generations who leaving Europe would actually most affect and who were voting to remain. There were a lot of campaigns targeted toward these different demographics.
As you say, there has been conflict. It doesn't really matter where in the U.K. you live. We all, essentially, live in our own bubble and during the referendum I felt, "Oh, it's all going to be fine. We're not going to crash out of Europe." Then I was in my own little bubble through peers, friends, family, social media. And I think everyone else was, as well, regardless of what side of the fence they were sitting on, when it came to the result. So it was, essentially, a shock to everyone. Christmas this year will be very interesting. Let's put it that way.
Brokamp: Just like our election in 2016, the Brexit election did have a certain nationalistic feel to it, right?
Brokamp: Some of the concerns were similar, where people in the U.K. were concerned that these people could easily come over from Poland, for example, and take their jobs because they're willing to work for lower pay. There was sort of that anti-immigrant -- if you can call it that -- anti-outsider vibe to it, right?
Robson: Absolutely. I think a lot of these things were hyped up by, for example, the Leave campaign. Again, this comes down to what the Remainers -- or if you are in the Leave campaign you could refer to them as the "Moaners," because of all the moaning they're doing because Brexit has to be delivered -- [see as a] campaign of lies and you could argue that immigration was central to that. At the same time, whatever happens, whatever the new normal is going to be and whichever side of the fence you're on at the time, then it's probably not going to make too much difference because there's bigger fish to fry at the moment.
Southwick: Outside of the entertainment value -- that sounds so bad but I'm not sitting here on my side of the pond and laughing at you guys, outside of watching your Parliament go at it -- how should an investor, or people outside of the U.K. feel about what's going on? Do I need to be concerned or do I just get to sit back and watch?
Robson: I think it's fair to say that everything in its current state is unresolved. There's virtually no businesses in the U.K. that won't be affected by Brexit. We've known that for a long period of time. What isn't confirmed at the moment is what sort of Brexit we'll see. I think that is a sticking point at the moment and that is, obviously, weighing on the financial markets.
I think it would be fair to say that quality businesses would be very prepared for any eventuality and that's something that we advocate here at The Fool. We advocate investing in quality businesses with moats, competitive advantages, solid management teams that have the shareholders' interests at heart. Brexit shouldn't change that. Brexit shouldn't change the structures of these companies and, as I mentioned before, they should be ready and prepared for whatever the new normal may be, be that a soft Brexit, a hard Brexit, or even a no-deal Brexit.
So I think at the moment for investors and people outside of the U.K. it's one to watch with interest, and perhaps more interest than concern, because it comes back to what Warren Buffett says: "Be greedy when others are fearful." I wonder whether potentially there are many buying opportunities in some great quality businesses here in the U.K. at the moment while the share prices are depressed. It's certainly one to watch out for and keep a close eye on.
Southwick: Sam, thank you so much for joining us and explaining this! This has been great for me! I really appreciate it!
Robson: It's been cathartic for me as well!
Southwick: I'm so glad! I did do some homework and read a number of articles, but I think this story has just been going on for so long, it's like I needed a book to catch up, so this was very helpful for me and I really enjoyed it! And it's always nice to chat with you, too!
Robson: And you guys! And like I say, it's definitely been cathartic. It's been fantastic for me to search further into something that's so complicated that not even the experts know what's going on. It's a moving target and everything's going to be taken from day-to-day, but at least hopefully I was able to give a quick summary of what the state of play is right now.
Southwick: I appreciate it. And you're going to be coming out, here, in a week?
Robson: Yes, next Friday.
Southwick: Are you tasked with bringing a snack from the U.K.? And if you are, I'm wondering what snack you're bringing?
Robson: I am. You guys don't have wine gums, do you?
Brokamp: Wine gums?
Robson: Wine gums. They're not alcoholic. They're meant to taste like alcohol. They don't. But that is typical of the British culture. And then have you heard of Tunnock's Tea Cakes?
Brokamp: No, but they sound slightly more appetizing.
Robson: Well, again, it's very British. Tea and crumpets and that kind of thing. There's nothing tea-related to do with it, but they're great with a cup of tea. I'll at least be bringing those and I know that there's a couple of tea faithfuls coming over who are also going to be bringing some U.K.-based treats. One quick question. You guys have Kit Kats, but you don't have Chunky Kit Kats, do you?
Brokamp: Not that I know of.
Robson: I might have to make a choice.
Southwick: What are the chunks in a chunky Kit Kat?
Robson: It's an oversized Kit Kat.
Southwick: Is it really big?
Brokamp: It's like a Kit Kat sandwich.
Robson: Exactly. It's maybe a bit too much in one sitting, but I'll definitely bring those over. Why not?
Brokamp: I'm looking forward to your arrival even more now!
Rick Engdahl: Can they be deep-fried because you're bringing them to America?
Southwick: That's the first place I had a deep-fried Mars bar, was in the U.K.
Robson: I still haven't had a deep-fried Mars bar. Scotland is the domain for that kind of thing. Unless our plane diverts to Glasgow or Edinburgh then that might not be possible on this occasion.
Southwick: Don't bring that! I don't want you to have to carry that on the plane. Sam, thank you so much again for joining us! This has been awesome!
Robson: Thank you guys very much! I really appreciate it!
Southwick: So that's the show! It's edited milk-chocolate-hobnobbly by Rick Engdahl. It's a delicious cookie from the U.K. Don't worry about it!
Brokamp: Never heard of it!
Southwick: Oh, it's good! I'm sure Sam would bring you some. Our email is Answers@Fool.com. For Robert Brokamp, I'm Alison Southwick. Stay Foolish, everybody!