Apple Watch

Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money. Oh, best thing in a life, I'm free. But you can get up to the better.

From Fool Global Headquarters, this is Motley Fool Money. Welcome to Motley Fool Money. Mac, we are stepping in for it under the weather, Chris Hill this week. And I'm joined by James Early from Motley Fool, income investor, and Mad Arger Singer and Jason Moser from Million Dollar Portfolio Guys.

Welcome. Hey, Mac. You're off to the great start, Mac. So are so good.

Hey, you're killing me. I'll try to keep it up. So April 24th and prices range from $350 to $17,000. Matt, what do you think?

Let's start with the positive. I think fitness gurus are going to take your Fitbit or any of the precursor fitness watches to a whole new level. The touch interface is really neat, probably a really high tech. Some of the apps are cool.

I can open my car, maybe with my watch. I can measure my heart rate. It has Apple Pay, which I actually think is going to be huge for that because it's one thing to wave your phone and have your phone. You can run into a go for a jog, go into a store, wave your watch in front of a kiosk and pay for something.

I think that's a big upgrade. It's a big bonus. It also tells time. It's huge, right?

But to me, the negatives me outweigh the positives by a lot. For a lot of the applications you have to have your iPhone, that's prepared with your phone. The prices you mentioned, $350 to $17,000, $350. It's not a lot to pay for a phone, especially one that I have to recharge probably every night.

And apparently if you're listening to music or you're doing a lot of heavy lifting on the phone or on the watch. You've got to charge it probably every six hours. Multiple models. I want to be open minded about this.

We didn't know the iPod when it came out 13 odd years ago that it was going to be this big platform for music. We didn't know what the iPad was going to do. I mean, look at the sales estimates for this thing. They're all over the map, between $8 million and $41 million at the high end for 2015.

But to me, I just don't think this is the next big thing that people are going to be interested in. And I've got to complain off the bat because Apple is taking a page out of Microsoft's playbook. I'm just checking on my iPhone. I notice this Apple Watch app has popped up now.

I guess it's downloaded automatically and I can't delete it. I can't delete it. So automatically I made it to feel like a loser for not having the Apple Watch. It's just come out.

So boom. I'm a little bit with Matt. I poo-pooed the iPad. I thought the iPad was going to flop.

Just to clarify, you call the iPad the El Camino. The El Camino. The cartridge, right? It's kind of like neither of either world, but people liked it.

Okay? People liked it. I mean, what's the point of a watch? Right?

It's either fashion. We don't need a watch to tell time. Your phone tells time these days. But hey, people buy it.

You know, example. I think the biggest problem with a watch that I can see thus far is it doesn't really seem to do anything additive. It doesn't seem to... I don't find any reason you need to have this in addition to your phone.

It's like it does what your phone does. It's just smaller now. And so for me, I mean, I wonder from that perspective, I mean, there'd be plenty of Apple fanboys ago. I'm getting one.

It's just okay because Apple tends to do well regardless of whether the product is actually worth only or not. But I think that with a watch, I mean, the phones have really benefited from this tremendous refreshment cycle, right? Every couple of years you need to buy a new phone. I don't think they're going to be able to count on that with this watch.

I mean, they haven't been able to count on it with the iPad for sure. So then if you buy this generation of Apple watch, what's to say that they're not going to have some sleeker, newer, better designed a year from now? And then, you know, like James is saying, you feel like a loser because you've got the old one and you want the new one. But you know, people can't go out there and just buy a $354, $500 watch all the time.

So Jason, though, you wear a watch? I do. I don't wear a watch. I hate wearing watches.

So my question is, does Apple need you to switch to the Apple watch or is the primary market people like me who don't even like wearing watches? So I don't know. I mean, my watch, I have a Rolex and my wife gave me. This thing will never come off my arm because it was a gift for my 40th birthday.

It means a lot and I like the watch. I'll never buy an Apple watch ever. I have zero interest in one, but I'm a traditional watch, kind of guy. So I imagine that people who enjoy wearing a watch will probably not be the initial target market for Apple.

I think they're probably jumping in on the folks that don't wear a watch and they're saying, hey, well, you can wear this watch and this is all of the stuff they can do for you, you know, rather than just tell time, like something like mine does. Yeah, I will just say though, you know, we just, I think right now, especially on the best to be open-minded because it is an interesting new piece of hardware and new platform that a lot of, you know, a lot of development companies are making applications for. So it could turn out that maybe, you know, six months down the road, it's like, wow, all of a sudden knowing what I can do with this thing, I think a lot of people just don't know what they can do with it now. But in six months, you're not going to say, gosh, I like what this thing can do.

I want one. I do think we have to step back and see that this discussion we're having is making a point by itself, which is that the lower hanging fruit has been picked by Apple. You know, this watch is sort of, I mean, who else can I go after this? I mean, like a peering aid.

I mean, it's just, basically the coolest things are already taken. Let's talk about one other place they're going. HBO, Matt, they announced a deal with HBO this week. That's right.

That's right. So, you know, we were talking about this before the show, Jason. And, you know, so now, so what the deal is starting in April, just in time for Game of Thrones, by the way, which I'm excited about, you know, you're going to be able to, it's called HBO Now You're going to be able to subscribe to HBO as long as you have an Apple device for the first three months. So, you know, after that, I think it's going to open up to more platforms.

But to me, it's a good deal for Apple. You know, it makes it more compelling to have an Apple device. But to me, it's a bigger deal for HBO. It's a bigger deal for the cable industry and the entertainment industry in general, because we have, you know, this is the first big, big one, I think, big sort of cable brand, if that's fair, to break away and become its own standalone subscription service.

And so, I think this is the beginning, sort of the real debundling of cable and, you know, sort of the rise of broadband really being the only thing, the only pipes that people are really subscribing to. So, I think Comcast is the one that really needs to take note here, because Comcast is even the one that doesn't allow for HBO subscribers to get HBO go on certain devices at least. That's right. Which I find absurd.

I mean, HBO goes, it's tremendous. I love it, but we have Verizon files. And, Mac, I know you're having some issues with Verizon here. I am a very unhappy person.

I have a very unpleasant experience with Verizon. And that's terrible. I felt myself saying that I was going to switch back to Comcast. But really, it places really the priority on the broadband, less priority on the cable packages that they're sending.

You know what I mean? Really, it just justifies, it really just shows what Netflix and Hulu and Amazon and now HBO are doing here. And, you know, I agree with Mattie. I think this is just the beginning and more will follow.

Yeah. And I want to say, you know, we were talking again from the show, you know, it's like HBO now, right? I've got HBO. If ESPN ever, Disney ever unbundles ESPN somehow.

Gosh, if you've been HBO, ESPN, and then you've got your Amazon, Netflix, Hulu. Wow. There's no way I'm ever going to go back. No way.

But the flip side of that is that now you have all of the apps, the channels that you want, and you really want those channels, well, they could probably eat those prices up over time. And then maybe that bill starts matching what you're paying for cable already. So, I'm not necessarily convinced that the long-term implications will necessarily result in a lower cable bill. Yeah, monthly entertainment bill.

Well, moving on to the exciting world of big banks and stress tests, the six biggest US banks all pass the Fed's stress test this week. James, most of those banks went on to increase their dividends. So, what does all this mean for investors? Well, the big thing we're dealing with right now is it's a better problem than we have in 2008.

That's the main thing. We're dealing with a hypothetical problem. Banks are saying, here's what we would lose if a bad thing were to happen, which is actually better than having it be a real-life problem. The point of the stress test specifically is to decide how much capital a bank can pay out versus how much capital it has to hold.

So, the regulator is just more aggressive now. It reminds me of, in middle school, we had a gem feature who would have these very aggressive athletic supporters checks before it were for class. And we got used to it after a while, but he was just aggressive as his job. So, we're dealing with a little bit.

That's a positive thing, though. Bank of America was the only one who didn't pass. The US banks who didn't pass with flying colors. The other city group, JP Morgan Goldman, they had the altar.

They're different in play of the plans. But, I'm trying to carry on with my work. You guys are driving me there. I don't know where to go with this.

But, bottom line, only Deutsche Bank and St. And, as a US student has failed, everyone else is okay. Except you're shifting. Okay, so, you know what?

Let's leave it there for now. Coming up, we've got some big news from Disney. Stay right here. This is Mottie Full Money.

Welcome back to Mottie Full Money. Macqueer here with Jason Moser, Matt Argersinger at hand. James Early. Guys, Shake Shack reported its first quarterly earnings report on Wednesday.

And, Jason, I will admit to being confused. The report earnings after market on Wednesday, on Thursday, the stock falls more than 10%. But, then it recovers all of that. And then, what's the story here?

Well, I mean, I think a lot of people are still trying to figure out exactly what the story with Shake Shack is. I mean, it is a volatile stock. They stock with a low float of shares trading on the open market, which will bring you those big price swings. So, that's one of the things to keep an eye on there.

But I think really the two questions with Shake Shack are, number one, how big can this, you know, company get, how big can this chain get? And then, number two, is it going to be able to work any pricing power into that model there? And those are questions that we just don't know yet. I mean, to me, I've never been to a Shake Shack, but it strikes me as kind of just another burger joint.

I mean, granted, great burgers. So, great burgers. That's fine. I mean, there are plenty of great burger places out there, though.

They're not the first ones to do this. And so, I do question the growth there. I did. 2015, they're talking about opening maybe about 15 total new stores around the world, and you know, you can compare that as something like Chipotle.

They're not about 200 this year. So, the question really is one of growth and the jury is still out. I would just say, you know, looking at the market cap of the company, you know, 63 stores right now, they're valuing the stores right now at about $9 million each. Which is phenomenal.

And half of those stores are, by the way, licensed or franchised. So, there's a lot. I mean, 15 stores, so 15, that is not a lot of growth, really, when you think about it. So, just, sum to watch out for it.

To put that in context, Chipotle runs about $2.5 million, a little bit less than $2.5 million in sales per store annually. So, you can see, there's a little bit of a disconnect there with Shake Shack at this point. Twitter is making a big bet on video. They have acquired live streaming video upstart Periscope.

Jason, this is a $100 million deal. What do you make of it? Yeah, $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Twitter right now. I mean, they have a lot of money on the balance sheet there.

They issued some debt earlier. I like this deal. I think that live streaming video is going to be a big trend we see here in the coming years. I was tinkering around with another app out there that's doing this called MIRCAT.

It's really neat. I mean, you know, the basic concept is, if I'm somewhere, I can actually live stream this event on my phone so that other people following can watch it. A good example is the South by Southwest conference out there in Austin this week. You'll see a lot of people doing a lot of live streaming there.

And this is one of those things. You know, Twitter's goal is to keep you in that Twitter environment for as long as possible. And this is going to be another way to do that. So I'm a fan of the deal.

And Matt, a very bad week for Vera Bradley, the retailer, shares hit an all-time low this week after they reported a 20% decline in same-store sales for the holiday quarter. I don't follow the company, but that sounds bad. That sounds, well, you know, yeah, that's that's JC Penny, like that's kind of the epically bad, 20% decline in same-store sales. I mean, it's just been it's been a brutal market for accessories and apparel.

We've seen that. We've seen it happen to coach. We've seen Michael Kors, which recently I think a two-year low. And Vera Bradley's kind of on even a low end of that market.

And so this is just not a great place to be. And this is a company. I was looking at this company. I don't look off of this company.

But the two founders of this company are both in their late 70s. You know, you wonder what kind of brand power this company has. I don't think it's very much. It sounds like this is stuff you can find talking to Jason at your local golf store discount, you know, Ben at Walmart maybe.

So not a strong brand and certainly a company with that is struggling. 20% drop in same-store sales. Talk to her cover. They describe themselves on the website as a quote, leader in fashionable, and I think that's a wonderful, cotton-quilted handbags and accessories.

What's my wheelhouse? Certainly that's colorful as an understatement. No question there. But I don't think they can call themselves a leader or necessarily fashionable, right?

You don't get to decide whether you're fashionable, right? No, and your results certainly don't make it sound like that. That's the case. Okay, well, moving on to some more fashionable news.

Disney. Big news. James Arley at the shareholder meeting this week. Disney confirmed that yes, there will be a sequel to Frozen.

They also talked about the new Star Wars films. What do you make of that? How was that fashionable, Mac? Have you seen?

I've not seen a movie in the theater in 10 years, actually. Do you know any girl who was going to age as a 16? I'm just giving a hard time as a guest host, although I think he's doing a great job. I have not seen it, but it's a tremendously popular animated film franchise.

It's going to be a big winner if we do Frozen 2 for Hasbro because the merchandising rights are going to shift over in 2016 from Mattel to Hasbro for those Disney. It's been 20 years with Mattel now, Hasbro gets that. That's the story that I take away. These Bob Iger said Frozen was going to be a big franchise.

He thinks he was going to have a lot of license property. He was completely right. How about the stock here, James, because it's more than tripled since Iger became CEO 10 years ago. I've said it before, Disney's a stock that makes me feel like an idiot each time I think about it because years ago I looked at Disney and said, I should buy it, but it's a little bit too expensive and just kept going up and up and up and up.

It just goes to show you that it's worth it paying out for that extra quality. They just raised tickets for the parks too. They have so many different ways they make money. My kids, my two girls, they were just thrilled when I told them the Frozen 2 actually is reality because they can't get enough of the first one.

They still watch it. They sing the music all the time. How many kids during Halloween did you see dressed up as Frozen characters? You know the songs pretty well by now.

I do. And when they consider it fashionable? Absolutely. It dictates how they wear the in from hair to dresses.

And our last story and this is probably our favorite story of the week. Everyone loves a creepy doll story. Mattel's newest Barbie, Hello Barbie, which records your child's voice and saves it in the cloud for up to two years. And the idea here guys is that Hello Barbie will learn all about your child and tailor the conversation accordingly.

It's not out yet, but a lot of privacy concerns here. What do we think of Hello Barbie? It's intriguing to me. At first I wasn't worried about the privacy.

I thought, oh, you know, what's the big deal? Some kids are going to be saying things. But certainly some hacker got in or the company wanted to use the Barbie to ask for sensitive information. Or the parent got control and was able to communicate with the child for the Barbie.

Like, does the mailman ever come inside the house? You know, like you could get some weird situations going. And, you know, don't react too much about it. But it could be a good move from a tell because Barbie has really been struggling for them lately.

Well, Steve Broido did some crack research. And actually, Steve, I think you got hold of one of the Mattel Barbies. I love Motley Fool money. Oh, no one.

Oh, that's so sweet. I know I love this Barbie. Oh, look at that's great. James, apparently I got hold of the Hello Barbie.

I think he's flying off the show. Is that what you mean for the show? I saw it coming together. So, looking at Hello Barbie, does it move the needle at all for you from Mattel?

Mattel is in a bind. They're going to need a lot more than Hello Barbie. I think one that sings your praises. I'm surprised.

I'm glad I do. I am platter. That made my day actually. James is turning her into disgruntled Barbie now.

Okay, guys, thanks. We will talk to you later in the show. And we always want to hear from our listeners. If you have any thoughts on Apple, Shake Shack, Twitter, Disney or Mattel's newest Barbie, we want to hear from you.

Our email is radio at fool.com radio at fool.com and you can read more on all of these companies and all of these stocks on our Motleyful website at fool.com. But up next, who's making the big money off March Madness? Are we moving to a world where college players are going to start getting paid? And is Under Armour gaining ground on Nike?

We'll tackle those questions as we talk about the big business of college sports. Barbie, you're beautiful. You're just my star. I fall in love each other.

Stay right here. This is Motley Fuhlman. Welcome back to Motleyful Money. Matt, we're sitting in for Chris Hill this week.

And yes, it's March Madness time. So it's time to talk about the business of basketball. We're talking a lot of money for advertising, broadcast rights and money being wagered. So billions of dollars at stake.

And earlier this week, Chris Hill had the chance to talk about the business of basketball with Christy Dodge. Christy has analyzed sports business for ESPN, Forbes and the Motley Fool. From a financial standpoint, is there one big winner to this tournament? Is there more than one?

The interesting thing I found when I started reporting on March Madness a few years back is that the same conferences that take home all the money for football, you know, the Power Five were always talking about how they get that biggest slice of the pie. It happens in basketball too, and nobody ever talks about it. No one realizes that they also take home the lion's share from the men's basketball tournament. So last year, nearly $200 million was distributed by the NCAA to all of the Division I conferences for the men's basketball tournament.

And the Power Five and the big East included with those since they used to be kind of part of that upper echelon, they took home 62% of all of the revenue that was distributed. That left about $70 million that was split between the remaining 25 conferences. So I don't think people realize that in terms of revenue sharing, the basketball tournament really isn't all that different than football. We always talk about the Cinderella's and it's so exciting to see them make it into the Elite Eight or even into the Final Four.

But a team from outside of those six big football conferences hasn't actually won the title in basketball since UNLV did it in 1990. So it's been a long time. You mentioned the Cinderella story and it does seem like every year there's at least one team from a small conference. In some cases, it's a school that a lot of people have even heard of.

I mean, I'm a pretty big college basketball fan, but two years ago when Florida Gulf Coast University made their run, I was just learning of the school's existence. The Dayton made a nice run last year. If they're not getting the big money directly from the tournament, does it translate into some sort of financial gain either through apparel sales or greater applications? It does, absolutely.

So I live in Florida and I had never heard of Florida Gulf Coast until they made it into the tournament. I'm now very aware of them. Wow, I've got that right now. They come up here to, I had just moved to Florida, so I will give myself that out.

But they do, they come up to Jacksonville to play UNF and JU. So I'm much more aware of them now. But I don't think I was the only one in this area who had never heard of them. Younger school, you know, had a smaller student base.

I think if you didn't have a kid who was looking at college in Florida, it was quite possible that you had never heard of them before. They saw enormous returns on that. The merchandise sales did skyrocket especially during the tournament and immediately after. But their application numbers are really multiplied as well.

And I remember them telling me that they're out of state applications. You know, that was where they saw the biggest bump because there were so many people from out of state who had never heard of them before. You know, to me, that's one of the great things about college athletics, especially football and basketball because they get so much television time. And when these schools that you have more of a local or regional present make it into a big bowl game or they make it into March Madness, that gets them advertising that they literally couldn't buy.

They wouldn't be able to afford the millions of dollars it would cost to get that kind of time on television. And it produces great returns for about two to three years. So you've got to be prepared to capitalize on it when it happens because it doesn't last unless you make another run in the tournament. You're listening to Motleyful Money talking with Christi Dash, sports business analyst and expert.

One group that is definitely not on the list of big financial winners from the NCAA College Basketball Tournament are the student athletes themselves. Where are we in the debate of paying college athletes? Because now we're starting to see crowd funding initiatives like FanPay pop up, which solicit voluntary contributions for players who can collect a little bit of money once they graduate and they don't have any eligibility left. If we move to a system where college athletes are going to be paid, is it going to be directly from the schools themselves or do you think it's going to be from some sort of alternative source like that?

That's been a really interesting development and I can't wait to see what the NCAA is going to do about that because I'm sure they're meeting sort of as we speak trying to figure out how to keep down sites like that because I think there's a lot of room for boosters to influence where do not leads go to school. And I think that's what the NCAA wants to avoid. It's not that they want to avoid paying student athletes although they're obviously going to talk about amateurism and that kind of thing. I think if you could actually sit in their offices and hear what they were talking about, it's not, we have to do everything we can to keep student athletes ever being paid.

I don't think that's what they're saying. I think they're trying to figure out how do you provide better benefits and also comply with Title IX? How do you provide those benefits and not allow boosters to influence where a kid goes to school? And I think those are important things to consider and that's what I've always really focused on in my writing.

It's not this moral argument of should they or should they be paid but how do you do it and still create a key buffet or sort of balance system? And people argue there's already a lack of competitive balance whether we're talking about football or basketball or really any of the other sports at the college level. But you want to try to maintain it as best you can and I think it's a dangerous situation to let fans be paying for players on site like that. I'm not sure how they're going to prevent that from happening.

They're obviously trying to provide more benefits. We've gone to cost attendance. We've gone to unlimited meals. The O'Bannon decision, if it stands, would potentially also put a trust fund into place that could be created for the student athletes where they would receive the money after graduation.

And the way that the O'Bannon ruling was worded, that trust fund cannot be set at less than $5,000 per student athlete if a school were to implement that. But schools aren't required to implement it. And not everyone would be able to afford that. So I think you do have to find that balance between providing them greater benefits.

But figuring out also where's that money coming from and how are you going to give it to do not leave and still comply with Title IX because you can't just give it to football and basketball players in most instances. Although people are starting to come up with really creative solutions to that. I've heard some great solutions for the trust fund idea that actually kind of avoid Title IX. So I would say there are a lot of people out there right now working on it and they want to find ways to provide greater benefits.

But they have so many different things. They have to balance with that. All right. Let's talk about a few specific companies that are involved in certainly watching this event closely.

Twitter certainly benefited greatly last summer from the World Cup. Now that's a month long tournament with a global audience. March Madness isn't drawing the same worldwide audience. But how important is the College Basketball Tournament to social media companies like Twitter and even Snapchat?

So huge. You know, Twitter, I followed Twitter last year especially for the Final Four. I think I wrote a piece about what the Final Four teams were each doing on Twitter and how they were using Twitter differently for their fan bases. I think there's a lot more to gain for the schools in using whether it's Twitter or Snapchat or Instagram or whichever social platforms they choose to engage during March Madness.

There's a great way to engage your current students, your alumni, and I think the biggest benefits are probably for the schools, not for Twitter or the corporation. But I know that Twitter and Snapchat have constantly been adding new features in the form of video updates. Then I know right now Snapchat is trying to partner with some leagues and conferences to be able to provide some live feed. And I think we'll see more of that in the future.

But I think the biggest benefit is definitely for the schools that they're using social media correctly and to their best advantage. Twitter and Snapchat, this is sort of a one-off event for them. But for the Sports Apparel companies, this is certainly big business. And earlier this week here in Virginia, Old Dominion University announced it was ending its relationship with Nike.

They've signed a five-year deal with Under Armour and the Apparel will be for football, men's and women's basketball. And Old Dominion University, not the biggest name school in the country, but you look at what Under Armour has done signing similar deals with Notre Dame, Navy, Auburn, Boston College. Nike's the clear leader. There's no question about that.

But to what extent are Under Armour and Adidas chipping away at their lead? I think Under Armour especially is Adidas I think is fighting to stay relevant and stay in the game. But when I talk to people at these schools that actually deal with the licensing deals and aren't some of them are in the middle of negotiating deals right now, Under Armour is kind of the up and coming company. I think they're offering some interesting solutions and benefits to school.

I believe it was Notre Dame that they actually got some stock options in Under Armour. Not every school has the sort of brand value that Notre Dame has. Obviously everybody's not going to be getting that sort of deal. But I think they're willing to sort of think outside the box.

They are smaller and maybe more nimble than Nike is and that's why they're able to offer those sorts of things. But the schools I've talked to who use Under Armour have nothing but wonderful things to say about Under Armour and about the service that they get from Under Armour. And again, a lot of that could be because it is a smaller company. And they're really making college athletics a big focus.

Nike's in a lot of different sports. They've got a huge golf presence. Obviously worldwide too, they have an enormous presence. So they kind of got their hands in a lot of different buckets.

And that's not to say that Under Armour only focuses on college athletics. If I had to pick one of the apparel companies that I felt like college athletics was their point of emphasis and really a market that they wanted to be in and that they were doing a lot of innovation and thinking about how they could improve that market. Under Armour is the one I think of for college athletics. So I wouldn't be the prize to see more schools jumping to Under Armour over the next few years.

All right, last question. And then I'll let you go. I know that last year you taught a sports marketing class at the University of North Florida and the team, the mighty Osprey. And really, who's not afraid of a mascot like the Osprey?

They made it into the tournament this year. Is that your pick? Is that your Cinderella pick to make a deep run into the tournament? Oh, I hope so.

That would be wonderful. It's so nice to see a school from this community. I would have been happy if it was UNF or JU to see a school from this community make it into the tournament. It's good not just for the school.

It's great for Jacksonville because Jacksonville is going to get some press out of this as well. My husband works in Sports Talk Radio here in Jacksonville and he came home so excited because it's going to be great for the radio station because everybody in town is excited about it. It's fun to see it happen to UNF because when I was teaching sports marketing there, I had someone from their basketball marketing team come in and talk to my class about how difficult it is to get butts in the seats and get people excited about a team that wasn't winning because they weren't very good last year. And we talked about creative ways.

They could try to get people to come out to the games and it all came back to off. They were only winning. It would be so much easier. And then to see them have this kind of season this year, I was definitely not what I expected.

And I think it's really exciting for the whole city and even people who normally wouldn't root for UNF or don't follow them that closely. They will during the tournament. Absolutely going to be rooting for them particularly if they play one of those top seated teams. She got a root for the underdog in that case.

Absolutely. And she's got a hundred a million errors about the business of college football. You can follow her on Twitter or on her website, christygosh.com. Christy, thank you so much for being here and enjoy the tournament.

Absolutely thanks for having me. As always people on the program may have interested in the stocks they talk about and Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for again. So don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money.

Matt Greer sitting in for Chris Hill this week and I'm joined by Jason Moser, James Early and Matt Argersinger. Guys, we're going to get to the full bail bag in a minute, but we've got some fun news, some exciting news. Go banking rates is an online portal for tons of banking information, mortgages, car loans, credit cards, the like. And what they've done is they come up with a list of the best financial, radio shows and podcasts and Motley Fool Money made that list.

So you can vote for the winner by going to go bankingrates.com. And we are in great company with the likes of Dave Ramsey, Clark Howard, Freakonomics. We've had all of those on our show, big fans of them. But I've got a suggestion on who people should vote for.

And I don't want to say it, but this is Motley Fool Money. And I agree with you, make sure you make your own decisions. Motley Fool Money. Make your own decisions.

Motley Fool Money. Okay, so now on to the full mail bag we've got our email address here at RadioAtFool.com. And this email comes from Nathan McNamara of the University of Wisconsin. And Nathan writes, I'm an engineering student and math tutor and I enjoy the show whenever I have the chance to listen.

A sixth grader who I tutor wears everything under armor frequently talks of using his Go Pro on his mountain bike. And his pencil box is usually decorated with Olaf stickers. He says, all things I noticed when thinking about today's hot brands. What really made me think of you guys was when he recently volunteered that Olive Garden is his favorite restaurant.

I figured the man behind the glass would approve. My question for Steve Brino is, with so many people posting pictures of their food on the internet, would a partnership between GoPro and Olive Garden make sense? No, it would be totally humiliating to me. But I would love it the same.

How would it humiliate you? It's humiliating to watch people watch you eat, I think. I wouldn't want people to see me eating. It's a flatter, but I think it would be.

At least not on a consistent basis. Definitely not. Okay, well, sorry Nathan, thanks for taking the time to write. Well, let's kill Steve Brino.

Look at my skill. This is Olive Garden really brings out the beast. He just wants to eat quietly. He just food quietly.

I'm just very honest. Okay, on that note, let's move on to the stocks on our radar. Matt, what have you got for us? Yeah, I'm going to make James a little happy today because I think I'm taking one of your buy first stocks in income investor.

I think it's the buy first, Spectra Energy, which is one of the nation's biggest pipeline companies, Gas Pipeline. I just look at this space, the pipeline midstream energy space and it's been really beaten up with the fall and oil prices and gas prices. The pipeline in particular are a little bit more immune to that to price sensitivity. They've got long-term contracts.

I just feel like we're going to use a lot more natural gas in the future and Spectra Energy cheap 4% dividend yield right now and a company that's short on my radar. Steve, when are oil prices going to come back? Because I'm getting killed. Oh, my oil stocks are getting killed.

They will come back within the next three to five years. Boom. Excellent. James, what have you got?

Well, as evidence that we literally don't coordinate our prep for the show, before, and I also had Spectra Energy as my stock of the assets. Oh. I was written here. I'm describing as a sort of a swiss army knife for the midstream natural gas.

These guys, they don't suck the gas out of ground, but they do pass the gas on to the consumer. More than 30% upside by my model. If you want a fresh name, you can look at one Oak. Okay.

That's a sort of a spectra-like company in Oklahoma. If you want something different, but an advantage of both of these is that they're not master limited partnerships. So you don't have that extra tax complexity. A lot of people are a little bit intimidated by that.

But these are just regular C-corps. Steve, distance. Does that make a huge deal on assuming that the further way the more money these guys make? It's more complicated than that in a way.

But the better way to think about it is what sort of competition is serving that same pipelines are sort of regulated. They're like mini-monopoly. So I can't build a pipeline right next to yours, even less like demonstrated economic need. So if I have a lockdown on a certain area, then I'm going to benefit from that.

Jason, what do you got? Listeners have to be very compelled by that. I mean, a double pop there. I mean, I'm going to go with...

I'm going to talk about Matty's Boston Heart Storrings today. I'm going with Boston Beer ticker S-A-M. Oh, baby. This is just in the right spot right there.

It is. I can't do an inaction. Nearly that well. But this is a really, really well-run business.

You know, for the longest time, it's always commanded just a really premium valuation in the market. And so fortunately, I think for long-term investors, the company's most recent earnings quarter came out. And while it wasn't bad, it did express some headwinds and the company's going to be investing more in the brand and supply chain as it grows. And so consequently, the stock got shellacked.

And it brings it back down to reality. It's around 40 times earnings today. I think there's still a lot of growth left for these guys to have. Just in the past decade alone, they went from selling 1.3 million barrels of beer to 4.1 million barrels of beer today.

They are bringing more brands under their umbrella, pursuing other avenues of growth like hard cider and flavored malt beverages. So it's more than just Samuel Adams' beer today. I love this business. I think it's certainly more of the look for investors with a longer time horizon.

Okay, Steve, you have two very distinct choices here. Spectra-energy or Boston Beer? I don't like beer very much. So I don't like spectra-energy.

There it is. Wow. Kind of a man, are you? You don't like...

You don't like to be filling in with it either. He doesn't like beer. I do like gas companies, though. There you go.

You like wine? Not so much. What's your drink of choice? Dietcom and Diet Coke Man.

Ah, yeah, I'm with you there.