In this episode of Industry Focus: Wildcard, Dylan Lewis chats with Motley Fool analyst Brian Feroldi about a company with a very promising and disruptive technology. Learn about their business model, who their main competitors are, and what gives them a competitive edge. Discover what the business potential and total addressable market look like, what makes the stock so risky, and much more.

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 August 26, 2020.

Dylan Lewis: It's Wednesday, August 26th, and we're talking about a recent healthcare IPO that promises to disrupt the medical imaging industry. I'm your host Dylan Lewis, and I'm joined by Fool.com's illustrious indexer of incomplete information, Brian Feroldi. Brian, how are you doing?

Brian Feroldi: Dylan, you are the master of tongue twisters. I need to keep trying harder because you keep nailing them. Darn!

Lewis: I hope that the folks at home enjoy hearing me list these out as much as you like writing them, because I think it is a fun way for us to always kick off the show. I always love seeing whatever you throw my way. Brian and I have a collaborative Google Doc that we tend to arrange our outline in and our notes in together. And I will say, I refuse to look at the title that you write me until the show starts, because I want to have to go through it in real-time and see if I can nail it. That was a good one.

Feroldi: Great! I got to work harder though, clearly.

Lewis: That lead I said was, you know, a business that promises to disrupt the medical imaging industry, we're also referring to this as possibly the Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) of medical imaging. I like that, kind of, catch-all that you used to describe this business, Brian. We're talking about Nano-X (NASDAQ:NNOX), which is probably a company that very few people that listen to the show have ever heard of.

Feroldi: And there's a good reason for that, because until three days ago I hadn't heard of this company. And the reason is, they are a brand-new IPO, they literally came public last week, they raised about $153 million, the ticker here is an NNOX. I actually learned about this company from one of our regular Fool Live viewers. His name is Dr. Yair Levy. He reached out to me and he said, hey, Brian, I work in this industry. This company just came public, there's a lot of buzz about it in my industry, you should check it out. I did. And it was a collective wow! When I was reading about the technology, the business model, I just thought this company is so interesting that we have to get this on the show. But be forewarned, this is the riskiest stock I've ever talked about, ever, on Industry Focus.

Lewis: I know that we, kind of, we feel a certain host duty when we're talking about something that is a little bit out there, it's a little bit different than maybe the run of the mill stocks that we're talking about, to make that point. And I think it's worth emphasizing, and you'll see very quickly why, as we get into the financials for this business, and kind of, where this business is. But it looks way different than most of the companies that we talk about on the show.

Feroldi: I think most listeners know, I'm a big fan of checklists, I'm a big fan of financial statements, I'm a big fan of being rigorous; you can't with this company, you just can't. This company was scored horrendously on my checklist, and it would be well into the "do not invest" category. However, spoiler alert, this is a company that I will be buying shares of myself next week; if that gives you any indication of how excited I am about it.

Lewis: Well, with all that preamble, let's talk about who they are and what they do.

Feroldi: Sure. So, Nano-X are trying to make medical imaging technology far more accessible around the globe, specifically they have developed a brand-new way to take x-rays or to take imaging that are based on x-ray technology. And x-rays are used to diagnose things like broken bones, but x-ray technology also underpins CT scans, which are 3D cross-sectional slicing of the human body, which are used to diagnose things like cancer, for example. They're also used in mammography use, which are 2D and 3D images of the breast; fluoroscopy; angiograms; and for dental imaging.

So, x-ray technology is more than 100 years old, and the underlying technology behind it hasn't changed much in those last 100 years. And the real fundamental problem that this company is trying to solve is that 66% of humanity does not have access to medical imaging technology, which is unfortunate, because we both know if you can diagnose diseases earlier and get more information to patients sooner, you can take actions, you can take small actions that prevent early death. So, they're on a mission to make x-ray-based technology in order of magnitude cheaper, so that it can be accessible to everyone on the planet.

Lewis: Yeah. And I think preventive medicine has probably been one of the major themes of the healthcare industry over the last couple of years. I think it's worth emphasizing, Brian, as we talk about medical imaging, two-thirds, as they estimate, don't have access to it. The third that does, it's not like it's the easiest thing in the world to get done, it's not the cheapest thing in the world to get done. I wound up tearing up my knee when I was 18, and going from tearing my MCL in the cartilage of my knee to actually getting an MRI took two weeks. I was walking around in a knee immobilizer with crutches because the process of going through insurance and getting everything scheduled and all that kind of stuff took so long. As patient outcomes go, that is not the best-case scenario.

Feroldi: Yes. And they believe that their technology will also address many of the issues that you just talked about, which is speed; speed of diagnostics. So, we'll certainly get into that. But the reason that I've never taken a hard look at this industry before is because the x-ray machines themselves and CT machines themselves, are incredibly expensive. They are huge capital expenditures. A high-end CT scanner can cost $2 million upfront, plus another couple of hundred thousand dollars in software, plus another +$200,000 in just maintenance costs. And one of the reasons why these systems are so huge and so expensive is because the process of creating x-rays generates a tremendous amount of heat. The x-ray tube itself actually gets up to 2,000 degrees, so a tremendous amount of technology has to be deployed to dissipate that heat in a way that doesn't damage the machine itself. The company estimates that a high-end CT scanner, there's $150,000 of cost in there just to handle the cooling technology.

So, Nano-X, they have developed a new type of semiconductor cathode that they believe eliminates a lot of the complexity and a lot of the heat that is created by x-ray. And by doing that, they think that they can take the cost of the system down by an order of magnitude.

Lewis: Yeah. And you look at those numbers, the $1 million upfront purchase cost, the six-figure ongoing maintenance and servicing and all the things that come with this, it's no surprise that getting into this type of machinery is expensive as a business. But also purchasing it, being on the customer side, if you're a healthcare provider, is no small feat. And those numbers dramatically limit [laughs] how much you're going to be able to offer that as-a-Service wherever you are and meet the clients.

Feroldi: It also makes it attractive for me as an investor. As you know, I don't really care about one-time massive sales. To me, that's like selling cars. Selling cars is actually not a business that I'm not interested in, except for one company I should point out. But what this company is trying to do is flip the model on its head, but let's, again, back up. So, the key underlying technology here was actually developed by Sony a little over a decade ago. And Sony developed it, it's called field emission display, for use in selling TVs and monitors. Sony didn't end up utilizing or developing the technology, so they sold it off into another company and Nano-X ended up purchasing it. And they have been developing and perfecting this technology for eight years in the background just to see how complicated that is.

The company is now to the point where they are actively in the FDA and regulatory approval process. And for a sense of scale here, it's hard to describe what this device looks like over audio, but you have to think of, if you can picture how big a CT scanner is, right, it's a massive, massive machine with all these parts and everything around it. Nano-X basically believes that their ultimate system will be essentially a thick hula-hoop that goes up-and-down a cot. And this thick hula-hoop will give you high-quality x-ray images in a dramatically smaller space, and we'll get into, a dramatically lower cost. That's super-exciting.

Lewis: I think maybe one of the easiest ways to visualize the difference here, Brian, is, with the old-school way of doing things, you are dipping a human into the machine. And with what this company is trying to do, you're taking the machine and running it over the human. And maybe that can help you, kind of, understand exactly what that means in terms of size and scope. But yeah, it's a ring that basically hovers over your body or that's the plan, at least.

Feroldi: Yes. And there are numerous benefits to doing so, it's much smaller, the device itself is estimated to last a longer time, you can get a plurality of images. I mean, they believe that this technology will not only be used to see your bones, but can actually be finetuned to show you your muscular system, your spinal system, your nervous system, your internal organs. So, you can get far more views than just your bones out of this same device.

But the most exciting thing, or the thing that really jumped off of the page to me, Dylan, was the business model here. Again, the company is competing against systems that cost $1 million or $2 million up front. Nano-X believes that its technology, when produced at scale, will essentially cost $10,000 to produce. And that is such a low cost that they plan on giving these devices away for free.

Lewis: You can't beat that price. I mean, I would love to see them do it, that's pretty amazing, that would be a transformative thing for the healthcare industry. A big part of that cost savings that they're able to, literally, pass along to their customers is that the imaging technology is so different for these machines than what we have seen with almost any imaging technology over the last 10, 20 years.

Feroldi: That's exactly right. And it's important to say that while they will be giving these devices away for free, or that's the plan to, in at least jurisdictions where that's legal; because that's actually illegal in some jurisdictions. They will plan on making up for that by charging a fee every single time a scan is performed. That is an incredibly exciting business model, because it takes something that is a one-time purchase now, and Dylan, it turns it into ...

Lewis: Ta-da!

Feroldi: Recurring revenue. And of course, they have a fancy acronym, they call it Medical-Screening-as-a-Service MSaaS. You know, a golf clap for getting in on the as-a-Service trend. But the economics here could be incredibly compelling. They actually have a number of agreements in place all over the world, they already have agreements to install thousands of these systems in a number of countries, like, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Singapore, even in the U.S. they signed a contract to install a minimum of 3,000 of these devices. And their near-term goal, in the next four years, if all goes well, is to have 15,000 of these devices operational.

Now, if they can get to that kind of scale, that will dramatically lower the per unit cost. And it's also important to say that they have actually partnered with Foxconn, the tier-one of tier-one manufacturers. This is the same company that Apple uses to make all of its products, including the iPhone. So, Foxconn is the manufacturer here. And that's a big way that they're going to get the cost of these devices down to about $10,000 each.

Lewis: That does feel like a pretty big stamp of legitimacy to be using [laughs] the same contract manufacturer that handles the iPhone.

Feroldi: Yeah, I completely agree. So, again, as of right now, this is all vaporware; it's important to keep that in mind. It is not FDA approved; it is not for sale anywhere. We should, in theory, have this on the market in the next year or so, but when I saw Foxconn, as well as a number of partners that have already committed to placing thousands of these devices, including SK Telecom, which is a major investor. And if you had never heard of SK Telecom, they're essentially the Verizon of South Korea. They have put money behind this technology and they've committed to getting it out there.

Now, from a revenue perspective, Dylan, the agreements that they've signed so far, basically every time a scan is done on one of their systems, Nano-X is going to earn $14. And every time they deploy a system, each scanner has to be used a minimum of 241 times per month. So, if you do that math out, that means that each of these devices should be doing about $3,400/month in revenue for the company. So, giving the devices away for $0, they should have all of that capital back within three months. That's exciting.

Lewis: That's a ridiculous payback period on a device like that. I think it is going to be interesting to see whether they can bring those manufacturing costs down. You know, the fact that we are talking about taking something that is millions of dollars with six-figure maintenance and cooling costs alone, and then saying, you know, one fraction of that is what this machine will cost, is a little hard to wrap your head around, and maybe it will take us a bit of time to get there, but it's certainly ambitious. And those can be interesting ideas to invest in, Brian.

Feroldi: Completely agree. You know, one of my favorite business thinkers is a guy named Tony Seba, and he has this quote that I absolutely love, which is, business model innovation is every bit as disruptive as product innovation. And with Nano-X, I think we have both. We have a disruptive product that's going to be sold in a disruptive way. So, when they say they can get 15,000 of these devices installed in the next four years, I'm not going to say that's impossible. It sounds ambitious, but given the size of these things, and the way that they're selling them, here take this for free, I'm not going to bet against them.

Lewis: If you're looking for ways to check in on their progress, they're aiming for that 15,000 figure by 2024, and possibly 1,000 installed by the end of 2021. So, we'll be able to, kind of, track the progress and see exactly how well they're doing on their own timeline. This is a very compelling idea for a variety of reasons, going to a per-scan approach means that you're paying for usage, which is generally a better model. You're hopefully being able to get all of these products into the hands of caregivers and people that are able to then get them to customers. It seems like there are a lot of wins here.

Feroldi: Tons of wins. And that's what's so exciting to me. Now, again you pointed this out. They are planning on launching this device in 2021. They hope to have everything submitted to the FDA by the fourth quarter of 2020, COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in things, as we've seen from many FDA approvals, but they do plan on having 1,000 of these devices installed and generating revenue by the end of next year. Again, the risk here is substantial. This is a pre-FDA approval company, so you have to think of it like a clinical stage biotech, but it won't be that much longer before we have any sense of if this is real or not.

Lewis: Yeah. And actually to underscore that point, Brian, about clinical stage biotechs, you know, so much of what we tend to talk about, when we're on the Tech show is, OK, this business is doing a certain amount of revenue, somewhere in their valuation it is implied that they will be growing at a certain rate. And what we are talking about with a business like this or with a clinical stage biotech is kind of a binary outcome, right, either this works or it doesn't work. And when you have that, [laughs] it's not like you are down maybe 30% on your investment, you are multi-bagging this investment or possibly losing almost everything that you put into it.

Feroldi: That's exactly how you have to look at it. Right now, this company is a lottery ticket, it's an exciting lottery ticket, but it's a lottery ticket. And you have to go in knowing full well they might not be able to do anything they say they're going to do and you can crash and burn and lose a huge amount. But if they can do what they say they can do, I definitely think +10X returns are possible from here.

Lewis: Well, we talked about how they don't have any revenue, but we should at least look at the financials. And I know that there's no real topline to speak of, but that doesn't mean that we can't nitpick a little bit and give people a sense of what the books look like.

Feroldi: Yep. So, as I said before, they've been developing this technology for eight years in secrecy, what I was pretty excited about is, while they did have a $22.5 million loss, net loss in 2019, a lot of that was stock-based compensation. And the cash burn, the actual number of dollars that were burned through the operations, was only $6 million for the entire year. That's not that bad.

Now, we should expect that that number is about to skyrocket, because they're going to have to be producing these things, selling these things, shipping these things, but that's a pretty low number already. Now, post-IPO, as of June 30th, they said that on a pro forma basis they had $236 million in cash. Through the first six months of 2020, they burned through $13.5 million. So, they definitely have some runway here, but it would not surprise me at all if they did come back to the markets in a year or two to raise more capital.

Lewis: Yeah, the IPO for them wound up being a very good capital raising event and wound up being something that really helped them beef up their balance sheet, I think they basically 6X'd the amount of cash that they had available to them. And when you're looking at this kind of business, they're going from the R&D phase, which, you know, you're operating on a much smaller scale, to really going out there, having to put money on the line to start getting this going. And that takes a lot of upfront capital. And they need that money, it seems like they have it. And based on their burn, they're going to be able to have a pretty decent runway to be able to do that.

Feroldi: I think so too, but again, we don't yet have nearly enough information to really forecast that for now. Just again, go in knowing that it is likely, given the cost of deploying these systems and their business model, they're going to be burning a ton of cash in the next couple of years as they scale and get their operations up.

Lewis: The one thing that's reassuring with that, Brian, though, is they don't have a lot of debt on their balance sheet, which I was, kind of, pleasantly surprised by.

Feroldi: Yes. They have only $3 million in liabilities, so it is nice to see. And one reason for that is, they have done a great job about raising capital up until this point, as well as really keeping their capital costs low. One benefit of running such a lean structure is that the inside ownership here is actually really high. So, one of the Co-Founders is currently the CEO. His name is Ran Poliakine. He still owns, just him, more than 10% of the business. That's a lot of skin in the game.

Lewis: It is. And it's important, we talk about this a lot with the smaller company space. I think if you're looking at anything that is mid, small and especially microcap, the leadership at the company has an outsized impact on the business. And you really want management that is aligned, management that's motivated, and good management, because it's a lot easier for them to throw their weight around and create change at a smaller business, the larger you get -- you know, the likes of Zuckerberg and Bezos, they're obviously transformational leaders, but I think that the management team matters a lot more in a $1 billion or $2 billion business.

Feroldi: Correct. I think that that's true, and the other thing that I was pretty excited to hear was, when Sony -- again, Sony was the original developers of this technology, ended up selling it off. Some Sony employees ended up transitioning to this company; if that gives you any sense of what they thought of the potential of the technology. So, the inside ownership here is very high. Again, we mentioned SK Telecom, the Verizon of South Korea, they actually own 13% of the business. Several other insiders own 6%, 9% or more. And even the IPO itself, they only sold off 20% of the company to raise that capital. So, insiders here have a tremendous amount of skin in the game; that's great to see.

Lewis: Love to see skin in the game. But when we talk about disruptive technology, we have to talk a little bit about what that might look like in terms of a moat and the competitive landscape, Brian. I think, looking at this model, if they can get installed, then it's off to the races, right, because they have extremely loyal customers in the fact that they got this machine for free, they have minimum usage that they probably need to hit, as you mentioned before. But these winds up being probably things that they can easily price into their services, know what they're going to be paying per scan, and then be able to charge slightly above that, collect their premium, and be able to work things out that way. That does not mean that the competition is going to let them easily do that.

Feroldi: We're talking about some pretty well-heeled competitors here. General Electric, Siemens, Philips, Hologic, Varian, Fuji, Toshiba, these are big established companies that are selling multi-million-dollar systems along with lots of software and maintenance that goes along with this. They're not going to exactly look at this competition kindly. So, when I think about the moat here, I definitely think the technology itself is a moat, but what I'm more interested in is a strategy that's called counter-positioning.

We mentioned it before that the business model that they're deploying here is so radically different than the traditional business model of selling a multi-million-dollar machine upfront, that let's say that General Electric or Siemens could copy their technology, they would have to give up a tremendous amount of revenue in the short term to match Nano-X's business model; that's really hard for a lot of companies to do. And we've seen companies like Amazon do exactly this. We've seen companies like Netflix do exactly this to Blockbuster. In those cases, those companies weren't selling something that was even different, they were just selling it using a different business model, and a lot of their competitors were unwilling to change to match them. I think the same can be said here.

Lewis: Yeah. I mean, it's hard when you're a business of that size to disrupt yourself. And that's what this type of company might force the industry into doing. And at some point you need to decide, well, OK, we've had this thing that's a golden goose for a really long time, it's been great, we're making good money on it, we're going to have to eat it for about three years and just say, you know what, this is going to be a really tough transformation for our business, but we think longer term this is the direction that we need to go. And we talk about it all the time in the Software-as-a-Service space, right, Brian? How companies going from the licensing model to the as-a-Service model wind up with some rough financials. They wind up coming out of it better, but it's really hard for a leadership team of a company that's worth tens of billions of dollars to decide to make that switch, because their current business works.

Feroldi: That's right. But even still, giving away a device that costs $10,000 is different than giving away [laughs] a device that costs over $1 million to make. So, again, I think if the company can do what they say they're going to do, I could see them rapidly building themselves a pretty wide moat.

Lewis: Let's talk a little bit about what the potential for this business looks like if they're able to do that. I think it can be really hard for people to wrap their head around a valuation, a total addressable market and anything for a business that is pre-revenue. I mean, you're basically taking the seed investing approach with a company like this.

Feroldi: Yeah, you really have to think outside the box, and basically say, if this technology is the real deal, there's upside. I mean, again, this is just a "$1 billion" business right now. They believe that the current total addressable market for x-ray systems and maintenance and support is about $21 billion. So, that is, broadly speaking, the market as it exists today. However, that's also, as we said at the top of the show, that excludes 66% of humanity. So, if they can bring it to the rest, obviously, there's room for growth there.

And I just did some very simple back of the napkin calculations here, if they can get 15,000 systems up and running and if they can get those minimums and those costs that we talked about before, 15,000 systems deployed doing the minimum amount that they're required to, would be $500 million in annual recurring revenue for this business. So, what kind of multiple should we stick on a company that's growing triple-digits and potentially high margin recurring revenue that's disrupting its industry? You tell me, Dylan, but I have a feeling it would be bigger than a $1 billion company.

Lewis: I think you're probably right, and this actually traces back to the conversation we were having on Industry Focus last week, talking a little bit about total addressable market, talking about valuation and really how to work your way into some numbers that can start to make sense. I like that you, kind of, showed your math there and worked us through how you got to that annual figure, you have to provide some healthy discount on that and say, well, what's the likelihood that this happens? But even if you look at that and you say, OK, well, maybe there's a 5% chance that this works, that doesn't put them at a crazy multiple times sales right now.

Feroldi: And again, just like we talked about on last week's show, Dylan. When you see a company like this, that has incredible promise but is also incredibly risky. And to reiterate, this is the riskiest company we've ever talked about [laughs] on Industry Focus, you position your size accordingly. So, as I said at the top of the show, I'm going to be opening up a position in this company. I am going in full well knowing that the risks are huge, they could botch the FDA approval, they could botch the rollout program, a thousand things could go wrong. So, my personal plan is to buy next week, I think I just want to be a part owner of this business. I would add to the position after FDA approval, and then I would add to the position again once gross margin turns positive. Those, to me, are the three things that I will say, yes, this thesis is on-track. And ideally, with purchase two and purchase three, I'm doing so at higher prices.

Lewis: I love that, Brian. I think, if I were to use a word to describe you as an investor, it would probably be "intentional," and when I hear you say, like, OK, here are the positions that I am possibly going to initiate, and here's when I'm going to do it. That feels very investing diary-like to me. You know, we want to know what we're doing, why we're doing it and maybe why we were right; [laughs] you know, if we see things down the road. And I think, to be able to have those check-ins and say, these are the things that I'm looking for in this business to be able to do, these will show me that it deserves more of its money, it's a great way to think about this.

Feroldi: Yep. And as Tom Angle, one of my favorite investors and Fools of all time says, if this business is the next great growth stock, a little is all I need; if it's not, a little is all I want. So, you have to go win, winners keep on winning, this company has not yet proven that it is a public market winner. If it does so by getting FDA approval, by growing its revenue and showing a positive risk margin, that, to me, will be clear signs that it's trending in the winner's direction.

Lewis: We've done a good amount to talk about the risks and the competition here, Brian, but I just want to underscore it with a line from the S-1 here, because we will often see commentary, especially from newly public companies about how they may not become profitable. That's a kind of boilerplate warning that we see in S-1s, right. And in this one, it says, "We are a development stage company with limited operating history. We may never be able to effectuate our business plan or achieve any revenue or reach profitability, therefore at this stage of our business, potential investors have a high probability of losing their entire investment." You're hearing it from the company itself, you're hearing it from us. It's just worth, when you see a company like this and you get interested, making sure that you're in the right mindset with it and that you position size accordingly, as Brian was saying.

Feroldi: Investing is all about weighing risks with potential rewards, you need to do that whether it's a company that's almost bulletproof like Verizon, as well as a no revenue company like Nano-X. It's all about balancing those two things in your mind.

Lewis: Before we wrap up here, Brian, I want to ask you one more question. You teed this up as the Tesla of medical imaging. I imagine listeners at this point probably have some sense of why, but why did you give it that title?

Feroldi: Well, first-off it's kind of cheeky, right? Wouldn't you listen to an episode that was called the Tesla of medical imaging? But more seriously, what they are doing is providing medical imaging to the world. That's a technology that already exists today. The exact same way that Tesla is providing cars to the world, and energy systems to the world. Those technologies already existed, what makes this the Tesla of medical imaging is that they're doing it with a different underlying technology, and they're selling it in a completely unique way. One of the reasons, in my opinion, that Tesla is going to be successful in the long-term is that they are a direct-to-consumer model. They sell cars differently than Toyota and GM and Ford can. Those companies are forced to use dealers, Tesla is going direct-to-consumer, it's a different model.

The exact same thing is happening here. Nano-X is going to be selling its system by saying, here, this is free. Just sign this agreement and you can get medical imaging. That is a disruptive business model, hence why I thought the title was appropriate.

Lewis: I think as maybe a follow-up or a future episode, we should do a disruptive business models episode. Because I like the idea that that is a form of innovation in and of itself. You know, that the product doesn't necessarily need to be something that is so radically different than what is out there if the business model really changes the way that the end buyer winds up interacting with it.

Feroldi: I think that makes sense, but, Dylan, I got a question for you. Now, that you know a little bit more about this company, where does it rate on the Dylan interest scale?

Lewis: You know, you and our colleague, Joey Solitro, kill me with the frequent stock pitches, because I am at a point right now with a lot of house renovations coming down the pike, where I unfortunately am not really adding a lot to my portfolio, so I am sitting here watching all these really interesting ideas come on to my screener and having to say, I need to see what the final bill looks like for the renovations first.

And I mean, that's we talk about that all the time, right, the importance of not putting money to work that you'll need at any point in the next couple of years. And so, I'm in that position right now where I can't commit a lot of new money to my brokerage account, because we're doing some major stuff here at the house. So, talk to me in three to six months, once I've got the financing for all that stuff laid out.

It's a very interesting business. I like the idea of having something in the healthcare space, because I'm actually, kind of, healthcare light in my portfolio. And I like this disruptive business model, but that will give me a little time to see how things are going.

Feroldi: Well, awesome. At the very least, this will be a very fun company for us to cover in future episodes.

Lewis: Absolutely. And it's inspiration for future episodes, which is even better. Brian, thanks so much for hopping on today's show.

Feroldi: Dylan, awesome to see you, as always.

Lewis: Listeners, that's going to do it for this episode of Industry Focus. If you have any questions or you want to reach out and say "Hey!" shoot us an email over at IndustryFocus@Fool.com or you can tweet us @MFIndustryFocus. We're always looking for ideas; love getting them on Twitter.

And if you're looking for more of our stuff, subscribe on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts.

As always, people on the program may own companies discussed on the show, and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against stocks mentioned, so don't buy or sell anything based solely on what you hear.

Thanks for Tim Sparks for all his work behind the glass today, and thank you for listening. Until next time, Fool on!

This article represents the opinion of the writer, who may disagree with the “official” recommendation position of a Motley Fool premium advisory service. We’re motley! Questioning an investing thesis -- even one of our own -- helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.