In this episode of Industry Focus: Wildcard, we are bringing healthcare back into the spotlight, as the Nano-X.ARC (NNOX 2.11%) digital x-ray technology is getting 510(k) clearance from the Food and Drug Administration. Then, we use the company to explore the risk/reward spectrum and the trade-off of upside versus certainty with an investment.
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.
10 stocks we like better than Nano-X Imaging Ltd.
When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the market.*
David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the ten best stocks for investors to buy right now... and Nano-X Imaging Ltd. wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys.
*Stock Advisor returns as of February 24, 2021
This video was recorded on April 7, 2021.
Dylan Lewis: It's Wednesday, April 7th, and we are talking about Nano-X and the spectrum of investing risks. I'm Dylan Lewis, I'm joined by fool.com's, non-nimble novice of navigating narrative notes, Brian Feroldi. Brian, how are you doing?
Brian Feroldi: Dylan, pleasure to talk to you on a Wednesday and not just a Friday this week. I get you twice, awesome.
Lewis: Yeah. I love this. I mean, come on. Who doesn't love to get to hang out with their buddy for two hours and just happen to have it get recorded and get to share it with a bunch of people. We have fun jobs, Brian.
Feroldi: We really do and we're bringing back healthcare to Wildcard Wednesday. I am going to do my best to make sure every Wednesday we talk about healthcare. That's what we're doing today.
Lewis: Judging based on the emails that we'd get from listeners at [email protected], I think you were wise to do that because we had Kristine Harjes hosting the healthcare show for a while. We had Shannon Jones hosting the healthcare show for a while, two folks with in-depth backgrounds in the healthcare industry. For a while we felt like we didn't have that and we didn't want to put out a show without the expertise. But you have built that up and so we are now able to regularly bring that to people. We get comments all the time and make it the healthcare show again. I think at least with wildcard bringing healthcare in the mix, I think most weeks of the month, we at least get to scratch that.
Feroldi: Healthcare is just like technology to me. There's so much innovation happening in it. There's so many new drugs, new technologies to come out, so it's an endlessly fascinating market.
Lewis: Speaking of, I mean, the company that we're going to talk about today will not be new to people that have been listening to the show for a while. Nano-X Imaging, you brought this to our attention a while ago. It is one of those businesses that sounds like space-age technology when you really start getting into it.
Feroldi: Dylan, we talked about this in August of 2020. At the time, we called it the riskiest company that we've ever talked about in the show and we called that show, is this the Tesla of medical imaging? We really couldn't have come up with a better name there because this has become a battleground stock. Since the IPO, Nano-X has traded as low as $20, it's traded as high as $94. There is a passionate group of bulls behind this stock. There is a passionate group of bears that have attacked this stock. In fact, since it came public, not one but two famous short-sellers have put this on their radar and put scathing reports, blasting at this company. We called it the riskiest company we've ever talked about. Man, did we get that right.
Lewis: Yeah. I don't think you knew how precious that was calling it the Tesla of medical imaging. It sounds an awful lot like Tesla, you just remove the names. It would be easy to think that you were talking about Elon Musk's company?
Feroldi: That's that's exactly right. As a refresher, we weren't predicting this is going to become a battleground stock or anything. We just said, hey, this is interesting, take a look, put it on your radar. As a quick refresher, Nano-X is focusing on medical imaging, specifically the X-ray market. They have developed a new type of technology that they believe will enable them to make X-rays and order of magnitude cheaper than it is today. That in itself is interesting and we're just talking about. The reason that I wanted to talk about on the show wasn't necessarily just the technology. The thing that interested me about Nano-X was the business model innovation that I saw and that is why we compared it to Tesla. I think one of the reasons that Tesla is underrated is because it is fundamentally changing the business model of the auto industry and that reminds me something along the lines that Nano-X is going in. The company is, essentially if it's successful, going to be giving away its scanners for free and earning revenue from them by charging for each individual scan. That takes the business model from a huge upfront cost into a $0 upfront and a recurring revenue business model. Of course, they're going with the times here. They're calling this medical screening as a service, MSaaS. That's interesting.
Lewis: I can't keep track of all of the as-a-service anymore Brian, I used to have a pretty decent shortlist in my head. But as we've seen the success of the "as-a-service" model, particularly in software, a lot of industries have caught off. It makes sense that someone is exploring this business model in the medical imaging space, and this is a disruptive company. We're going to get into how it's a pre-revenue company. Really, you're buying the idea of a business in some ways. But we have seen so many times over the course of the last even 20 years highly innovative, disruptive businesses with business models that work differently than the incumbents are often able to either provide users a better cost structure, a better service, or something that is currently being missed by what is being offered out there in the marketplace.
Feroldi: This is really pointed out to me by a thinker that I like a lot. His name is Tony Seba, and he points out that business model innovation can be every bit as disruptive as technological innovation. If you're looking for a phenomenal example of that, may I present Netflix. Netflix and Blockbuster sold identical products. A movie from Blockbuster was the exact same movie that you could get from Netflix. This is, of course, in the early days of Netflix. The innovation that Netflix came up with was sending it to you as a subscription through the mail. It was the exact same product, but it was sold using a different business model. That one obviously worked out spectacularly well, but that just really shows if you sell a similar product, but you sell it in a different way, that can be disruptive.
Lewis: 100%, and it's funny, Brian, that was the exact example I was going to use, but I was going to focus on a different element of it and that's getting charged monthly for something versus being charged for every single DVD that you're renting. That was another element of the disruptive business model. We've seen it with Netflix, but I think Amazon as well is another great example with their prime product. They're saying, "We know that you want stuff fast. We're going to charge you a certain amount. You're going to get two-day shipping and you're going to be thrilled." What did we see with that industry? It became table stakes. You have to do it in order to stay competitive. It was wildly disruptive when they did it. I think that's part of the pitch with a company like Nano-X. Obviously, a lot of things have to materialize though for that to be something that customers and ultimately patients wind up experiencing.
Feroldi: An important thing about the business model innovation there is when you are a new company, you can experiment. You can do things differently. If you look at the companies that Nano-X will be competing against if it's successful, even though it says it won't be competing against them, if you were to buy an X-ray machine, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars upfront or even more, that is how those companies business models are built. If they were to change their business models to match Nano-X, to go toward subscription, they would be forced to give up a ton of revenue in the near term to go to a subscription model. That is a really painful thing for companies to do. So even though they might be able to do so, it's painful for them to go backwards. This is actually a business strategy that's called counter-positioning, and it can really insulate a company from competition for a long time.
Lewis: Yeah. One of the other elements is you think about businesses like a boat Brian, it's one of the easy ways to conceptualize how hard it is when you have so much legacy stuff, so much inertia behind things that you're already doing. That's like a massive cargo ship. If you're coming onto the scene with being pre-revenue, small revenue base, disruptive product, that's a comparatively a small, maybe even personal ship. It's a lot easier to turn that to where you see the fisher if you're out there fishing. With that, if you're in a legacy business and a lot of stuff going on, it's just going to take you longer to get there and you have all of these reasons not.
Feroldi: Sometimes you can actually have other stakeholders that you have to think about. Again to relate this to Tesla. Tesla doesn't use dealers. It is its own dealer. It's selling new cars through the Internet. Every other legacy automaker out there is going through a dealership network that is a stakeholder that Tesla has essentially sidestep. It's going to be incredibly painful. If time proves out to consumers just want to buy on the Internet, they don't want to buy through a local dealer, it's going to be really hard for Ford, GM, Toyota to say, "Oh dealers, sorry, we are disrupting here. We're just going to sell directly to consumers." That's the thing that counter-position can do for you.
Lewis: I think with that, we've established what they're offering here at Nano-X is disruptive and probably a pretty good value prop for the ultimate customers, which are really going to be healthcare providers for the most part. That's what's going to be, what gets it into patient use and really what makes it something that is a product that either takes off or does not take off. Last time we talked about this company, Brian. It was not even at a stage where it had FDA approval for its product, and that was a big part of the reason why we labeled it one of the riskiest businesses we've ever talked about on the show. The company has a lot of hurdles to overcome in order to get to the point where it becomes a business that's generating revenue and is actually being used by patients. But we're starting to see some signs that that thesis is materializing.
Feroldi: We got some good news on that front earlier this week. Nano-X again, as you said, is not even FDA approved. That is a major, major hurdle for any medical company that has to be overcome before they can even begin to sell their products. Like I said from the beginning, that it's going to take a multistage approach to approval. The first step that it was going to go through would be to get its Nano-X.ARC digital X-ray technology through as a single source. That was step one, and the good news is that is exactly what got cleared earlier this week on April 2nd. Nano-X said that it received 510(k) clearance from the FDA for its single-source Nano-X.ARC digital X-ray technology. That is a key part of the company's core technology, so getting the regulatory thumbs-up on just that is a big plus. That's especially true if you've been following this company's history where it's actually tried and failed twice to go through, to get that through the FDA. The FDA both times basically said, "We need more information." That was delayed significantly but Nano-X did succeed with that earlier this week.
Lewis: This is where the healthcare industry is unique really because if you go out there and you're selling a consumer products or software or something like that and you have certain sales goals, we'll say, you said guidance for a quarter or for a year and you say we're going to sell a million and you come up short, say you sell half of that. You still have $500,000 in sales. There's not really much of a hurdle to getting that out there aside from whatever you need to do to physically make the product. But in the case of healthcare, in the case of the device maker like Nano-X, there's a little bit of a binary outcome to what they're able to do, and really what they might prove as an investment because they need approval for everything.
Feroldi: That's right, and that's just a challenge of investing in healthcare altogether. There is this binary event that can make or break investing thesis or in some cases, not even make it. It's just table stakes to really get invited to start to commercialize your products. The fact that Vertex is still behind that product, again, makes this incredibly risky. Now, that FDA clearance was certainly big news, the stock did pop when it came out. However, it's really important for investors to know that this isn't the only FDA clearance that matters. Again, the company has consistently said that it's going to take a multi-stage approach to FDA approval. The company's next stage is to go and take their multisource technology and submit that for FDA clearance. The single-source was just cleared. That gives the company essentially the green light to say, "Hey, we're going to take our multisource technology and submit that." The reason why that's important for investors is the multisource technology is the product that's going to be commercialized. While the first clearance definitely is a step in the right direction, it is really the multi-source technology that investors should really be paying attention to.
Lewis: Yeah. That's the important nuance of digging into this stuff. The FDA clearance process is important no matter where you're investing in the healthcare space. But when you talk about drug companies particularly, you talk about what's in the pipeline, right Brian? The idea that for some of the bigger businesses, drugs that are in various stages of approval are in various clinical phases. In the case of Nano-X, the entire bet is really on this technology and this platform. There's not a lot else in there. It needs to move along for this business to become ultimately something that is much bigger.
Feroldi: Certainly. One thing that is worth noting here, and we covered this in our initial view of the show. One reason that Nano-X was so interesting is they are not necessarily thinking that the U.S. is going to be where this technology is most useful. They are really targeting the two-thirds of the world that currently does not have access to X-ray technology. They're saying by using this business model that allows these systems to be placed for free that they can bring down the cost of X-ray so that the two-thirds of the world that can access this technology will get access to it. That two thirds of the world that can access this isn't really in the U.S., it's in a lot of developing countries around the world. Therefore you might be thinking, why does FDA approval even matter? FDA approval is for the United States. The reason that it matters so much is that the FDA and CE market in Europe are really two of the global standards for regulatory clearance. A lot of the other countries around the world base their local clearances on what the FDA and CE mark says. While the United States won't necessarily be a big market for Nano-X, although it certainly could be, it does give a seal of approval that will allow the company to take the technology to the rest of the world.
Lewis: Brian, we talked about how we have an initial thumbs up from the FDA and obviously stock responded very positively, the market is very happy about that. But let's take a step back here and look at what still needs to happen. You teed up that first part. But there are a lot of other elements that will continue to de-risk this investment. It goes way beyond simply getting FDA approval for the product.
Feroldi: Yes. Regulatory approval is the biggest hurdle to clear by far, and that is the hurdle that investors should be focused on. But if you've studied medical technology, again, we said earlier in the show, that just gives you a seat at the table. That just gives you the opportunity to commercialize a product. Getting the opportunity to commercialize a product, and commercializing the product are two completely different things and two different skill sets. Once you get a product approved and you have the thumbs-up to do so. Not only do you have all the normal business headaches of manufacturing and distribution, etc, but you also have a bunch of different constituents that you have to convince. With medical technology, you have to convince players around the world to cover your technology. In the U.S., that's Medicare, that's Medicaid, that's Blue Cross Blue Shield, that's United Healthcare. But each government around the world does things slightly differently and you have to get each of them to sign off. That's another big hurdle. You also have to convince payers to give your technology a shot. If you are an X-ray expert, are you going to necessarily say that this technology is as good as what you're currently using? I don't know, but you do have to educate payers that the technology exists and why they should send their payers there. You also have to do the same thing with patients. You have to convince them that it's safe to use. While getting FDA approval or regulatory approval is the big hurdle to overcome, even after that fact, it doesn't necessarily guarantee commercial success.
Lewis: Yeah, in a lot of ways Brian, those other steps are very decentralized too. You're working with a single organization [laughs] for the FDA, and obviously there are other organizations, other regulatory bodies that come into play, but we're going to focus primarily on the U.S. here. But then once you get beyond that, you're working in much more fragmented spaces with payers, with providers, and especially with patients. evangelizing and really socializing the idea that this is a good product that's helpful, it reduces costs, it leads to better outcomes, that's long and difficult work.
Feroldi: It really is. What's the thing that we always say we're sure? We've talked about so many exciting healthcare companies, so many exciting technology companies. When you read through a presentation, when you read through an annual report, it sounds awesome. Like every single time it's like, wow, this just sounds so awesome. What's the thing we say? Prove it. Great. This sounds great. Prove it that you can actually get out there and create a great demand for your product. The way that companies like this prove it to me, is by showing enormous revenue growth. Especially in the beginning. That more than anything else shows me that there is a product to market fit because there's always nuances to commercializing a product that it's really hard for investors to see sometimes because they are not understood by management, sometimes because they're hidden by management. But I sold disruptive medical device technology for 10 years, and you would think that devices that are disruptive and really power consumers would just sell themselves. You can never count in all the hidden forces that are at play behind the scenes that can make or break a technology.
Lewis: Yeah, I believe it. As someone who has not sold anything but has heard you talk about it plenty. I imagine it's a difficult thing to do because of all of those things we talked about earlier. All of those things you have to overcome and beyond just the core industry. Then we were talking about companies running to those things. All of the levels of payers or providers also have those same decision trees. Where they have legacy technology systems, they have staff that has been trained to use something. All of that upfront investment is there for stuff that they already have on the premises.
Feroldi: That's exactly right. The really interesting thing to think about when you have to talk about technology like this is a lot of times people that are in the industry because they know so much and they know so many of those hurdles to overcome, they can provide really compelling bare cases. I myself worked in diabetes for years and I could have convinced anybody that Livongo Health was going to fail. I just could have done it. If you looked at what Livongo did as an investment, that stock was just about 10-bags [laughs] before it was acquired by Teladoc. I've gotten a tremendous amount of really really insightful, helpful feedback from people that are in the industry and I so appreciate that. I think it's still important to say, well, I'm going to let the numbers do the talking. Yes, there's reasons to be bullish on the stock. Yes, there's reasons to be bearish on the stock. But the thesis will really play out based on one thing, revenue.
Lewis: Yeah. Brian, pessimism always sounds so smart. When you know something really well, you know all the steps that go into making it happen, which can often make it even harder to decide to invest. You know just how difficult the challenge is that a company is trying to take on. You mentioned revenue growth. This is a pre-revenue company and so we don't have that shorthand, we don't have that heuristic to really understand. They're chatting their path forward and they are also checking these boxes along the way that give me confidence. You're a shareholder in this business. I'm curious, what made you decide, you know what? Even though revenue isn't part of the story yet, I'm interested and I want to buy shares?
Feroldi: Yeah, I think that most listeners know that I'm typically a methodical investor. I have my checklist that I go through with my investments, and I am pretty demanding. I want to see high revenue growth, high margins, profit, a clean balance sheet, a founder-led management team, optionality, operating leverage, etc. All of those things are what I look for in a business. Nano-X, none. None [laughs] of those things exist at all, so you're like, well, why I'm even a shareholder? When it comes to my portfolio composition, I think about my portfolio in three primary buckets. About 40% of my portfolio, I aim to put in high-quality, low-risk stocks. These are companies that are highly profitable, wide competitive advantages, just check like every box that I'm looking for. This is where I want the bulk of my capital. This would be companies like MasterCard, Amazon, Facebook, etc. Another 40%, I put in high-quality stocks that are riskier, either from a valuation perspective or a size perspective. It's still high-quality. These are companies like DocuSign, BlackLine that we've talked about before. That is where the bulk of my capital is. With that remaining 20%, I'm willing to swing for the fences on occasion. I'm willing to risk a little bit here and there on companies that are very risky, but also offer the potential if I'm right about them to provide huge returns. In Nano-X's case, I thought that the story was compelling enough to risk a tiny bit of my capital and find out if I'm right. One of my favorite investors ever has this wonderful saying about companies like this. If Nano-X is the next great growth stock, a little is all I need. If it's not, a little is all I want.
Lewis: I love a good turner phrase. [laughs] That's awesome. I'm curious, Brian, with that portfolio allocation, I think I'm similar. You could plus or minus, the number is about 5%, and I probably fit into a lot of those buckets as well. You provided the percentages and the allocation for the buckets. I'm curious how you think about the individual positions sizing within that.
Feroldi: When I'm buying a stock, I'm typically buying in fraction of1% chunks. I typically invest about 0.5% of my portfolio at any given time and I build positions over multi-quarters or multiyear. I want to see that with my first purchase, I'm very willing to take a lot of risk, because I don't know as much about the company. In this case, there are a lot of hurdles that we've talked about this company has to overcome, but I'm willing to risk a small bit of my portfolio to get that capital in the company. After Nano-X wins FDA clearance for its multi-source, again its commercial system, the company will be de-risked significantly from where it is today, so I would be happy to add capital to that company after that happens. Yes, I will have to pay a much higher price and a much higher market cap to do so, but if I'm right about the long-term thesis here, I'll still make fantastic 10+ year returns on Nano-X even if I buy after that allocation happens. This is a company that I would just add to very slowly as the story plays out.
Lewis: We talk about it a lot, both with companies that have gone on sizable runs, and also within the thinking of adding to winners that when you see something it's currently per say up to 200% from where you first bought it. It's hard to do that, but if you change your mindset and you say, rather than paying more, I am trading certainty for upside. It's much easier to wrap your head around that.
Feroldi: That's exactly correct, and if you look at the history of the market, one thing that I just so firmly believe in my investing soul is that winners keep on winning and losers keep on losing. So while it can be very painful to pay double, triple, even quadruple the price for a stock after it's gotten an FDA approval, or it's clearly showing signs that it's been winning, sometimes that can just be the smart thing to do because as you just said, you're trading upside potential for a higher likelihood of success in a higher conviction in a company. If you look back at any of the biggest winners of all time in the market, buying after they were up 100%, 200%, 300%, you still made a ton of money.
Lewis: That's right. Brian, you said before that you are typically methodical as an investor and I think that that would be a great TMF name for you if you didn't already have one that was so fitting, but you put together this really amazing table. I think you were doing this anyway, and it just happened to be relevant show, but I want to walk through it, because it basically looks at investment stages from the business first being formed to basically becoming a slow and steady dividend payer, and the way that you look at both risk, profits, upside and ultimately whether you're pulling the trigger and investing or not. I don't want to get too detailed here because it's a little hard, maybe we will tweet it out on the Industry focus Twitter account, but I do want to walk through what that spectrum looks like, because I think it's helpful for listeners.
Feroldi: Sure. I broke up the investment stage. Investment stages are very ridiculous successful business, that's a key point here. This is assuming ridiculously successful into roughly 12 stages. Stage one is the businesses being formed, the risk is maximum, there's no revenue, let alone profits, but on the flip side, the return potential is enormous. If you were a seed investor in any successful business, I knew one of those really to basically set you up financially for the rest of your life. However, the odds of that company failing or blowing up are very, very high. But that's stage one. Stage two is the products or service that the company is being built to offer, that is being developed. Sometimes that is a service and the development is zero, other times, with medical technology companies, or tech companies, that can be years. It can take years to develop a product or service. Stage three is the product is launched to the market. Stage four is figuring out, "Okay, we launched this product, is there product market fit? Is there actually demand for our products in the market?" At that stage, you really prove that up by seeing enormous revenue growth. From there, it's all about revenue growth kicking in.
Stage six is just reinvestment into the business. Revenue is coming in and the company is planning more and more resources to build out the commercialization team to invest in sales and marketing. Stage seven is margin expansion. That's where the company is reaching a sufficient scale to drive out margins throughout the business. Stage eight is you reach profitability. Stage nine is huge profit growth from operating leverage really kicking in. Stage 10 is when the market starts to become mature and your growth starts to slow, after that the company typically starts to focus on dividends or buybacks, and if they're successful at that for a long, long time, they could even become a dividend aristocrat. I just thought through each of those stages, what is the risk profile at each stage? What are the profits at each stage? What is the potential to me as an investor at each stage? Then I just came up with some very simple guidelines for, I'm I interested in the company at this stage? What percent of my portfolio would I be willing to invest?
Lewis: Yes, this is basically caterpillar to butterfly for [laughs] a wildly successful business. What I like is you can basically put any company on the spectrum and then check in maybe a year or two later, and if everything is going the way it should be, you can probably move them to the next stage. If the thesis is holding, that's happening. If not, you might see them in the penalty box or something like that, but it's helpful and maybe we can just ground some of this discussion in some names that Fools are familiar with, and just provide some examples.
Feroldi: Sure. In Nano-X stages here, it is very clearly in stage two. We are not even two products launched yet, this is when the risk is incredibly high, but the return potential is also very high. Nano-X is currently a $2 billion market cap company. Just ask yourself, "If the company does what it says is hoping to do, how big could this company be one day?" I could foresee a $20 billion company. That would not be a ridiculous assertion to make if the company can do what it says it wants to do. That could be a 10x plus return from today. You're asking, "Is that return potential worth the risk that I'm taking on?" If you move forward, another company we've talked about is DermTech on the show before. They're commercializing a product that helps to diagnose skin cancer in a less invasive way. That company is post-product launch. However, it's still in the, "Is there some product market fit here?" We've gotten some early signs from DermTech that, yes revenue growth is huge, but there are still some big-time commercialization efforts that the company has to overcome.
While the return potential might not be as high, or potentially not be as high as for Nano-X, you are trading a few stages ahead of the game, because the company is already on the market and already has some early signs of success. Finally, if you go all the way to the other end, you can look at a company like Intuitive Surgical. That's a medical device company that's been on the market, it's been selling for years and it's reached profitability, in fact, it reached profitability about 16 years ago, the returns for investors have been absolutely spectacular, and because it's so dominant, so well-known, and so highly profitable, I would personally be willing to put a big chunk of my portfolio into it. That's just one way to think about the stages in a few companies that are there.
Lewis: I think this is a wonderful example for a variety of reasons, and like I said, we'll tweet this out on the @MFindustry focus twitter handle just so folks can see it. I realize that this doesn't always translate well to audio when we're talking about digital stuff. The reason I want to discuss it is, within your categories you basically have the risks-profits return potential and crucially do I invest. What I think is great here for me to see, as someone who learns a lot from you, Brian, is there are things that are not as broad a category where you are a shareholder. I think what can get lost sometimes in systems-based thinking is being blinded by the system, and in creating structure for yourself that prevent you from making decisions, and with all of the staff then you can find your own system for doing this. Folks that are listening, but understanding the inputs and then being like, "yes, but," and knowing why you're making that decision in spite of things that normally would prevent you from saying yes.
Feroldi: Yeah. I'm a big fan of systems thinking and just writing things down for yourself, and broadly speaking, I'm a huge believer in creating rules for yourself, and then following the rules. If you are a beginning investor, that's exactly what you should focus on. However, rules are more like strong guidelines as opposed to exact rules to follow, and I think it's OK to ''break your guidelines'' every now and then, if you think the risk-reward is compelling enough. First, for as long as I know that I'm doing that, and two I'm risking an appropriate amount of my portfolio on that, I'm OK with making a few high-risk, high-potential return investments. That makes things more fun.
Lewis: Brian, the risk-reward trade-off is pretty asymmetrical with having you on the show [laughs] because it is low risk and high-reward. I'm always happy to have you on, great chatting with you again this week.
Feroldi: You too, Dylan, and I'll see you on Friday.
Lewis: See you on Friday. 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 at [email protected] or tweet us at @MFindustry focus. Like I said, we'll be throwing the chat up from today's show there. If you're looking for more of our stuff, subscribe on iTunes, Spotify, 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 to Tim Sparks for his work behind the glass today, and thank you for listening. Until next time, Fool on!