
“We are in our late 60s and in good health, and we have a second home worth $900,000 that is fully paid for.”
Source link
Finance
1 Semiconductor Stock to Buy Hand Over Fist After Micron Technology’s Stellar Report
Micron Technology (NASDAQ: MU) wowed investors last week with an outstanding set of results for the second quarter of its fiscal 2024, reporting a massive jump in its revenue and a surprise profit, and this sent shares of the memory specialist soaring.
The chipmaker benefited from a jump in demand for memory chipsr. As a result, its revenue increased a massive 58% year over year to $5.8 billion. Micron is anticipating stronger year-over-year growth of 76% in its top line in the current quarter, driven by increased appetite for memory chips from artificial intelligence (AI) servers, smartphones, and personal computers (PCs).
The memory industry has witnessed a significant turnaround of late as demand for consumer electronics is back on track, while AI has created the need for advanced memory chips known as high-bandwidth memory (HBM). Micron management remarked on the latest earnings-conference call that its HBM capacity for 2024 is sold out, while the “overwhelming majority of our 2025 supply has already been allocated.”
This is good news for Lam Research (NASDAQ: LRCX), a semiconductor equipment manufacturer that gets a big chunk of its revenue from selling its goods to memory manufacturers such as Micron. Let’s look at the reasons why Micron’s latest results are an indication that investors would do well to buy Lam Research stock right now.
Lam Research is about to witness a solid turnaround
In the most recent quarter, Lam Research got 48% of its revenue from selling semiconductor manufacturing equipment to memory manufacturers. This explains why the company’s results in recent quarters have been poor. An oversupply in the memory market forced the likes of Micron and others to put a hold on capacity expansion, and so Lam’s top and bottom lines have been heading south.
Analysts expect the company to finish the current fiscal year with a 22% decline in revenue to $13.6 billion. Additionally, earnings are expected to drop to $26.76 per share from $34.16. However, as the following chart shows, Lam Research’s revenue and earnings could jump sharply in the next fiscal year, which will begin at the end of June 2024.
Micron’s latest results and management commentary tell us just why Lam’s fortunes are set to turn around. Memory makers will need to increase their supply of HBM to cater to the growing demand from AI servers. The good part is that Lam is already witnessing solid orders for HBM equipment. CEO Tim Archer pointed out on the company’s January conference call with analysts: “In 2024, we expect our HBM-related DRAM and packaging shipments to more than triple year on year… “
It is also worth noting that the overall memory market is set to jump big time in 2024. According to Gartner, the memory industry’s revenue could jump 66% this year following a 39% drop in 2023. More importantly, the growing adoption of AI is set to drive robust long-term memory demand.
According to Micron, AI-enabled PCs are likely to carry 40% to 80% more DRAM (dynamic random access memory) content when compared to traditional PCs. On the other hand, the company expects AI-capable smartphones to “carry 50% to 100% greater DRAM content compared to non-AI flagship phones today.”
Meanwhile, the demand for HBM is forecast to more than double in 2024, generating $14 billion in revenue as compared to $5.5 billion last year. Even better, the HBM market could generate almost $20 billion in revenue next year. All this indicates that memory manufacturers will have to ramp up their production capacities, and a closer look at the industry indicates this is just what’s happening.
Samsung, for example, is expected to increase HBM production by 2.5 times in 2024, followed by a 2x increase next year. Similarly, SK Hynix expects to increase its capital expenditure this year to support increasing HBM demand. As such, the end-market conditions are set to turn favorable for Lam Research.
Buying the stock is a no-brainer right now
Lam Research is currently trading at 27 times forward earnings estimates. That’s a small discount to the Nasdaq-100‘s average multiple of 28 (using the index as a proxy for tech stocks). If Lam Research’s earnings hit the $46 estimate, and it were to trade at 28 times earnings, that would put its stock at $1,288, a 33% jump from its current price.
However, don’t be surprised to see the stock delivering stronger gains as the market may reward it with a higher earnings multiple thanks to its AI-fueled growth, which is why investors should consider buying this semiconductor stock before it jumps higher.
Should you invest $1,000 in Lam Research right now?
Before you buy stock in Lam Research, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Lam Research wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Stock Advisor provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month. The Stock Advisor service has more than tripled the return of S&P 500 since 2002*.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 25, 2024
Harsh Chauhan has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Lam Research. The Motley Fool recommends Gartner. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
1 Semiconductor Stock to Buy Hand Over Fist After Micron Technology’s Stellar Report was originally published by The Motley Fool
If Tony’s Chocolonely founder Teun van de Keuken had his way, he would’ve ended up behind bars long before he created his popular chocolate company.
The Dutch journalist made an attempt to get himself arrested in 2005, showing up to a police station and declaring himself a criminal. The crime? Fueling slavery by knowingly purchasing a chocolate bar made with illegal child labor.
When his activist stunt failed, van de Keuken came up with a new plan: creating a chocolate bar of his very own that proved the candy could be made without any exploitation of children.
His chocolate company would pay West African cocoa farmers a living income to help combat the scourge of child labor, and its beans would be sourced from land that had been deforested.
Nearly 20 years later Tony’s Chocolonely is not only one of the most popular chocolate brands in van de Keuken’s native Netherlands, it is known around the world.
The brand, whose stated mission is to make “100% slave free the norm in chocolate,” can be found at manor US retailers like Whole Foods, Target and Walmart. Its revenue grew 23% last year to $162 million.
“We’ve demonstrated it’s possible to pay a living income to farmers to address the challenges of child labor,” CEO Douglas Lamont told CNBC Make It in a recent interview. “[We’ve shown] you can be a successful chocolate company doing it the right way, in an ethical way.”
For the full story of how Tony’s Chocolonely went from a stunt to a global brand, check out CNBC Make It’s video.
Want to make extra money outside of your day job? Sign up for CNBC’s new online course How to Earn Passive Income Online to learn about common passive income streams, tips to get started and real-life success stories. Register today and save 50% with discount code EARLYBIRD.
Plus, sign up for CNBC Make It’s newsletter to get tips and tricks for success at work, with money and in life.
When I buy a stock, I try to remind myself that I am buying a small part of a business and that I intend to hold my stocks for the long term. Warren Buffett famously said that his favorite holding period is forever. While that’s aspirational more than anything, it’s an important reminder that success in investing comes from identifying great businesses and then letting them compound over decades.
While some stocks in my portfolio have a lot more to prove to stay there forever, there are some that I can’t imagine myself selling. These businesses have long track records and competitive advantages that should pave the way for bright futures. As the saying goes, “Never say never.” Yet with these stocks, I’m as close to never selling as one can be.
Costco
Every time I am struggling to find parking or waiting in the long (but efficient) line to check out, I ask myself why I don’t own more Costco Wholesale (COST 0.07%) stock. While most of my fellow shoppers are likely not having the same thought, we’re all there to take advantage of the bulk quantities and low prices. History tells us that this business model has been wildly successful with Costco shares gaining more than 81,000% since its IPO.
Costco ended its fiscal 2024 second quarter (ended February 2024) as the third-largest global retailer and the 12th-largest company in the Fortune 500, with 874 locations worldwide. Its membership model works well. More than 92% of Costco members renew their membership and the company brought in nearly $5 billion in membership fees in the past 12 months.
The low prices keep customers coming in the door, and because Costco sells fewer items than its competitors and turns its inventory over very quickly, it can sometimes even sell items before they need to be paid for. This helps cash flows and reduces expenses.
Amazon
If there’s a retailer that comes first to mind for me other than Costco, it has to be Amazon (AMZN 0.31%). I don’t think I am alone in finding myself shopping there before almost anywhere else. Over the trailing 12 months, Amazon stock is up 82%. However, during the market slump of 2022, the company fell nearly 50% as it struggled to get its finances back in order following the massive distribution build-out necessitated by the pandemic surge in orders.
Amazon is certainly back on track and ready to reaccelerate its growth. In 2023, Amazon grew revenue by 12% but the more impressive results were further down the income statement. Operating income increased by 202% and net income grew by 1,226%. These results were driven by a recovery in the e-commerce business, which finally turned the corner after its 2022 struggles. It’s also worth remembering that Amazon Web Services (AWS) remains the leader in cloud infrastructure and it grew its revenue by 13% in 2023.
Apple
Consumer electronics giant Apple (AAPL -1.06%) has been in the news lately for all the wrong reasons. Finding itself increasingly under the microscope of federal antitrust investigations, the stock has fallen 12% over the past three months. This news is certainly worth watching, but it will take years to play out and the rather modest decline in Apple’s share price suggests the market’s level of concern is less severe than some of the headlines indicate.
Taking a step back, it’s important to remember that Apple is still a ubiquitous brand around the world, and especially within the United States. Known for its iPhone and other consumer electronic devices, Apple is slowly becoming a software company. Apple now has an installed base of more than 2.2 billion devices.
This creates an ecosystem of apps and subscription services that provide a high-margin income stream for the company. In the most recently reported quarter, services revenue (which is where all the subscription products are reported) grew by 11% to $23 billion. This represents 19% of total revenue, up from 18% in the year prior.
Why I’m “never” selling
Are there scenarios in which I might sell these companies? Sure, anything is possible. However, these three businesses are so competitively advantaged and are still growing so impressively at their large scale, that it’s difficult to envision a scenario where they wouldn’t warrant a spot in my portfolio. Investing can be as simple or as complicated as you want it to be. In my mind, buying and owning these three stocks is about as simple as investing can be.
John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool’s board of directors. Jeff Santoro has positions in Amazon, Apple, and Costco Wholesale. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Apple, and Costco Wholesale. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
A look at why many women undergo egg freezing, and the costs associated with it
Lynn Curry, nurse practitioner for Huntsville Reproductive Medicine, P.C., lifts frozen embryos out of IVF cryopreservation dewar, in Madison, Alabama, U.S., March 4, 2024.
Roselle Chen | Reuters
As legal battles over reproductive rights increase across the U.S., one area that could be impacted is egg freezing.
In February, the Alabama state Supreme Court ruled that all embryos created through in vitro fertilization are considered children. This ruling could have far-reaching ramifications of civil and criminal liabilities for fertility clinics and their patients. Over 1 million frozen eggs and embryos are stored in the United States alone, according to biotech fertility company TMRW Life Sciences.
Women who choose to undergo reproductive technology procedures such as egg freezing face a long road riddled with obstacles. Here’s a look into the driving forces behind egg freezing and the financial, social and emotional costs that come with it — based on personal experiences from women across the country.
The ‘mating gap’: What’s driving egg freezing
There’s a notion that most women delaying motherhood are doing so to focus on other aspects of their lives, such as their careers. That’s not so much the case anymore, according to Marcia Inhorn, a professor specializing in medical anthropology at Yale University.
“The majority of women who freeze their eggs are doing it because they have not found a partner. I call that the mating gap — the lack of eligible, educated, equal partners,” Inhorn, who last year authored the book “Motherhood on Ice: The Mating Gap and Why Women Freeze Their Eggs,” told CNBC.
This problem stems from the fact that today, women are receiving higher education at greater rates than men. Inhorn noted that women are outperforming men in higher education in 60% of countries, and that in the United States alone there are 27% more women than men in higher education.
“The result is that, for women who are highly educated in America and of reproductive age — between 20 and 39 — there literally are millions too few college-educated men,” Inhorn added.
Another reason women freeze their eggs is the sense of empowerment the procedure brings them. Fundamentally, Inhorn believes that this freedom that egg freezing allows is what ultimately draws increasingly younger women to the procedure.
“It gives you a little reprieve, a little extra time,” she said.
This statement is one that reproductive endocrinologists and fertility specialists Drs. Nicole Noyes and Aimee Eyvazzadeh agree with.
Noyes, who has worked in the fertility industry since 2004 and is based in New York, has seen a noticeable shift in her patients’ ages and attitudes in the last two decades. In the beginning, her patients tended to be older, in their early 40s and viewed egg freezing as a last-ditch procedure as they hedged the end of their reproductive lives. Now, women as young as their late 20s come in to see Noyes.
Eyvazzadeh, who has also worked in the field for 20 years and lives in California, has noticed a trend towards younger patients who are choosing to freeze their eggs while they’re at their most viable.
This is the case for social media influencer Serena Kerrigan, who just recently turned 30. Despite being in a relationship, egg freezing was a procedure she willingly undertook while focusing on growing her business, she told CNBC.
Kerrigan, who has more than 800,000 followers between her Instagram and TikTok and is based in New York, began sharing her egg freezing journey last year. She wanted to remove some of the stigma around egg freezing and give her followers an inside look at the arduous process.
Kerrigan has paid for all her procedures on her own, she told CNBC, and recently partnered with her clinic, Spring Fertility, to donate a round of egg freezing to one of her followers. Eventually, she hopes egg freezing can be less stigmatized.
“There’s a layer of shame or taboo that I actually don’t understand. To me, this is science, and this is incredible, and this is a huge advancement,” she said. “This is a way of putting the power back into women and having control of their lives.”
The benefits are high, but so are the costs
While the benefits of egg freezing are certainly enormous, so too are the associated costs.
The average price for a single egg freezing cycle in the U.S. clocks in at $11,000. Many women need multiple egg freezing cycles, especially as they grow older and egg number and quality begin to deteriorate. That’s not to mention additional charges like hormone medication and yearly storage fees, which could respectively clock in at around $5,000 and $2,000.
Nutrition health coach Jenny Hayes Edwards froze her eggs in 2010 at 34 years old and was one of the first women in the U.S. to undergo the procedure. Despite it still being labeled an “experimental” procedure in the U.S., Hayes Edwards was certain she wanted to try. She wasn’t dating anybody at the time and was “working like crazy” while running her restaurant businesses in Colorado.
But high costs were her number one obstacle. Her restaurants had taken a hit after the 2008 financial collapse, when many consumers began foregoing their expensive ski vacations in Colorado.
Hayes Edwards remembers it being a tough decision to make. But her mother eventually helped sway her in favor of the procedure.
“It’s just money, and the opportunity that you might be missing is so much bigger,” Hayes Edwards recalled her mother saying. “I was so grateful that she pushed me over the edge.”
She was able to scrape together the $15,000 needed through maxing out a credit card, selling some jewelry and liquidating a bond in her inheritance.
Hayes Edwards now has a healthy three-year-old daughter, conceived nearly a decade after she froze her eggs, and is still appreciative for the extra time egg freezing bought her to meet her now-husband.
Employer benefits
In recent years, egg freezing, fertility and family planning services have increasingly popped up as employer benefits, especially among technology companies. A 2021 study from Mercer showed 42% of large companies — those with at least 20,000 employees — covered in vitro fertilization services in 2020, up from 36% in 2015. Nineteen-percent of these companies had egg freezing benefits, more than triple the 6% offering these benefits in 2015.
Michelle Parsons decided to freeze her eggs since the procedure was offered through her job. The various tech companies Parsons has worked for have offered anywhere between $10,000 to $75,000 in fertility benefits.
Parsons, who is a lesbian, had always known that she wanted to freeze her eggs — and undertook the procedure while working at Match Group as chief product officer of dating app Hinge. At the time, neither she nor her ex-partner were ready to have children, but it was one financial incentive Parsons didn’t want to miss out on.
Besides eggs, Parsons also chose to freeze her successfully fertilized embryos as another backup. Frozen embryos have a much higher likelihood of viable thawing. In fact, Parsons’ search for a sperm donor sparked one of the most-used features on the Hinge app — voice prompts.
“When we started to listen to all of these voice recordings of potential sperm donors, the lightbulb went off in my head and I was like, wow, this is what’s missing from dating right now,” Parsons told CNBC. “Because voice gives you so much nuance into personality, humor, vibe … we ended up building that feature called voice prompts on Hinge and it was a huge, wild success that led to rapid growth for Hinge and it became viral on TikTok.”
Still, Parsons noticed egg freezing taking a toll on her professional and personal life in other ways.
“You have to inject yourself with hormones for two weeks. You have to eat differently. You don’t really want to be in social settings. You can’t drink. There are all these other ramifications around just going through that process, even though we know it’ll be for this one month and then it’ll be over,” she said.
The process also doesn’t guarantee success.
Evelyn Gosnell underwent her first egg retrieval when she was 32, following by two additional cycles at 36 and 38 years old. By the time she was ready to have children with her now-partner, the New York-based behavioral scientist had many frozen eggs ready. But, she received no viable and normal embryos after her eggs had been thawed and fertilized.
Buying These 3 Beaten-Down High-Yield, Dividend Stocks Could Be a Genius Move to Boost Your Passive Income
The S&P 500 is up a whopping 31.4% over the last year. But many stable, dividend-paying companies have largely missed out on the growth-fueled rally.
United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS) and Chevron (NYSE: CVX) have lost value over that time, while Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI) is up less than 8%. The rationale for investing in these dividend stocks is to generate stable passive income no matter what the market is doing, not trying to outperform the S&P 500 over a short period of time.
Here’s why these Motley Fool contributors think all three dividend stocks have what it takes to continue raising their payouts and rewarding shareholders.

UPS thinks AI is more than OK
Scott Levine (UPS): Providing the market with 2026 financial targets, UPS suggested to investors this week that it sees growth over the next three years — a period during which the company expects to “drive higher productivity and efficiency,” according to its CEO, Carol Tome. However, investors didn’t take kindly to the news as Tome also stated that UPS is battling near-term headwinds.
However, this shouldn’t preclude forward-looking investors from picking up shares. Although they should rightly be mindful of how the company handles the current challenges, UPS is a leading supply chain company that has overcome challenges before, making it — and its forward-yielding 4.5% dividend — a smart pick right now.
One of the ways that UPS will achieve productivity and efficiency increases is through its embracing of artificial intelligence. In 2023, for example, UPS opened a new facility where AI and machine learning have taken center stage. Dubbed UPS Velocity, the Kentucky-based warehouse has more than 700 mobile robots in operation, and UPS expects to increase this to 3,000 by the end of the year. Powered by AI and machine learning, the mobile robots and human employees currently move more than 350,000 packages through the 900,000 square-foot facility.
It’s not only in warehouses where UPS is leveraging the power of AI. The company has relied on AI since 2012 for optimizing delivery routes. According to UPS, Orion “recalculates individual package delivery routes throughout the day as traffic conditions, pickup commitments, and delivery orders change.” By optimizing routes based on changing conditions, UPS can reduce both the number of miles that drivers travel and the amount of fuel that the vehicles must use — two factors that help the company to reduce costs. From 2012 through 2020, UPS estimated that Orion had helped the company to achieve annual savings of approximately 100 million miles and 10 million gallons of fuel.
An oil major yielding 4.2%
Lee Samaha (Chevron): Warren Buffett bought Chevron stock this year even though the stock price was disappointing. The stock is slightly down over the last year, compared to the S&P 500’s 31% rise, and the price of oil is still above $80 a barrel.
One reason, which also explains why it’s underperformed peers like ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Occidental Petroleum so far this year, is the uncertainty around its intended $60 billion acquisition of Hess. Oil majors have been looking to acquire energy assets as they generate bundles of cash from a relatively high price of oil. Meanwhile, the sector continues to fall out of favor among investors due to concerns about investing in fossil fuels as the world transitions to clean energy solutions.
That said, there’s still a hugely important role for oil in the global economy, and there’s upward pressure on the price given OPEC and OPEC+ production cuts. Whoever wins the next election is going to have to replenish the massive drawdown in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve carried out by the current administration in an attempt to lower gasoline prices.
In addition, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has already raised its oil-demand estimate four times since November.
If the oil bulls and Warren Buffett are correct, then Chevron, with or without Hess, is likely to generate bundles of cash flow in the future, and that’s excellent news for income-seeking investors.
Pipeline-powered passive income
Daniel Foelber (Kinder Morgan): When the market is roaring higher, it’s easy to overlook quality pipeline and energy-infrastructure stocks like Kinder Morgan. After all, the growth prospects are limited.
Existing infrastructure could lose value if oil and natural gas demand falls over the next few decades. But that’s not the case right now. In fact, the world needs more energy.
Kinder Morgan is investing in infrastructure to support the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG is natural gas that has been cooled and condensed into liquid form for easier transport overseas.
Kinder Morgan’s projects require high up-front costs but produce stable cash flows thanks to long-term contracts. Kinder Morgan’s business is ideally suited as a low-growth company that returns cash to shareholders.
After cutting its dividend to $0.125 a share after the 2015 oil and gas crash, Kinder Morgan has since raised its dividend back up to $0.2825 — presenting a yield of 6.3%. Kinder Morgan has consistently raised its dividend every year since 2018, and there will probably be another moderate raise in the next quarter or two.
Kinder Morgan has done an impressive job restoring order to its balance sheet by paying down debt. To sustain a healthy balance sheet, Kinder Morgan must support the dividend with free cash flow so it doesn’t have to deplete its cash position or take on debt. Two useful metrics to compare are its FCF yield and its dividend yield.
As you can see in the chart, Kinder Morgan’s FCF yield is higher than its dividend yield. FCF yield is just FCF per share divided by the share price. But more importantly, it tells us how much the dividend could be if Kinder Morgan paid out all of its FCF. The four percentage point or so difference between the FCF yield and the dividend yield gives Kinder Morgan a nice margin for error. It indicates its dividend is affordable and there is room to raise the dividend in the future.
All told, Kinder Morgan is worth considering if you’re looking for an investment centered around passive income rather than potential capital gains.
Should you invest $1,000 in United Parcel Service right now?
Before you buy stock in United Parcel Service, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and United Parcel Service wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Stock Advisor provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month. The Stock Advisor service has more than tripled the return of S&P 500 since 2002*.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 25, 2024
Daniel Foelber has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Scott Levine has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Chevron and Kinder Morgan. The Motley Fool recommends Occidental Petroleum and United Parcel Service. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Buying These 3 Beaten-Down High-Yield, Dividend Stocks Could Be a Genius Move to Boost Your Passive Income was originally published by The Motley Fool
In this podcast, Motley Fool host Dylan Lewis and analysts Emily Flippen and Jason Moser discuss:
- The FTC’s suit against Apple, and why it probably means years of lawyer fees and distraction for Apple.
- Chipotle‘s 50-for-1 stock split and the market reaction to Reddit‘s debut.
- Earnings from Chewy, Nike, Lululemon, and Accenture.
- Two stocks worth watching: Pinduoduo and TopGolf Callaway.
Motley Fool contributor Brian Feroldi breaks down Reddit’s S-1 and the major risks facing the self-proclaimed “front page of the internet.”
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 March 22, 2024.
Dylan Lewis: Regulators keep cranking the heat on Big Tech Motley Fool Money starts now.
It’s the Motley Fool Money radio show. I’m Dylan Lewis joining me in studio Motley Fool senior analysts, Emily Flippen and Jason Moser. Fools great to have you both here.
Jason Moser: Hey.
Emily Flippen: Good to be here.
Dylan Lewis: We’ve got a mini-dive on a splashy IPO, a story of a struggling ice cream brand and of course, stocks on our radar. Up first though, regulators continue to focus on big tech. Jason Apple is in the cross-hairs of regulators. The FTC filing suit this week aimed at Apple’s iPhone and it’s accompanying suite of services. The FTC alleges that Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone, promote interoperability and lower costs for consumers and developers. This seems to really boil down, Jason, to the walled garden that Apple has been able to maintain with it’s software and hardware.
Jason Moser: I was going to say, the walled garden really is the phrase that stands out here. This is something that could have some teeth. We’ll have to wait and see there. I’m certainly no antitrust expert nor am I litigator, but I think one thing for sure, this isn’t good in that it’s not going to be resolved anytime soon. We have an idea that this is going to take several years to play out. I think that is probably the biggest near-term risk for Apple in that it’s going to more than likely take their attention away from where they really need to be focused, that’s on innovation.
You look at Apple today, it still really is a phone company meaning at the end of the day, that’s where they make most of their money. Now, that’s slowly starting to change. They are bringing more in regard to services, revenue, and whatnot. But for a company like Apple, I would argue that Apple saved the Vision Pro and I am not a believer that the Vision Pro is going to be accepted by the masses, by any stretch. Fascinating technology, but Apple, has been stuck in this iteration as opposed to innovation cycle.
They’re just not innovating as much as I think people would like to see and that comes at a cost. That starts to bring growth into question. They’re going to have to deal with this for a while and then it takes away from whatever they may be working on. If it takes away from that innovation, that obviously is a near-term risk. Now, this probably ends up as something were Apple has to use money to make the problem go away and that’s not a bad problem for a company like Apple. I did think it’s interesting to note that our balance sheet, we always talk about how much cash Apple has more than most countries.
Apple’s now in a net debt position, which I think is just fascinating to see now, that’s a fine position for them because that debt is stretched out over long periods of time, very low interest debt, and it’s the cash machine. Ninety-five billion dollars of free cash flow after accounting for stock-based compensation. That’s not a problem for them at all, but it is something that is going to take their eye off the ball for a while.
Dylan Lewis: Emily, Apple has very long argued that a lot of the decisions they make within their ecosystem are in the interest of their users, privacy, security, trying to make sure there’s not malicious apps or things like that that are getting out there. We will see where this winds up landing for the company. But I look at this, especially given the series of interventions we’ve been seeing from the FTC and say, regulators are not shying away from Big Tech anytime soon.
Emily Flippen: I’ve been historically dismissive of regulations against a business like Apple because for the most part they’ve been without teeth. That was up until very recently when Apple actually lost a series of judgments in the EU against the use of its App Store. They’ve prevented third-party apps from being able to come in, in-part because they want to maintain that walled garden for their costs.
I said, hey, look, we’ve seen these cases come up in United States, but lower courts have continuously sided, for the most part, with Apple. So to see this come out, especially from the Department of Justice and FTC, it’s clear that this is a bigger overreaching judgment that’s looking at the core of Apple’s business instead of one particular issue, which is really interesting because it’s penalizing Big Tech for being Big Tech.
Being the dismissive person I am, I’d be easy for me to say, hey, look, we’re heading into an election year, the Department of Justice tends to be very politically connected so we don’t really know what’s going to happen in terms of a potential change in administration, whether or not that will change anything for the future. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see nothing come of this, but my dismissiveness in the past has not paid off well so maybe I’ll be a little bit more cognizant moving forward.
Dylan Lewis: Sticking with the Big stories, a huge stock split announced for Chipotle this week. In release, Emily, the company announced a 50-for-1 stock split. I had to double-check that one. I wasn’t even sure that was accurate. I have never seen a stock split of that size.
Emily Flippen: I guess it’s not just Chipotle serving sizes that are getting smaller. [laughs] I say that very tongue in cheek. So stock splits can sometimes raise a lot of investor interest. In this case, a 50-for-1 stock split, which basically means, if you owned one share of Chipotle prior to a split, you are now going to own to 50 shares of Chipotle. They will decrease in price by 50 folds, but you will in turn own 50 more. It’s essentially like cutting up a pizza.
You can have a giant pizza and you can cut it into eight different slices, or you can cut it into 500 different slices, isn’t changed the size of the pizza it just changes the size of the slice, but in this case, it actually can increase accessibility for some investors who don’t have access to fractional share trading, increased accessibility for those who may trade options, as well as for Chipotle to issue its own stock back to employees and internal use. It’s an interesting development, but not one that if you’re a shareholder of Chipotle changes anything in terms of the business performance.
Dylan Lewis: Jason, I think the academic argument was laid out very well right there by Emily’s saying this is how you cut up the pie. I do think when we look at stock splits, very rarely is it a sign that a company is doing something poorly. When we see a stock split of this magnitude, and I think it is just a testament to the incredible run that Chipotle has gone on over the last 15 years.
Jason Moser: It’s been a very incredible run, particularly when you consider the lows that this company hit in regard to the food safety issues from several years back, real recovery there now, it required a leadership change, but you got to do what you got to do. This company has a much better spot today as a shareholder, as a consumer of the product. I love everything that they’re are doing. I’m glad you mentioned issuing stock to employees because I think that’s another thing to point out in the release and like they use this word here, to commemorate this special event
There commemorating this special event, first stock split in history. But they announced a special one-time equity grant for all restaurant General Managers and crew members with more than 20 years of service. We also saw something like this with Amazon. You see it with all of these companies when their share price gets to the point where you’re talking about thousands of dollars, it just becomes very difficult to use equity as a form of compensation. This is going to allow them to do that. I’m not saying that’s the reason why they did it, but it’s certainly a benefit that comes from it.
Dylan Lewis: Before we go to break, we’ve got a new name on the New York Stock Exchange, shares of Reddit hit the market this week. Emily, judging by the reaction, the market excited to see some new names in the IPO market. Shares currently up 50% from where they listed.
Emily Flippen: Shares are fluctuating pretty greatly here, which is not surprising. Also not surprising to see it up so significantly because the IPO was oversubscribed, one of the things that Reddit did. This is a platform, social media platform of sorts, who has offered some of its most loyal and engaged users the opportunity to buy in at their IPO, and contrast, the IPO gives an opportunity for some of their long-term investors and private equity venture capitalists to actually be able to sell out of the company as well. It does test the market’s appetite for IPOs, which I can understand, because it’s the first big tech related IPO we’ve had in a while. But at the same time, given they’re really unique nature of Reddit’s business, the unique nature of this solicitation for the IPO, I think it’s too early to say that this shows that investors are ready again for IPOs.
Dylan Lewis: I think it’s at least a decent sign that we saw a company like Cava come public earlier in the last 12 months and now we have Reddit as well. Jason, when you look out at the Reddit IPO, any thoughts?
Jason Moser: I’m just between this common Chipotle talk now I’m starting to think about Reddit. I’m not a Reddit user, I have been linked to Reddit before, when doing a Google search or something like that. To me, I think this is one where I would absolutely just play, wait and see. It seems to me, at least, that this rhymes a lot with Twitter back in the day. Probably a limit as to how they can really grow that overall user base. It’s a little bit of a different platform to use. Some might say it’s a little bit complicated, a little bit difficult to use. A lot of similarities in what we saw when Twitter first became public, similar concerns. It’s not to say it can’t be successful, but for me, I would absolutely just play wait and see, and let’s see if these guys can really generate some meaningful cash.
Dylan Lewis: If you want more on the Reddit IPO, stay tuned, we’ve got to mini dive coming on the back half of the show, but coming up next, we’ve got Earnings that give a glimpse into two big names and apparel and why they’re struggling. Stay right here. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I’m Dylan Lewis, joined here in studio by Emily Flippen and Jason Moser. It’s the tail end of earnings season but we still have some big names reporting this week. Emily, speaking of the tail end, we have an update from pet supplier, Chewy, shares down after reporting, what’s going on with pets bar?
Emily Flippen: If I’m CEO Sumit saying, I’m looking at the market and saying what do you want? [laughs] But actually tell me because what the market was saying for Chewy at this point last year was effectively, hey look, we like your platform. It’s great you’re seeing all this engagement, but you need to have profits. What has Chewy done over the course of the past year? Well, expand profits and that’s exactly what we saw this quarter. Financially, the company’s results were really solid. Sales grew again by their non-discretionary spend. This is things like pet food, cat food, dog food, those repeat purchases, but margins are incredibly strong.
They continue to expand. The company, expanded its free cash flow by nearly three times and management actually said that they think they’ve reached an inflection point for the expansion of their cash flow generation moving forward as well. We have sales growth, margin expansion, cash flow expansion. It begs the question of why is Chewy down? Why do investors not like the stock? Unfortunately for Chewy, that comes back to the pet industry right now.
There has been a slower amount of growth, which is to say negative growth and pet household formation, which is basically the number of people who are buying pets domestically in the United States and that’s been on a pretty consistent decrease since the pandemic, when a lot of pet households were formed in the first place. Now, despite the fact that these pet households that were formed are consuming Chewy and engaging with the product, the same rate that the previous non-pandemic pet households are, that growth has still lead the market to believe, maybe that top-line growth moving forward is just not going to be high enough to justify Chewy’s valuation for which I still believe the company is massively undervalued in relationship to the size of its long-term market.
Dylan Lewis: You are still believer and you feel like the market is underestimating what Chewy’s doing?
Emily Flippen: Yes. In terms of their core E-commerce business. Where I do get a little bit hung up is that, some of their new initiatives. These have been great so far. This is the push into pet pharmacy, pet healthcare, those you call it teledog to steal a word from Jason. All of that is great because it integrates directly onto Chewy’s platform. If you’re an Autoship customer, you get access to a lot of this stuff for free. But one of their newest initiatives is opening up actual physical vet care clinics. They’re starting in Florida where Chewy is headquartered and plan to use that as a gauge for expansion across the rest of United States. Now, they’re smart and slow about how they expand and I appreciate that because again, they don’t want to negatively impact that cash flow. But there is a little bit of potential like a hubris, I guess, that is in building physical stores, that is a massive deviation from their previous strategy so as a Chewy shareholder, that’s probably the thing I’m watching most closely.
Dylan Lewis: Over to apparel, we have earnings from Nike and Lulu. Lemon this week, let’s start out with the goddess of victory, Jason, shares of Nike down 8% after reporting fiscal Q3 results. It seems like Nike is a bit of a company at a pivot or inflection point.
Jason Moser: I think that’s fair to say. I think the result or the market’s reaction is probably a result of guidance, which I’ll get to in a minute. But I don’t think anyone will question how strong a business or brand this ultimately is. But they’ve definitely hit some headwinds recently and in part of that, it was discussed in the call, they had this deliberate strategy, they refer to as the Consumer Direct Acceleration strategy. They wanted to be more of a direct-to-consumer business via digital and their Nike stores. That worked out OK over the last few years because everything was thrown into chaos with, with the pandemic.
But we’re seeing this great reset back to normalcy and Nike is recognizing that this focus on direct came at the cost of all of the success they’ve witnessed through the years, through their wholesale channels. What that resulted in was essentially flat top-line growth for the quarter and ultimately, when I refer to guidance, this was for the third quarter. But when you look out to fiscal 25, they’re actually guiding, at least for the first half of the year, low to mid single digit sales declines. It is something where you’ve got this business, they’re a little bit of a restructuring mode.
It wasn’t a bad quarter and honestly, when you look at where the business, the fundamentals are still good, gross margin was up 150 basis points, inventories standing at 7.7 billion. Now, that was down 13% so it’s nice to see they were able to get those inventories down while pushing those gross margins up. Cash and equivalents that still in very good shape here in cash and short-term investments, $10.6 billion. You look globally, China performed well up 6% versus North America’s 3%.
I think really now it’s just a matter of getting back to that wholesale opportunity. They recognize the opportunity in direct, but maybe they placed a few, too many eggs in that direct basket. It’ll take a little investment in product, a little investment in marketing, and I think we can expect that to flow down to the bottom line, not in a good way. That’s a near-term issue. They’ll figure that out. I think you’ve got to be looking at sell-offs like this with a company like this, and asking yourself if you don’t want to own a few of these shares.
Dylan Lewis: Emily, Lululemon also in the dumps post-earnings shares down 17%. It seemed like a big part of the reason why it was the company’s outlook.
Emily Flippen: Outlook and maybe tonality, I’ll add in there because CEO Calvin McDonald was immediately defensive on Lululemon’s earnings call. Some of the first words out of his mouth were “As you’ve heard from others in our industry, there’s been a shift in US consumer behavior” which nobody wants to hear. But that did distract from what is otherwise a really strong quarter for the company, it had a really strong holiday season, updated their guidance in January as a result, and then exceeded that guidance again in this most recent quarter.
But they did choose to focus a lot on how the behavior of North American consumers has changed recently, in part because it seems like the economic outlook which is impacting, as Jason just mentioned, numerous industries across the United States, but also because they didn’t do a great job of managing their own inventory, which is to say, McDonald accounted for some of the loss to not having the right colors or the right sizes in stock.
In their defense, their inventory has continued to decrease. It’s not like the company is over here buying a bunch of products, stocking them in stores and then throwing their hands up and saying nobody wants it. You have to give management the benefit of the doubt, but there is certainly a bigger story here just to say, we’ve been waiting a long time for the economy to slow down in the United States, for consumer behavior to shift, are these the first canaries in the coal mines that consumer spending is about to be in the dumps over the course of 2024?
Dylan Lewis: I look at Nike, and I also look at Lululemon, and we’ve seen a lot of discussion of consumers trading down as a major story to be watching, looking for more discount options as well, let’s get a little bit tighter. Do you feel like this is something that’s affecting the results here?
Emily Flippen: It’s possible, I will want to see the results from other discount retailers. I’m thinking about like the T.J.Maxxs of the world to see if they’re picking up some of the slump here from Lululemon. But I do think that regardless of what’s driving it, I’m not sure if it really matters from Lululemon’s perspective because they don’t play that game. They don’t mark down and that’s a conscious effort on their part.
Jason Moser: I think that’s important to note too, we’re talking about this for Tay be like Tiffany, in that they understand the value in that brand. They need to protect it by not discounting. When you start putting that stuff on fire sale, all of a sudden, you associate that brand a little bit differently. I think we saw Under Armour for many years trying to play that. Let’s just get this stuff out to as many people as we just sell as much stuff as we can. They lost some brand credibility. That really does play out on those, not only the financials in the near-term, but it creates some long-term headwinds. It’s really difficult to bounce back from that.
Dylan Lewis: We’re going to wrap the earnings takes with a look at Accenture, shares down 12% after earnings. Jason, we’re also seeing results from the company dragging down some of the other companies in the consulting space this way?
Jason Moser: We were talking about Nike being a little bit more company created headwinds. Really Accenture, this is less a company thing, this is more a macro thing. You look at the call there. They said in the call, they see clients continuing to prioritize spending in large-scale transformations, things like AI for example and that converts to revenue more slowly, but then they also see continued delays in decision-making and a slower pace of spending.
That’s really something that is completely out of their control and they just have to deal with it. But the good news is that once that spending does start picking back up, Accenture is one of the first places that should see the benefits there. Now, they did guide down, revenue growth somewhere in the neighborhood of 5%, they guided that down to 3%, pulling earnings back considerably as well. They solve financial services, take a good hit, that’s about 20% of their revenue. The good news is they’re making a lot of investments in AI, they do continue to see the tailwinds there. It’s a macro stretch that they’re going to have to get through.
Dylan Lewis: Emily Flippen, Jason Moser, Fools, we’re going to see you guys a little bit later in the show. Up next, we’ve got a 15-minute Dive Into fresh IPO, Reddit, some of the major risks, some of the major opportunities, and what you need to know for this newly listed company. Stay right here. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money.
Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I’m Dylan Lewis. This week, a familiar name went public, Reddit, the home of WallStreetBets and the epicenter of the meme stock movement listed its shares on the New York Stock Exchange. As a longtime Redditor, I was excited to dig into the S1 and look at the company’s books. Motley Fool contributor Brian Feroldi, joined me for a mini dive into the site bet, is the self-proclaimed front page of the Internet. Shares of Reddit hit the public markets this week under the ticker RDDT. Joining me to do a mini dive on these social media slash news slash community company is Motley Fool contributor Brian Feroldi. Brian, thanks for jumping on.
Brian Feroldi: Thank you for having me, Dylan. I’ve had my eyes on this company for a while, so I’m glad we finally have numbers to put to the name.
Dylan Lewis: I know we actually checked in on this business back in the beginning of 2022 when it seemed like an IPO was on the horizon. We’ve been waiting for that IPO for a little over two years now, but no more speculation. The shares are listed. Let’s dig into the business. Paint us a little bit of a picture with what you see with Reddit.
Brian Feroldi: For those that are unfamiliar, Reddit describes itself as a quote on quote, “Community of communities.” It’s a social networking slash blog site that brings millions of users together from all over the world to share news, information, recommendations, and what makes reading a little bit unique is that you can do so using an anonymous name or your real name. To put some scale behind this, this is a website that is one of the 10 most popular websites in the world. 73 million daily active users, 267 million weekly average users, over 100,000 active communities on the platform. This was an interesting tidbit considering that 98% of this company’s revenue comes from advertising, 75% of Redditors, that’s what they call their users, believed that it is a trustworthy place to inform them to make a purchasing decision. That could be a major plus in the bookcase for this company.
Dylan Lewis: That’s a key thing that advertisers are paying attention to. I’m someone who has used Reddit since college, and what’s interesting is, I think it shows the duality of the business here because they have about half of their users as logged-in users, but they also have about half of their monthly and daily active users coming in through an unlogged in experience.
We see a lot of that coming in through Google search, people finding information on the internet and then coming to the site, i have found it to be an excellent source of information, particularly for incredibly niche topics. You mentioned the community orientation and I think what’s so great about the platform is you can go really deep with people who are fanatics about something and really find your online community. It can be very useful, and trying to find information there. When you do use it just to help people who understand it, who maybe aren’t as familiar, any specific communities or topics they interact with?
Brian Feroldi: There are a few subreddits that I look at on occasion, there’s one like DataIsBeautiful, that’s subreddit has beautiful graphs and illustrations. There are some wonderful geography subreddits, and if you’re into the financial independence movement like, I am, there’s a wonderful subreddit called fatFIRE, which is all about how people are trying to retire early and live a luxurious lifestyle while doing so.
Dylan Lewis: You mentioned that this is an ad-based business. It’s also one of those high-growth type businesses and the financials really reflect a company that has been private for a while during a period of venture funding. It’s still losing money. It’s posting some decent growth. It’s moderated a little bit but what jumps out to you looking at the numbers, Brian?
Brian Feroldi: Well, first when you said high growth, depends on your definition of high growth. This company is growing at a decent rate. I wouldn’t classify it as a high-growth company. but in the last year ending 2023, we saw revenue grew 21%-$804 million. Probably the most impressive number on the income statement to me was this company’s gross margin at 86% last year, and that was up from 84% in the year-ago period so very high gross margin business.
As you teed up, that’s where the good news stops, on the income statement. This company is spending heavily on operating expenses, particularly research and development, so it’s because of that this company is losing money, $91 million net loss in 2023. Free cash flow losses was $84 million last year. The good news for investors is this company is going to have an absolute war chest of cash to continue funding those losses. Depending on what the IPO price is at, this company estimates that post IPO, it will have $1.5 billion in cash and zero debt.
Dylan Lewis: That’s nice. We like to see that safety and we’d like to see that security. I do wonder a little bit about that R&D spend. I’m curious. I mean, I think you could make a strong case for any tech platform, and you have to look at them as a platform company in a way, making those types of futuristic investments. I do wonder a little bit because it’s coming at the expense of profitability. One of the things I’ve been trying to wrap my head around Brian, looking at this company is, for folks that aren’t familiar. it is an incredibly user-generated content-type business. You have people who are posting and actually, the people who are moderating that content are also generally members of the community. You would think that it would give them a very favorable cost profile but we don’t really see that play out. Do you feel like there’s an actual path to profitability here?
Brian Feroldi: There definitely could be. I mean, the company could, of course, grow its way to profitability, but when I saw the amount of money this company is spending on research and development, I did do a double take to be like, where is that money going? I mean I’m an occasional Reddit user and the site looks pretty much the same to me now as it did a year ago, two years, and three years ago. So one would think, given that they knew that they were about to come public, that they’re using that capital to really build out the advertising tools that will make their platform even more attractive to advertisers, which does take some investment but I have a feeling this company’s path to profitability is through growth and not through cost-cutting.
Dylan Lewis: Speaking of growth, we’re seeing some interesting numbers when it comes to their user trends. I mentioned the logged-in and logged-out breakdown they have for their users. In recent quarters, there has been a pretty decent spike in year-over-year growth and they hit about 27% but this is not a platform that is on the scale of a lot of the other social media businesses out there. I think they have about 70 million daily actives at this point. Can this break out from the very tech-literate, very future-forward audience that it tends to have and get into more of a mainstream spot? Because I know that this is one of those businesses and one of those user sites where, if you’ll love it, you’ll love it, and otherwise you maybe not even have heard of it.
Brian Feroldi: If you haven’t heard of it, you certainly don’t use it. I think that that could really provide some cap on the upside potential of this business. A big part of the thesis here, especially at the valuations they’re coming public at, it hinges on this company significantly, improving its revenue and profitability metrics over time. It is going to be awfully hard to do so if they don’t attract new users to the platform so that certainly could be a challenge. That’s one thing that we saw as a big challenge for Pinterest, the last social media network that we saw that come public, I think in 2019 or so, they really struggled to grow outside of their core user base, and I could see Reddit having the same issue.
Dylan Lewis: If we see user growth as an opportunity, what else is out there in terms of opportunities for this business to grow and hit the scale that I think it probably needs to in order to be profitable?
Brian Feroldi: This company calls out a handful of ways that it could continue to meaningfully grow. One thing that surprised me about the platform is even though it’s nearly 20 years old, 90% of the content on this platform is in English, so there is a huge opportunity for them to penetrate international markets simply by making their platform more friendly to people whose native tongue is not English. Another thing they called out is video.
We’ve seen this as a trend among all the social media platforms where they’re trying to compete against TikTok, and one way they’d do that is really promoting users to share video on their platform as opposed to being just text-based. An interesting category that they called out is that they believe that data licensing and AI training could become a massive opportunity for this company. We’ve seen an explosion in interest, in all things related to AI, and Reddit certainly has a treasure trove of data for AIs to scrape through and build models around.
Now that is a nascent part of the business today, but management believes that it could be a big contributor over time. Finally, they are interested in growing a contributor program and building up a marketplace to allow their users to sell products and services to each other. On the contributor front, they might even get into the fact of paying their users to post, as we’ve seen on X slash Twitter recently, and YouTube and Instagram have been doing so. If they get into that, if there’s a way to make money for, that could attract new users to the platform.
Dylan Lewis: We’ve talked a little bit about where they fit into the overall social landscape. I think one of the big questions for me and one of the big risks for me looking at its business is, is it more in the lane of a Twitter or X? Or is it more in the lane of a Meta? Is it a business that can find users outside of its core group? Also, is it a business that can effectively monetize in a way that doesn’t bother its core users? I don’t have a good answer to that. Other than to say, I have my doubts. I think generally what we tend to see when companies come public is an increased focus on monetization and increased focus on extracting more value from the time that people spend online. Brian, I think one of the big risks I look at what this business is are the moves that they’re going to make to become more profitable, going to make the experience materially worse for an audience that’s very vocal, very tech forward, and very willing to hop to other platforms at times?
Brian Feroldi: That to me is also the key question and the key risk for investors to think about. To your point, when a company goes from being private to being public, the culture of that business changes. For the first time, the management team has a number over their head that they have to hit every 90 days, and that pressure changes the culture up and down the organization. They may have to start stuffing more ads down users’ throats, and it’s going to be interesting to see if the users, accept that, or if they rebel. I think you bring up an excellent point. Anecdotally, the people I know that our Reddit users tend to be young, extremely tech savvy, and also have ad blockers up on their systems. So I could see this company having a hard time monetizing its user base.
Dylan Lewis: I think one of the other things that comes to mind for me as a risk with this business is the pecking order in digital ad spend. We have seen broadly when ad budgets start to tighten up, the major players, the YouTubes, the Facebooks, and the Metas feel a pinch, but the budget stays with them. I think right now Reddit lives in the same lane as Snap, probably Twitter or X and places like Pinterest, where it’s nice to have for a lot of ad budgets but they still need to be convinced that the dollars are going to come back to them. It’s probably one of the first places that people are willing to cut when times get tough.
Brian Feroldi: You just hit the nail on the head. When you’re an advertiser, you are going to try and put your dollars behind the place that had the highest return on your investment. Meta and [Alphabet‘s] Google are two fabulous platforms for advertisers to earn a very strong return on their investment. Reddit has the opportunity to offer a differentiated user base. If they can build out the tools, it’s possible that they could continuously peel out that away. Also, the advertising market is just massive, it’s a trillion dollar market. Even if this company only gets to a few percent market share, that could still be a big opportunity. Of course, it’s also been around for almost 20 years now and it hasn’t even come close to hitting that 1% market share. Perhaps that shows the core business itself is going to have a hard time doing so.
Dylan Lewis: All right, Brian, putting all this together, we have worked our way out of the IPO winter, so to speak. We’ve had some big names come public like Cava. But the market is always hungry for new names, always looking for new businesses. As this one comes public, is this one that you’re interested in.
Brian Feroldi: You have to channel my inner Jim Gillies here. I would be interested in this company at the right price. I never buy IPOs, and I was burned a couple of years ago by being super interested in bullish on Pinterest when it came public, and that company has really struggled on the public market. If the numbers that we see are to be believed, this company’s becoming public at a valuation of about 8X sales or 10 times gross profit. That’s not extreme, but we don’t know what the first-day pop is going to be for this business. At the right price, I might be interested, but I never buy IPOs. I give them at least a year to see how they actually perform. But if this company outperforms expectation and comes on the right price, I could see myself taking a position.
Dylan Lewis: Since you mentioned Pinterest, I do want to walk through what the cautionary tale there looks like. What was the thesis and what went wrong, and what can we learn there as we look at Reddit here?
Brian Feroldi: Pinterest was my wife’s favorite company. She used it all the time and it was a social media platform that had a lot of positives to it. A core, a user base, a very friendly platform. It was a natural place to go from being a core lurker to someone that would make a purchase. That was very much what the platform was about. What they struggled with was growing the user base and then increasing their average revenue per user. A big part of the thesis was, there were like one-tenth of the rate that Facebook was, and if they can just get to a third of the rate of Facebook, that would lead to tremendous upside growth. They’ve made some progress on that front, but it hasn’t been as easy as I assumed it was going to be. I could very much see Reddit having that same promise, but also having that same struggle.
Dylan Lewis: Brian Feroldi, thanks so much for joining me today and talk me through this prospectus.
Brian Feroldi: Always a pleasure to be here Dylan.
Dylan Lewis: Listeners, if you’ve got a company you want us to do a 15-minute Dive Into, let us know. Write in at [email protected]. Coming up next, Emily Flippen and Jason Moser return with a couple of stocks on their radar. Stay right here. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money. As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against. Don’t buy or sell anything based solely on what you hear.
I’m Dylan Lewis, joined again by Emily Flippen and Jason Moser. We’ve got stocks on our radar coming up in a minute. But first, pour some melted ice cream out for Unilever. The consumer giant announced plans to cut 7,500 jobs and it will also be spinning out its ice cream unit, which is the home of Ben and Jerry’s. Jason, are you surprised to see Unilever moving away from ice cream and such a big brand like Ben and Jerry’s.
Jason Moser: The timing seems a little odd, hadn’t these guys heard a little thing called. Now, apparently you just take some of them, eat all the ice cream you want. I did find it interesting when you look at the ice cream space, just in regard to US market share, actually private-label is the biggest shareholder. But Ben and Jerry’s, it’s a close second, so it’s not an irrelevant business, but like he said, growth has slowed down, perhaps doesn’t fit well with the rest of Unilever’s business, so it seems like it’s on the chopping block.
Dylan Lewis: Emily, I know when I’m looking for a treat Ben and Jerry’s is where I go. I’m usually a Jerry Garcia guy. What about you?
Emily Flippen: Well, first of all, chunky monkey girl of course banana ice cream, you can’t beat it. I am concerned though, because part of the reason they’re making this spin-off is just because consumer trends have abbed away from ice cream. Whether that’d be for health reasons or otherwise, whatever was driving people to buy lots of Ben and Jerry’s is no longer driving that same growth, and I can appreciate that from a leverage perspective, but from a consumer perspective, I’m going to lose it if I don’t have access to Ben and Jerry’s. Not that I eat it, I get I’m part of the problem. I look at the calories on the pint and I can’t justify making that purchase, but on the rare occasion that I do, I want the junkie monkey and I think there’ll be a big hole in people’s hearts if this for some reason loses distribution as a result of its spin-off.
Brian Feroldi: [laughs] Let’s get over to stocks on our radar. Our man behind-the-glass, Rick Engdahl, is going to hit you with a question. Jason, you’re up first. What are you looking at this week?
Jason Moser: Interesting week for Topgolf Callaway Brands ticker is MODG. Earlier in the week a rumor started spreading there. Maybe some acquisition of the company. South Korean news outlet reported that there was interest in perhaps spinning off the top golf side of the business and selling the Callaway side of the business. The company [inaudible] hot over that, didn’t really commit one way or the other, but it’s an interesting thing to think about. The major shareholders apparently have selected a lead manager to explore possible deals. There’s even a rumor out there floating that PIF, the public investment fund that controls live golf, they might be interested in buying this Callaway brand business. Phil Mickelson is clearly on board with it, said, “I pray this happens. ” Rick, a question about Topgolf Callaway.
Rick Engdahl: The top golf people worried about competition from the ax throwing people because given the conflicts, I got to go with the ax throwers, although top golfers have the range, I don’t know. What do you think?
Jason Moser: Ax throwing seems like it would be a lot more fun and this is coming from a lifelong golfer Rick. Emily, what’s on your radar this week?
Emily Flippen: PDD holdings. That’s the ticker, PDD, also known as Pinduoduo, the Chinese e-commerce giant, up massively after their quarter. Temu, which is their ex China facing e-commerce app just continues to blow results out of the water. I am a shareholder of Pinduoduo, I forgot about that until I looked at my accounts recently and realize I’ve apparently made a lot of money on it, even though the mandate of the company has changed.
Dylan Lewis: All right, Rick, a question about Pinduoduo.
Rick Engdahl: First of all, I didn’t think it was real company until I had to looked it up. I had never heard of Temu before, until my daughter brought it up in a rant about fast-fashion and labor practices or something. Is there any concern about the upcoming young generation of conscious consumers out there or is this just a myth?
Emily Flippen: Certainly a lot of concern, not a business that’d be willing to recommend today, even though I have all the [inaudible] and that I do own it in my account.
Dylan Lewis: Rick, you’ve got two very different businesses here this week. Which one’s going on your watchlist?
Rick Engdahl: I think I want to see that battle between the golfers and the ax throwers. It’s going to be prime TV.
Dylan Lewis: You and me both, I’d love that. Emily Flippen and Jason Moser, thanks for being here. Rick, thanks for weighing in on our radar stocks. That’s going to do it for this week’s Motley Fool Money radio show. Show was mixed by Rick Engdahl. I’m your host, Dylan Lewis. Thanks for listening. We’ll see you next time.
In this podcast, Motley Fool host Dylan Lewis and analysts Andy Cross and Matt Argersinger discuss:
- The National Association of Realtors agreeing to over $400 million in fines and to eliminate its commission rules.
- Why AI is pushing Oracle up and Adobe down after earnings.
- The numbers behind Williams-Sonoma‘s 18% spike.
- Kevin Plank’s return to Under Armour.
- Ulta‘s wild shrink story.
- Two stocks worth watching: Equity Commonwealth and Landstar System.
Motley Fool host Ricky Mulvey catches up with Bloomberg entertainment reporter Lucas Shaw for a look into the business of streaming, the power of incentives, and corporate infighting at Paramount.
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 March 15, 2024.
Dylan Lewis: We’re entering a new era in real estate. Motley Fool money starts now.
It’s the Motley Fool Money radio show. I’m Dylan Lewis, joining me in the studio. Motley Fool Senior Analysts, Matt Argersinger, and Andy Cross. Gentlemen, great to have you both here.
Matt Argersinger: Hey, Dylan.
Andy Cross: Hey, Dylan.
Dylan Lewis: We’ve got a run-down on retail, the state of things at Paramount and of course, stocks on our radar. But we’re kicking off with real estate news, Matt, after several years and lawsuits related to excessive fees and antitrust activity, we might be looking at a new real estate market.
Matt Argersinger: We might be, Dylan, if you ever sold a home. It’s always been confounding well, at least for me, that in addition to paying a commission to your agent, in that case, the seller’s agent or the listing agent, you’d also have to pay a 2.5, 3% commission to the buyer’s agent. And this was essentially, for decades, a mandate of the National Association of Realtors, NAR, of which the vast majority of agents in the US are members of. It’s why commissions on transacting home haven’t traditionally been set in this 5-6% range, split evenly, usually by the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent.
So instantaneously on every transaction, in addition to other closing costs, repair expenses, 5-6% of your homes’ equity would instantly, that had been built up maybe for over many years, and worth tens of thousands of dollars would instantly go away for these commissions. It always seemed like one of the final areas of the market that had yet to be disrupted. Because if you think about what’s happened to travel agents, what’s happened to brokerage commissions, certainly transacting and almost everything in the country has gotten cheaper overtime except transacting a house.
If you look at the median price of a home in the US, right around $400,000, that’s 20,000 or more in commissions just to sell a house. But here we are. The NAR has essentially settled, which means they are not contesting any more of these lawsuits, the civil action suits against them, they’re paying a fee and the idea is that they’re going to lose their monopoly position on the marketplace. Now, agents won’t be required to be members of the NAR.
They won’t be forced, for example, to subscribe to MLS listings already get paid and essentially makes real estate agents, free agents that can set their own commissions. And if you’re a home seller, or a homebuyer, gives you far more negotiating power. You can pay a commission to a buyer that you want to pay, and it’s no longer causing a mandate to pay a commission to the other side of the transaction.
Dylan Lewis: Matt, and looking at this news, I was trying to process both the news itself and then the follow-on impact that it would have. And I feel like for buyers and sellers, we’re probably looking at lower fees and a little bit more flexibility. Beyond that in the business landscape of real estate, I feel like it’s really hard to nail down what it means for companies like Zillow, Redfin, and other operators.
Matt Argersinger: I think clearly for the publicly traded agencies, this is not going to be great news. I mean, those fees are coming down, their margins have to come down. The business is going to change. There’s going to be less agents in the marketplace. For companies like Redfin and Zillow, it is a little cloudy for me, because for one, Redfin who has already trying to disrupt the whole transaction fee of this marketplace anyway and with Zillow, Zillow really depends on the vast majority of its revenue still comes from agents who pays a low for leads on their marketplace.
They need agents, and they depend on the traditional model. So for Zillow, it’s also could be disruptive, although a little confusing. I would just say this, good real estate agents do deserve to get paid. I don’t want to make it seem like these commissions were being paid out the door for nothing. I mean, many work really hard. I’ve worked with agents that had been great. They spent a lot of time working with buyers or sellers, and they deal with a lot of paperwork. There’s a lot of value to what they do. So I feel like it’s still, in a way, it makes the marketplace better for them because I think good agents will thrive. Good agents will still get paid. A lot of agents who were just living off these richly undeserved agent commissions will not thrive.
Dylan Lewis: This week we’ve also got updates in AI sending tech companies in two different directions. We’re going to kick off looking at Adobe here, Andy. Company reported earlier this week, results were good, but it seems like the guidance and the general outlook on how AI might be affecting the business has the market concerned.
Andy Cross: Yeah. Dylan, it’s like that Damocles hanging over Adobe. AI is just waiting for that string to catch, to end up doing some serious damage to this company. This is a company that’s been in investing in AI for a long time. Their Firefly solution, since its launch, now has more than 6.5 billion images created. They’re investing in this space, and they talk a lot about this. However, even though that quarter was really quite good, revenues up 11%, adjusted earnings per share up 18%. They didn’t have to pay a billion-dollar fee for the Figma transaction getting canceled. Their digital media revenue was up 12%.
Their ending annual recurring revenue, which is very important when you think about this business, up 14%. The Document Cloud business, which is part of their solutions and part of this package, was up 23%. So that’s really impressive. Their digital experience revenue, that’s their new marketing business they’ve been growing. That was up 10% with remaining performance obligations up 16%. So the quarter was all really positive, very good. However, it was all in the conversation about the guide in their future revenues, thinking about the bookings and how artificial intelligence is or is not impacting their business.
Especially it’s things like OpenAI Sora, which is their text to video creating device and how much that’s impacting, not just creating videos and imaging, but also giving clients the ability to edit those. Lots of conversations around what that means for their business. They didn’t come out very enthusiastic about the guide going forward. Lots of conversations around with the analysts about what this means after minutia at the timings at this quarter, next quarter, a lot of concerns that so much of the growth of the year is going to be back-ended into the second half.
Clearly you see the stock reacting, more down 13% as we’re going into tape this. The market clearly having some discussions and some hesitations about Adobe, which is the leader in this space. By the way, the stock has done very well over the last year. So I think the most pullback maybe a little ahead of itself and this is some of the pullback we’re seeing.
Dylan Lewis: A different story with AI over at Oracle. This is a company that is catching the tailwinds of AI. Matt shares up 10% this week following the company’s fiscal Q3 report. Thanks in large part to demand for the company’s Cloud offerings.
Matt Argersinger: Absolutely. I mean, if you look at the headlines, revenue up 7%, adjusted EPS up 16%, both better-than-expected, but the two likely reasons, and you hit one of them, the stock has been up so much. First Oracle’s remaining performance obligation, RPO, Andy mentioned this for Adobe as well. This is basically sales that Oracle is contractually obligated to fulfill, but hasn’t yet quite recognize as revenue or if you’re a simple investor like me, it’s called backlog.
That’s up to 80 billion, up 29% year over year. So that’s just revenue growth is going to continue to be fairly robust going forward for Oracle. But the Cloud revenue for Oracle, 25% year over year, Cloud infrastructure business, 49% increase year over year. That’s the piece that really competes with the bigger at Cloud providers like AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft‘s Azure.
You can conclude right there that Oracle is gaining market share. The big reason for that is a CEOs Safra Catz, demand for Oracle’s Artificial Intelligence Cloud capabilities far exceeding supply. To address this, Oracle actually signed a new agreement with Nvidia in the quarter, investing heavily in opening and expanding its data center network. The AI plug in here for Oracle is very real and very robust, and it’s got investors really excited about the business, obviously.
Dylan Lewis: Matt, right there, you name checked a lot of the big companies and brands that we associate with cloud discussion, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon. We have generally left Oracle out of the conversation for the big Cloud players, do you feel like we need to start bringing them into that group?
Matt Argersinger: I think so. This might eventually become a big four with Oracle. Because if you think on Oracle, all the other three companies that you mentioned all have big leads, big market shares, but they’re also doing very different things in a lot of different markets. Amazon in particular, Alphabet of course, with advertising and YouTube. This is Oracle’s business. I mean, database networking Cloud infrastructure is their business. It’s their focus. I think they’re going to continue to gain market share.
Dylan Lewis: Coming up after the break over at Under Armour, it’s meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Stay right here. This is Motley Fool Money. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I’m Dylan Lewis joined in studio with Matt Argersinger and Andy Cross. We’ve got a rundown on retail and apparel. We’re going to start things off with Williams-Sonoma, a huge week for them, Andy, shares up 18% following the company’s earnings release. Even though net income declined year over year and revenue was basically flat. Andy, what’s going on here?
Andy Cross: Well, on the earnings per share, because they buy back so much stock, it was actually up a little bit just 3%, but far ahead of analysts’ estimates and the sales were down 7%. Again ahead of estimates was much better than how management had guided. Laura Alber has been leading Williams-Sonoma for so many years, so successfully years. I think very conservative when she thinks about running this company, she and her team. Been talking about the challenging market.
We’re having comp sales down. Almost 7%, that was better than two years ago but worse than a year ago. The four-year company, you go back four years, Williams-Sonoma Lakes have focused on that pre-pandemic. They were up almost 30%. I mentioned the earnings per share, gross margins is where they won Dylan in this quarter. Higher merchandise margins, lower supply costs. Williams-Sonoma has been really effective at managing their supply costs.
Being very efficient as how they have taken out more and more costs from their supply chain, how the pricing is starting to impact that. They’ve been talking about that for the past year, which is one reason why their stock has done so well. That allows them to get more efficient when it comes at gross margin up at 46% versus 41% a year ago. The inventories were down 14%. Again, they’re just managing this business, blocking and tackling very well.
Operating cash flow was up 60% for the year. But because they’ve been so efficient on their capital expenditure, free cash flow more than doubled, that allowed them to announce a 26% increase in the dividend certainly helps with the stock price performing so well. Even though comps really for the year where basically down across the board and for the quarter.
Dylan Lewis: Andy, this is probably not accompanying that a lot of people necessarily have on their radar and it is to their detriment. Shares up 140% over the last 12 months. It’s been an incredible performer. The stock is currently at all-time highs for people that maybe haven’t been following this business. Do you feel like the valuation is in a good spot or do you think it’s getting a little rich?
Andy Cross: Here’s just some context behind that. I’m a fan of Williams-Sonoma and a shareholder and we’ve recommended the stock in lots of different spots here at The Motley Fool. The market cap is more than 18 billion. It sells at around an earnings multiple of around 20 times. Historically their earnings multiple is more in the low double-digits or call it the 12, 13, 15 times range. When it got so cheap, it got down to single digits, which is one reason why the stock has done so well. If you want to nibble, fine, don’t go all rushing, but put it on your watchlist. Certainly, if you don’t have it as one to keep an eye on.
Dylan Lewis: We have a less glamorous story going on over at Under Armour. News out this week that founder Kevin Plank will be stepping back into the CEO role and Matt, the market did not seem too excited about it.
Matt Argersinger: Not at all, Dylan. The stock sold off pretty hard. I think there’s a few reasons for this, which we’ll get into. One, it’s interesting, the current or now former CEO, Stephanie Linnartz, she’s only on the job for about a year and she was in the first year of what she thought was going to be a three-year turnaround for the business. Clearly, that turnaround is not happening to the satisfaction of the board and probably to a lot of investors.
But I just found that press release from Under Armour very short, very vague. I felt like this needed a letter from Kevin Plank saying why he’s coming back, why he thinks it’s important for him to step back into the CEO role. We didn’t get that. We just got a pretty short press release. That’s interesting. If you look at Under Armour stock, it’s been stuck in the low single-digits for what seems like forever. Maybe there’s a little bit of desperation here, but you have to remember how Plank left the CEO spot in 2019. Putting aside his various personal scandals, he didn’t leave the company in exactly a great state.
Revenue growth had already flatlined for a few years, he made several poor acquisitions to try to digitize the brand. Inventory hadn’t been managed well. They failed to gain traction at leisure market which I feel they basically invented it. Yet they see that to Lululemon and Nike and others. This isn’t Steve Jobs coming back to the doors. This is not Howard Schultz coming in or Michael Dell coming back. A founder that’s going to come back and lead the company to glory. I think that’s why the market is taking a very cautious look here and saying this is a CEO with a pretty tumultuous tenure at the end. Coming back can a turnaround really happen now?
Dylan Lewis: Matt, I have not sold very many stocks that I’ve owned and when I have almost without exception, it has been the wrong decision. The exception to that is Under Armour. [laughs] I sold my shares, I think when it was in the mid-teens and this business has not managed to get back on track. It’s down about 50% from then. Recently, shares are at their lowest level in almost a decade. What is the return to normal even look like for this business?
Matt Argersinger: I don’t know, Dylan. Unfortunately, I’m still a shareholder, and Under Armour withheld throughout. You see the stocks at a 10-year low. I looked at it. It’s about a 17-year low in the stock price. But this is a situation where I step back and say, wait a second, how much worse can this actually get? Because if you look at Under Armour’s stock, it’s trading for about 0.6 times revenue. For comparison, Nike trades at three times revenue.
The stock’s at a 17-year low. This is the kind that still generates healthy cash from operations. We were talking about before the show, that the brand has to have some equity value. That’s probably greater or somewhere in the vicinity of three billion, which is its market cap. Maybe it can’t get worse and just maybe Kevin Plank finds a little bit of that entrepreneurial magic he had early on in Under Armour. Three years from now, four years from now we’re looking at Under Armour and it’s $25 stock.
Andy Cross: Six dangerous words in an estimate. How much lower can this go? Just be mindful of that.
Dylan Lewis: You’re pumping the brakes there a little bit there Andy.
Andy Cross: Be cautious there.
Dylan Lewis: We’re going to wrap the company updates with a look at Ulta Andy, shares the cosmetic company down 5% after earnings. What’s the story here?
Andy Cross: It’s interesting, the quarter was actually pretty good. It wasn’t anything to really crow about. Revenues were up almost 10%. Earnings at $8.08 ahead of estimates so that was actually quite strong. Their comp sales were at 2.5% but that was versus 16% a year ago so a pretty good deceleration and a little bit lower than the estimates, which I think is what has the stock lower.
Transactions up 4.5% but pricing or average cost of the goods that someone buys down almost 2%. The gross margin was up a little bit. Lower shipping, better supply chain costs. Same thing was we sold Williams-Sonoma. I don’t think quite as effective at Ulta, but a little bit better, but lower on the merchandise margin, which was different than what we saw at Williams-Sonoma. Sales gross and operating margin the cost down at 23.1% versus 23.6%.
They’re doing a pretty good job of managing the cost that boosted the operating margin to 14.5% versus 13.9%. A lot of numbers there, but ultimately, they’ve done a pretty good job managing the cost in a relatively slower-growth business. Skincare up very much. One interesting little tidbit there. They talked about the sales for the makeup category decreased in low-single-digit range. They saw softness in prestige cosmetics was partially offset by growth in mass makeup. They pointed at Elf Beauty as one of the ones that are doing pretty well at Ulta.
Dylan Lewis: It’s interesting. I haven’t taken a look at the quarter, but I’m wondering if they said anything about shrink or anything like that, Andy. I don’t know if you guys caught it, I only caught a little bit of it, but CNBC did this pretty large report this past week about retail theft. I can’t remember the exact story, but I guess there was a ring of resellers who had stolen millions of dollars and Ulta is one of the big victims here of just ceiling this high-margin makeup, reselling it, pocketing the difference and I know they made some arrest. But it was a remarkable story.
Matt Argersinger: It was a huge enterprise, actually a criminal enterprise. Now I think this quarter didn’t get nearly the tension as we’ve seen in the past. I think you’ll see that they’re starting to peak a little bit in there talking about shrink I think but it still continues to be an issue. The guidance, by the way, just very quickly is that comp sales at 4-5% versus 5.7%. That’s for the full year guided ahead. Comp sales for this year ahead, not quite as good as last year.
Dylan Lewis: I’m glad you brought up the shrink story there, Matt because I remember looking at Target‘s results earlier this earnings season and I think it was two quarters ago, shrink was the narrative. They made that statement, I think it was a $500 million adjustment. Some of the numbers that they were looking out for the year saying that shrink was the culprit.
We didn’t see a lot of headlines on that. We didn’t see a lot of discussion of that with the most recent earnings release but we’ve actually dig into management’s calls. It came up 12 times. It is still a story for some of these retailers and we’re still hearing management talk about it but it seems like one of those things that has crested as a wave already when it comes to financials.
Matt Argersinger: When CNBC does a special report or in a special documentary and something that usually as Andy alluded to, it’s looked at the peak but it might be one of those situations where hopefully companies are figuring it out and moving on.
Dylan Lewis: Matt Argersinger, Andy Cross, fellows, we’re going to see you guys a little bit later in the show. Up next, we dig into the turmoil at Paramount and the possible path forward for the entertainment giant. Stay right here. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I’m Dylan Lewis. Award season is over, but there’s still plenty of drama unfolding in Hollywood. Motley Fool Money is Ricky Mulvey caught up with Bloomberg entertainment reporter Lucas Shaw for a look at the business of streaming, the power of incentives and corporate infighting at Paramount.
Ricky Mulvey: It’s a tough time to be a movie company, but do you think there’s starting to be a greater willingness to go for those singles and doubles now that there’s some adult dramas that are doing poorly. Ferrari did not make money. But Anyone but You, which was a romantic comedy made more than 200 million at the box office. Like A24 eked out a profit with Iron Claw. So is that door continuing to open a little bit for those adult dramas that used to just go to streaming.
Lucas Shaw: I get very mixed signals on this and I think it’s hard to answer that holistically. I don’t think that these companies are giving up the Tentpole strategy, which is, let’s have a handful of really expensive, really big movies. Because when those hit, they make so much money that it pays for everything else. They can’t really move away from that for that reason. But you do see certain studios. I think Universal, Sony, and Warner Brothers, foremost among them making a wide range of movies, believing that there is value in having to use your metaphor, a single or a double, in addition to the home run.
If you look at the types of programming that Netflix is going to do, I think they are going to take fewer really big swings and make more movies. That cost in the 20-$100 million range, which is, I don’t know that it’s going to be a bunch of dramas. I think it’s going to be comedy, and thriller, and action, and things like that. But I do think you’ll see a good number of movies made that are in that middle that the big studios had really forsaken over the last several years.
Ricky Mulvey: Yeah, and I want to own a move to Paramount, which you covered in a story called How Paramount Became A Cautionary Tale Of The Streaming Wars. The only thing on their upcoming slate seems to be those big Tentpole films after the Bob Marley movie, and they did Mean Girls. But then upcoming it seems that it’s a Transformers movie, they’re going to do a PAW patrol movie and it’s not these small movies. They might have trouble attracting creators right now to get those smaller to midsize movies for their studio.
Lucas Shaw: The problems at Paramount have made it very hard for that studio to do deals. I’ve spoken with executives there who’ve been very pleasantly surprised, I should say, at some of the talent who’ve reupped their relationships with the studio, including John Krasinski though, filmmaker of A Quiet Place. But you talked to a lot of producers and they’re pretty clear that Paramount would be their last choice, both because it’s a company that just hasn’t made that many movies.
Other than basically Top Gun, hasn’t delivered a lot of huge hits. But I think more than anything because of the uncertainty at the corporate level where you have a controlling shareholder in Shari Redstone who pretty clearly would like to sell the business, is looking for buyers, is struggling to find buyers. She’s looking to exit, not because this is a great time to sell and you can get a great deal, but because the business has been declining and she wants to get out while she still can.
Ricky Mulvey: Can you take us into the informal auction going on for for Paramount right now. Where’s that sit?
Lucas Shaw: Actually, you know what? Let’s let’s take it back a step. I think Shari decided that she wanted to sell at some point last year. Some people say over the summer, some people say in the fall. Either way, she had been approached over the years by a few parties. She really started late last year talking to David Ellison, who runs a company called Skydance, whose father is Larry Ellison, one of the richest men in the world. David Ellison’s company is a co-financier and producer of Top Gun, of the Mission Impossible movies, of Star Trek movies, all Paramount biggest franchises.
David Ellison would like to buy Shari Redstone out of National Amusements, which is the family holding company, a movie theater chain that has the stake in Paramount and then merge his company with Paramount. The challenge with this is that while that deal is great for Shari Redstone, it’s not necessarily great for Paramount. I think there’s some people who are skeptical about why you would want to merge with Skydance other than because David Ellison wants them to and there would certainly be a dispute over valuation.
So you’ve got Shari Redstone and her camp looking to see if there are other bidders. Because anytime you’re trying to sell, you want to have multiple bidders so you can drive up the price. So she’s talked to David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Brothers discovery. She’s talked to Apollo, the private equity firm, and she’s talked to some other potential buyers. At the same time, you’ve got the company of Paramount with advisors looking to see if there are other offers because they don’t necessarily love this David Ellison idea.
That’s the state of play. We know that David Ellison is interested and has at least made a preliminary offer. We know there have been conversations with a couple of other parties, but it’s not clear that there is another tangible offer or real buyer on the table right now for the company. So it’s an open question as to whether they’re going to get a deal done.
Ricky Mulvey: In the past, Netflix was a part of the conversation. Warner Brothers discovery looked at it briefly.
Lucas Shaw: It should be noted. I should just on that point, that yes, Netflix has been part of the conversation, but Netflix was part of the conversation in so much as it wanted to buy just the studio, Paramount Pictures. I think there are a lot of entities that would be happy to buy just the studio because it’s got a good library that they could exploit and film and television, it’s got, honestly great real estate that lot in Hollywood alone is worth billions of dollars.
The problem is that if you’re Shari Redstone and you don’t want to sell just the studio because it’s your most valuable asset. So then you’re left with a bunch of stuff nobody wants. If you’re a buyer, it’s the stuff nobody wants. Like you don’t necessarily want to take these declining cable networks. So it’s going to be interesting to see Shari Redstone’s probably going to have to sell at a discount to unload the stuff that nobody wants in order to unload the whole company.
Ricky Mulvey: It seems that there has been a little bit of pride when they’ve had offers on the table. BET was one of them where the deal is off by a billion dollars, so everybody walks away. Now Paramount may get to a point where there’s no option other than the buyer that’s willing to take on the company.
Lucas Shaw: Yeah. I mean, it’s crazy that they almost sold. They could have sold BET, they could’ve sold Showtime. That would have raised enough money between the two of them. If they did the deals, they probably could’ve gotten 4.5-5 billion dollars, that would solved a lot of problems. They could have paid off a lot of debt. They could have funded a bunch of stuff for the streaming service and yeah, they just didn’t want to do it.
Ricky Mulvey: Is the cardinal misstep that Paramount made with streaming, which is their main loser of money. Just that they were late to the party or were there other mistakes along the way?
Lucas Shaw: They were definitely late. But that was not the cardinal sin because every company was late and every company that went in is facing the same conundrum right now, whether it’s Paramount, or Warner Brothers Discovery, or Disney, or in a lesser way, Comcast because there are more diversified enterprise. But entities that have a bunch of cable networks are just watching as they fall into the sea and their streaming service is not rising fast enough.
So should they have moved faster? Yes, Disney moved a little bit faster. Having a lot of the same problems. I think the issue is that this was always going to be painful and you have this incredibly lucrative business that was going away and entities that made a lot of money from that business were not going to rush to kill it. It’s the the classic innovator’s dilemma that people talk about. Netflix was able to come in as a new player and disrupt this business and none of the competition moved fast or move quickly enough to respond.
I do think that Paramount has made some specific missteps. I mean, you look at it and I should also say Paramount was hamstrung by the corporate infighting. There were two separate entities, CBS and Viacom, that the Redstones controlled. Shari Redstone had to spend many years fighting to cement family control over them in disputes with management of both companies, when she did actually put it together. That then took a while to make it happen. So there were a lot of hurdles to making it work. Then they spent a lot of money really quickly.
They didn’t think about it. All these companies made the same mistake. They had to try to compress 15 years of Netflix’s building into a short time frame and we can debate, is there any way in which that would have gone well? Or was it just a function of going late and I’m not sure the answer. I’m sure that there were sounder strategies with these companies. I also think that had they acted five-years earlier, there’s no guarantee it would have worked.
Ricky Mulvey: On Paramount, Shari Redstone wants a buyer. What happens if Paramount doesn’t find a buyer?
Lucas Shaw: It’s a good question. It’s the one facing all of these enterprises. Then Shari faces a couple of options. She can stay the course and believe that we’ve suffered maximum pain right now and the streaming service is going to keep growing, or we’re going to manage costs and we’ll figure it out. I don’t think Wall Street would be very happy to hear that because it isn’t working right now. There’s a strategy where they resort to selling individual pieces again or where they halt costs a bit more. Then there’s a more dramatic one which some have proposed which I still don’t see them doing.
But this notion of them becoming a pure arms dealer, which means that they shut down the streaming service and just be a studio and sell the others. But considering that that company makes basically all of its money from cable networks and to some extent from streaming. That’s where most of the employees are. That would require, I should say, gutting the business. You’d fire 50-80% of the staff, which is why I see that is unlikely but she’ll have to have to make some big changes if she cuts it because if they come out and say, they haven’t officially said that they’re for sale but if there was a bunch of coverage basically saying that the deal talks were over, their stocks is going to tank.
Ricky Mulvey: I think there’s also an interesting angle on this with the power of incentives. I want to talk about David Zaslav in a sec, but in this case, there’s an early misstep from the CEO, Philipe Dauman, this guy was making so much money in stock awards. He incentivized to boost the stock price and then in order to do so, he’s buying back stock, which means they’re not investing into content and growing the business for the long term.
Lucas Shaw: Philipe Dauman, really one of the worst media CEOs of the last 20-plus years, I would say. Maybe, ever. He took what was one of the most vibrant and great businesses, in Viacom, drove it into the ground. He didn’t understand Netflix, he didn’t understand YouTube and rather than invest a bunch of money in streaming, which he should’ve done because they had the networks that were most exposed. MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, they speak to young people so you could see the trends early. I
nstead of investing in streaming, he just bought back a bunch of stock. He did whatever he could to prop up the share price and it was really destructive to the enterprise long term. All the mistakes that Shari Redstone and Bob Bakish may or may not have made Philipe made more. Sumner Redstone, who was in charge of the company at the time and was the was the owner, they deserve the largest share of the blame, no question.
Ricky Mulvey: I wonder if there’s an incentive problem right now. If Warner Brothers discovery and you’ve talked about it on the town, where David Zaslav has compensation award tied to the free cash flow of the business. I was talking to one of our investment analysts, Tim Buyers earlier. Basically, that’s an uncommon way to incentivize a CEO. Feel free to break down this theory but now you have HBO or the company that’s essentially shelved movies, one of which recently was the Wiley Coyote vs Acme movie. You get a tax loss on that, which is going to boost. You get the immediate boost of free cash flow but then, you might be killing ideas, drawing away creators.
Lucas Shaw: It’s a question of whether he’s incentivized to just cut cost to make cash flow look good and get himself paid more rather than act in the best interest of the company. It’s a tough press. I don’t think that David Zaslav made free cash and the Board made free cash flow the most important metric for his pay just because they knew that they were going to cut costs. I think they wanted to set the target. We have all this debt and we need to save money to pay it off. How are we going to incentivize people to do that? We’re going to incentivize them to generate free cash flow and that’s what they did.
That being said, it’s just a terrible look for this guy who’s about to get paid a ton of money, even though their stock is in the toilet, nobody thinks the company is performing very well. By the way, that free cash flow being the metric for performance and how people are paid, that doesn’t apply to most of the employees of that company. It mostly applies to David Zaslav and maybe the inner circle. They’re really perverse incentives there.
Ricky Mulvey: Listeners, you can catch Lucas Shaw on X. He is @Lucas_Shaw. Coming up after the break, Andy Cross and Matt Argersinger return with a couple of stocks on their radar. Stay right here. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money.
Dylan Lewis: As always people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don’t buy or sell anything based solely on what you hear. I’m Dylan Lewis joined again by Matt Argersinger and Andy Cross. If you went all in on the Stanley tumbler craze, you’re going to have to make room in your cupboard for another weird household item that has caught fire. Andy, grocer Trader Joe’s began selling mini tote bags for $3 in March. They are now selling for hundreds of dollars online. What are you make of this new consumer craze?
Andy Cross: How many is many on the per square inch of tote bags? This has got to be a record if they’re really small. We just bought a Stanley for $35 at REI and those things are some serious piece of hardware. We’re now part of the Stanley craze, I think we have two of them now at the house so I can understand that. If it’s me, when I go to Trader Joe’s, I buy a lot of stuff. I’m bringing tote bags, hanging them on my shoulder, pulling them out of my jackets. Minis are not helping me very much.
Dylan Lewis: I think you timed the market well on that. I think you got in on the tumblers slightly after the peak and maybe have a good cost basis there. Matt, what do you make of these consumer phrases?
Matt Argersinger: I can’t speak to this. I’m a guy who takes brown bags run reused bags to the grocery store and reuses them so I have I can’t believe people are paying $100 for tote bags. I cannot believe it.
Dylan Lewis: I’m just happy people are using reusable bags. That makes me happy.
Andy Cross: There you go.
Dylan Lewis: I’ll take that. Let’s get over to stocks on our radar. Our man behind the glass, Dan Boyd is going to hit you with a question. Matt, you’re up first this week, what are you looking at?
Matt Argersinger: Weird special situation here, Equity Commonwealth, the ticker is EQC. Equity Commonwealth, it’s a two billion dollar real estate investment trust with 2.2 billion in net cash. Do the math there. Yes, it’s trading below the cash on its balance sheet. Now it does own four office buildings that are cash-flowing but materially they’re a very small part of the story here. Management is essentially sitting on 2.2 billion in cash collecting 5% with treasuries, which is good but waiting to make a transformative investment for the business.
The problem is they’ve been sitting on their hands for quite a while now. Investors are starting to get a little impatient and now there’s a hedge fund called Land and Buildings Investment Management, LLC. That’s a mouthful them but they own 3% of EQC shares, and they’ve submitted a letter demanding that EQC actually liquidate the business because under their model, liquidating the business would actually result in a net asset value of about 20% above where EQC is trading in the public markets. We’ll have to see if this gets any traction. But I think it’s a fastening situation to watch over the next few months.
Dylan Lewis: Dan, a special situation with Equity Commonwealth. What’s your question?
Dan Boyd: A special situation is called for, it doesn’t make any dang sense. I’m sorry, are you trying to sell us on cash or office buildings, Mattie?
Matt Argersinger: I think cash but it sounds like I’m actually trying to sell Dan a tote bag from Trader Joe’s Andy, you’re going to be able to beat that? What’s on your radar?
Andy Cross: I got Landstar guys, LSTR, an asset-light logistics company that generates more than five billion in sales, market cap value almost seven billion more cash than debt. It’s an asset-light business, so it doesn’t really own a lot of the assets. It uses technology to help clients, which is more than 25,000 customers across 1,100 independent agents. Basically get our goods from point A to point Z. Mostly inter-modal trucking, van shipments but also some Aaron Freight.
They help make sense of all the logistics challenges to be able to get all our stuff from when we buy it to when we want to consume it. Now it’s been a tough two years post-pandemic because we’re not buying as much stuff. Inventories are going lower. Companies are trying to run down all those inventories. You’re just not seeing the volumes come across their net worth. That’s been a big hit to their sales and to their profits. But this is a very talented management team. They focus very heavily on returns on capital and free cash flow. Ultimately in a pretty good spot, I think for Landstar.
Dylan Lewis: Dan, a question about Landstar.
Dan Boyd: First off, absolutely gorgeous stock chart here for the maximum time since they came out in 1993, whatever, just up until the right you love to see it But this is one of those companies where you read about it and you got to read four paragraphs to figure out the day. Make technology or make programming to help people do trucking. Not crazy about this company.
Andy Cross: But that’s the magic behind Dan. Two tough businesses this week, Dan, which one’s going on your watchlist?
Dan Boyd: Well, I’m not going with whatever Mattie said Come on. I don’t even know what he was talking about.
Dylan Lewis: Landstar wins. Matt, Andy, I appreciate you being here. That’s going to do it for us. We’ll see you next time





