Latest news with #June2025
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
How to watch WWE Night of Champions 2025: Live stream and match card for today
John Cena will continue his farewell retirement tour with his final Night of Champions appearance this evening. After dethroning Cody Rhodes to become a record-breaking 17-time WWE Champion at WrestleMania 41, Cena puts the Undisputed WWE championship on the line against long-time rival CM Punk. There's an argument to be made that Punk, to date, poses the biggest threat to Cena's title reign given the history between the two but this is his first WWE singles championship match in over 12 years. Meanwhile Solo Sikoa looks to claim championship gold for the first time on the main roster as he challenges Jacob Fatu for the United States title. The King of the Ring and Queen of the Ring tournaments culminates this evening as Randy Orton, Cody Rhodes, Asuka and Jade Cargill battle for the respective crowns and a world title match at Summerslam. Elsewhere on the card, Rhea Ripley and Raquel Rodriguez face off in a street fight whilst Sami Zayn looks to silence Karrion Cross in a regular singles match. Live stream: In the UK, WWE Night of Champions 2025 can be watched and streamed live on Netflix. Coverage starts at 6pm BST today, Saturday, June 28, 2025. A membership costs £4.99 a month and the subscription can be cancelled at any time.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Business
- Yahoo
This Weight Loss Partnership Was a Short One
In this podcast, Motley Fool analyst Jason Moser and contributor Matt Frankel discuss: Why Novo Nordisk is parting ways with Hims & Hers. Waymo and Uber's big Atlanta debut. What the potential tax deduction on autos could mean for consumers and companies. A financials-related stock that is worth a closer look. To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you're ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy. A full transcript is below. Before you buy stock in Hims & Hers Health, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Hims & Hers Health wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $687,731!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $945,846!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 818% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 175% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 23, 2025 This podcast was recorded on June 23, 2025. Jason Moser: Breaking up is hard to do. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Welcome to Motley Fool Money. I'm Jason Moser, and joining me today is Motley Fool Analyst Matt Frankel. Matt, thanks for being here. Matt Frankel: Always good to be here. It's been a while, and I'm glad we get to do these more frequently now. Jason Moser: Absolutely. On today's show, Novo Nordisk is parting ways with Hims & Hers, Waymo and Uber make a big debut in Atlanta, who wins from a proposed tax deduction on auto loans, and will also take a closer look at a stock on Matt's radar in the financial space. But before we dive in, let's take a look at a few of the headlines driving the market today. Markets are up today as investors continue to digest the news coming out of the Middle East. While a ceasefire is still uncertain, the growing possibility of negotiations continues to keep investors at least somewhat optimistic. Despite recent reports, Starbucks clarified it's not currently looking for a full sale of Chinese operations, though CEO Brian Niccol has confirmed that Starbucks is open to exploring partnerships in the country. Last week, the Fed voted to hold rates steady, though it appears that sentiment could be starting to shift within the committee members. A recent update to the dot plot showed that nine of the 19 officials favored either zero or one cut this year, while eight saw two cuts, and now two others expect three. On Monday, Novo Nordisk, the producer of the popular weight loss drug, Wegovy, announced that it was ending its partnership with virtual healthcare provider Hims & Hers, and the market didn't like that news at all. Shares of Hims & Hers fell almost 35% on the day. Matt, Hims & Hers' shares have been on a tear recently. It's easy to understand why. The company has grown revenue at about 80% annualized over the last five years, but what does this Novo news signal to you? Matt Frankel: Just for some background, Novo partnered with Hims & Hers to sell their Wegovy drug, the popular weight loss drug, instead of its own compounded knock-off version, I guess, you would say. The idea was, this is an unauthorized compound. There was a lot of risk that there was going to be a legal battle between the two companies, so they just decided to come together and solve it that way. The partnership only lasted a few months. Generally speaking, by every account at every step of the purchasing process, Hims & Hers was still pushing people toward its own compounded version at, like I said, every step of the way. It's easy to see why they make higher gross margins from their own product than selling Novo Nordisk's version, but that wasn't the agreement. Really, that was what management said in a statement when they described what happened. The real risk isn't that this is going to be a big revenue hit to Hims & Hers. Obviously, like I said, there's higher gross margins from their own product than selling at someone else's. The risk now is that a lawsuit's likely coming next if they continue to sell a knock-off version. That's really why I see the stock down as much as it is. It's not that it's going to have 35% lower revenue. It's that there's a lot of legal risk now that they're not partners. Jason Moser: This seems to center around compounding drugs, which as you said, these are not FDA approved. Dave Moore, the EVP of Novo's US operations, said regarding the decision, "We expected that the efforts toward compounding personalization would diminish over time when we didn't see that. We had to make a choice on behalf of patients." The bear on Hims would say, "They're just out to make a quick buck." Then the bull would say that they are looking out for the patient's best interests in making certain medications more widely available. Is this becoming a bigger risk for Hims & Hers, at least the perception? I'm not necessarily saying it's the case, but the perception that they're not really looking out for their patients best interests. Matt Frankel: Honestly, selling a compounded non-FDA-approved drug just doesn't sound very like something like I would want to get involved in in the first place. Jason Moser: I think I'd want FDA approval personally, but who am I? Matt Frankel: But it's also a big cost difference and things like that, so I can understand it. Like I said, it's just a real big open question of how much these companies are going to be fighting with each other. It's not that they're not looking out for people. It's just that they're telling people this is not an FDA-approved product, but you can get it cheaper and things like that, but the general push was toward their own product and away from the real version. Jason Moser: They seem to be at least somewhat clear on that front. Now, we know valuation always matters. While Hims & Hers isn't off the charts, expensive, even after this run the stock has had, it does have a pretty rich multiple at around 60 times earnings or so, even after the sell-off. Does this start looking like an opportunity here, or do you feel like there could be more shoes to drop? Matt Frankel: Personally, I stay away from heavy legal risk like this. It seems like there's a lot of future growth priced even after they're losing this partnership. It seems like a bet on the stock would be betting on that all these weight loss drugs are going to get even more popular and they're going to be able to successfully continue to sell their own compounded version without any legal intervention. To me, it's a big risk factor right now. There's three things that I won't go near a stock for, and big legal risk is one of them. Jason Moser: Next up Waymo and Uber's big debut in Atlanta. MALE_1: This episode is sponsored by PLAUD, an AI-wearable gadget that takes notes of meetings and calls. With PLAUD, you don't have to take notes and make summaries anymore. If you're tired of taking notes, you let AI do it for you. Picture this. You're on Hour 3 of back-to-back virtual meetings. Have you zoned out? Maybe you forgot some key takeaways. PLAUD is your AI-powered meeting sidekick. You let this tiny AI gadget, which is a perfect accessory to your phone, take notes, instantly generate transcripts, and summarize critical points and action items. You can stay focused without frantic note taking. Free your mind for better thinking, engagement with people, and decision making. As an audio geek, I appreciate the software when I tested it out. PLAUD cancels noises and enhances human speeches, making the audio replay clear. More than 700,000 users have joined the PLAUD community since 2024, and more than a quarter million people use this device every day. It's simple. You talk and PLAUD handles the rest. Find peace of mind at work today. Are you ready to work smarter? Type P-L-A-U-D into google and get a discount with code Fool, that is P-L-A-U-D. Jason Moser: Matt, I know you all talked a little Tesla on yesterday's show. It seems like Tesla's robotaxi debut was not met without criticism, and the technology seems far from perfect, but they say, you got to start somewhere. Well, on Tuesday, Waymo robotaxis became available to Uber users in Atlanta, and they cover approximately 65 square miles around the city, and it should be noted, these Waymo vehicle, they're currently used for Uber passenger rides only, not Uber Eats deliveries. Matt, Uber shares up about 8% on the day, so there's some positive reception there. There's been a lot of conversation about Tesla disrupting Uber and Uber's best days maybe behind it, but it doesn't seem like Uber and Waymo are going away anytime soon. Matt Frankel: We can get into the Tesla disruption in a little bit, if you want to. It's a small scale rollout. They're starting with a dozen vehicles that are available on the Uber app. It's limited to surface streets. That's another big restriction. They can't go on highways. It's just the latest in what Waymo is doing. They already have over 1,000 vehicles nationwide on the road, San Francisco, Austin. There's a few other places. They have over 100 in Austin right now, selling Uber rides. It is a big step in the right direction. It shows that their rollout is going well. They still aim to launch in DC next year, so maybe you'll be able to take a ride. The rollout's going really nicely. Waymo definitely has the first mover advantage here. When you think about some of the disasters that have happened with other wannabe robotaxi services like Crews like Uber's own that have had pretty bad incidents. Waymo really hasn't had any to that extent. Uber ran over somebody in 2018. That was a death sentence for GM's Crews when one of their cars ran over somebody. Waymo is doing the rollout, and they're getting it right. Jason Moser: You mentioned that part about the cost side of it. I think Waymo, it's something like three times as expensive as Tesla's technology. Like I said, we did see some criticism of the robotaxi rollout. It seems like it's very early days or I don't know. Maybe you get what you pay for in this case, and I suspect as time goes on, those costs will continue to come down. At one point, Uber looked to partner with Tesla, and Tesla said, "No, thanks." Now, what we've seen in the ride-hailing space is this may not really be a win or take-all market. I think early days we thought it might be, but I tell you, Lyft has shown a lot of resiliency that's hanging in there and it's actually growing. What do you make of this competitive landscape here today? Matt Frankel: Like I said, Waymo has the big first mover advantage, but don't count Tesla out. Tesla has two big competitive advantages. One is their infrastructure. They have over 60,000 superchargers throughout the country. It wouldn't be that hard to retrofit them to charge cars that don't have drivers. That would be something that's hard to replicate, even for a company as deep pocketed as Alphabet. They also build their own cars, Tesla does. Waymo's fleet is built by Jaguar right now. It's Jaguar I-PACE cars. They have their own vehicles, their own infrastructure. It does have cost advantages, so I'm not surprised they didn't really want to partner with all that going on. Even in the early days, Crews said that this could be a multi-trillion dollar market 20 years from now, but when we're all just using self-driving cars, it could be a massive opportunity long term. You're absolutely right that there's room for multiple winners in this space. It'll be really interesting to evolve. I think the real golden age of this isn't going to happen for another few years. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with slow rollouts when it's cars without drivers that could hit people. I'm fine with taking your time and getting it right. Jason Moser: There's some serious implications that come with this technology. One last question. I'm going to ask you to choose here, Matt. I just got to do it. We know Waymo is owned by Alphabet. Uber is its own entity. Given the scale of both companies, they certainly have the ability to compete. I think you've made that very clear. How do you view the picture going forward for Alphabet and Uber? Does one of those two stand out as a better investing opportunity today, say, looking five years out? Matt Frankel: I like Alphabet as the investment opportunity. It's essentially trading like a value stock at this point when you think like forwarders and things like that. The market's not even putting any value on the pre-revenue parts of its business like Waymo. That's on Google and Google Cloud, essentially. You're essentially getting the Waymo business for free when you buy Alphabet. Nothing against Uber, but I'm a value investor at heart, and Alphabet really seems like the way to go. Jason Moser: Next up, more on the proposed tax deduction on auto loans, and we'll take a closer look at a stock on Matt's radar. Matt, House and Senate Republicans are looking at the idea of a $10,000 tax deduction on auto loan interest as part of the "big beautiful bill" that's being debated in Washington, but when you dig into it, it almost seems like it doesn't really have much of an impact on consumers at all. Can you just quickly go over the nuts and bolts of this proposal? Matt Frankel: As somebody who no longer has a car payment, I'm opposed to it. [laughs] Seriously. They're proposing that up to $10,000 in auto loan interest per year would be deductible, and that's an above-the-line deduction, so anyone could take it even if they don't itemize. Now, the average car buyer would not get that much. People unless you have a really expensive car, think like 130 or $150,000 vehicle, you're probably not paying $1,000 a year in interest. The average new car buyer pays about $3,000 in interest initially per year, and based on the average marginal tax rate, that's about $500 in tax savings, so it's not nothing, but the $10,000 headline doesn't tell the whole story. Phases out over certain income levels. Even rich people who can buy $150,000 cars probably wouldn't qualify. In order to qualify, a couple of things need to be true. Most importantly, the cars need to get their final assembly in the United States. Doesn't necessarily mean the parts need to be made here, doesn't mean the company needs to be based here. For example, some BMWs are built in South Carolina where I live, but the car needs to have its final assembly in the United States. Keep in mind that this could just offset auto tariffs. Right now, there's a 25% tariff on even parts that come from other places that is hurting a lot of vehicles that are built in the United States. So this is more of an offset, I think, than a big benefit, but there's a lot of investing implications of it. Jason Moser: Well, let's get to that. If there are investing implications, if this does make it through, who do you feel like could be the potential winners? Matt Frankel: Automakers that build cars in the United States and auto lenders, too, that I own General Motors. We know that they build some of their cars in Mexico and Canada. They're moving more and more of their production to the United States in response to tariffs. Who doesn't want a tax deduction? People see $5,000 a year tax deduction if you buy a new Chevy Suburban that could be an incentive to go to the dealership if you've been putting it off. Auto lenders, like Ally Financial is one that I own. It's the largest bank that just specializes in auto lending. You can see a lot of people rush to buy new cars if this becomes a law. Jason Moser: Quickly, to wrap up, we thought we'd go back to our roots and dig into a stock in the financial space that has your attention. What's a stock in the financial space? We're talking banks, insurance, fintech, whatever. What's the stock in this space that you're looking a little bit more closely at these days? Matt Frankel: This is like a combination of real estate and financial, and it's Rocket Companies, RKT. Jason Moser: I love it. Matt Frankel: Because I'm going to be a shareholder. I'm a big Redfin shareholder, and Redfin shareholders have just approved Rocket's buyout of the company. It's an all stock acquisition, so I'm going to get Rocket stock in exchange for my Redfin shares. I'm about to be a shareholder of that. I like this acquisition. I love what Rocket's trying to do, build the all-in-one housing platform. They're very innovative. Today, for example, they just announced that they're creating what they call bridge loans that allows people who have a home to sell to make a nice offer on a new house that doesn't have a closing contingency. Really innovative product. I like their acquisition of Redfin because it really takes away the worst parts of Redfin, specifically, its balance sheet and the fact that it's losing money. The product itself is very great, very technological, so I love this acquisition. They're also acquiring Mr. Cooper, a big mortgage servicer. They're really doing the best job in the market of becoming the all-in-one real estate platform. Rocket's a company I've had my eye on for a while, and this is really bringing it into my spotlight. Jason Moser: We'll leave it there. Matt Frankel, thanks again so much for being here today. Matt Frankel: Thanks for having me. Jason Moser: 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 stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and are not approved by advertisers. Advertisements or sponsored content are provided for informational purposes only. See our full advertising is closure, please check out our show notes. I'm Jason Moser. Thanks for listening. We'll see you on. Ally is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Jason Moser has positions in Alphabet and Starbucks. Matt Frankel has positions in Ally Financial, Redfin, and Starbucks. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Hims & Hers Health, Starbucks, Tesla, and Uber Technologies. The Motley Fool recommends Lyft, Novo Nordisk, and Redfin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This Weight Loss Partnership Was a Short One was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Sport
- Yahoo
Chisholm Jr. homers in 500th game and Yankees reach halfway point with 3-0 victory over A's
Athletics' Mitch Spence pitches during the first inning of a baseball game against the New York Yankees Friday, June 27, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) New York Yankees' Cody Bellinger hits an RBI single during the third inning of a baseball game against the Athletics Friday, June 27, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) New York Yankees' Aaron Judge runs to third base on an RBI single by Cody Bellinger during the third inning of a baseball game against the Athletics Friday, June 27, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) New York Yankees' DJ LeMahieu runs to first base for an RBI single during the fourth inning of a baseball game against the Athletics Friday, June 27, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) New York Yankees' Jazz Chisholm Jr. hits a home run during the second inning of a baseball game against the Athletics Friday, June 27, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) New York Yankees' Jazz Chisholm Jr. hits a home run during the second inning of a baseball game against the Athletics Friday, June 27, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) Athletics' Mitch Spence pitches during the first inning of a baseball game against the New York Yankees Friday, June 27, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) New York Yankees' Cody Bellinger hits an RBI single during the third inning of a baseball game against the Athletics Friday, June 27, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) New York Yankees' Aaron Judge runs to third base on an RBI single by Cody Bellinger during the third inning of a baseball game against the Athletics Friday, June 27, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) New York Yankees' DJ LeMahieu runs to first base for an RBI single during the fourth inning of a baseball game against the Athletics Friday, June 27, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) New York Yankees' Jazz Chisholm Jr. hits a home run during the second inning of a baseball game against the Athletics Friday, June 27, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) Associated Press (AP) — Jazz Chisholm Jr. homered on the first pitch he saw in his 500th game and the New York Yankees beat the Athletics 3-0 on Friday night to reach the halfway point of the season. Chisholm hit his fifth homer in 21 games since returning from an oblique injury on June 3 and gave the Yankees the lead in the second by driving a cutter from A's starter Mitch Spence (2-3) to the second deck in right field. As he rounded third, the third baseman shrugged his shoulders and did a little shuffle before crossing the plate. Advertisement Chisholm has 89 homers and 109 stolen bases since debuting with the Miami Marlins on September 1, 2020. The only other players with as many homers and stolen bases through 500 career games are Eric Davis (107, homers, 190 stolen bases) and former Yankee Alfonso Soriano (97 homers, 121 RBIs Cody Bellinger and DJ LeMahieu hit RBI singles as the Yankees reached the halfway point at 47-34, putting them on a 94-win pace. The Yankees were 52-29 at the halfway point last season when they finished with 94 wins and reached the World Series for the first time since 2009. New York rookie starter Will Warren (5-4) survived issuing three walks in the first inning and allowed two hits in five innings. Four relievers followed Warren and Devin Williams got the last three outs for his 11th save to complete New York's ninth shutout. Advertisement Aaron Judge was walked intentionally for the 18th time this season in the third before Bellinger singled. LeMahieu hit an infield single in the fourth after Paul Goldschmidt reached on catcher's interference. Spence, a former Yankees minor leaguer, allowed three runs and three hits in five innings. The A's lost for the fifth time in six games and were blanked for the sixth time this season. Key moment Warren ended a 36-pitch first inning by getting a called third strike on former Yankee Gio Urshela. He ended his 100-pitch outing by stranding runners at first and second in the fifth. Key stat Warren has 39 strikeouts on called third strikes — most in the majors. Up next Athletics LHP JP Sears (5-7, 5.44 ERA) faces Yankees RHP Clarke Schmidt (4-3, 2.84) on Saturday. ___ AP MLB:
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Is the Club World Cup's Flashy Makeover Ruining Football?
Is the Club World Cup's Flashy Makeover Ruining Football? originally appeared on Athlon Sports. FIFA's revamped Club World Cup has truly landed in the USA, bursting with bold innovations. From body cameras on referees to live VAR replays, the tournament feels like a Hollywood blockbuster. But are these changes revolutionizing football or turning it into an Americanized spectacle? Advertisement The 2025 Club World Cup, hosted across the US from June 15 to July 13, showcases 32 so-called elite teams, including Manchester City and Chelsea. FIFA mandates clubs field their strongest squads, with fines of at least $445,000 for withdrawals according to Sky Sports. This ensures star power but sparks debate about player fatigue. Is the Club World Cup a Spectacle or Spectacular? Referees now wear body cameras, broadcasting their perspective live. Fans in stadiums see VAR decisions on giant screens, adding drama and transparency. Semi-automated offside technology, using advanced sensors, promises faster, accurate calls, though some purists argue it disrupts the game's flow. "Superior Player" voted on by the public is surely a winner? The tournament's group-and-knockout format, with massive prize money, aims to rival the Champions League (FIFA hopes). FIFA's decision to reassign ticket holders' seats to fill TV-friendly sections has raised eyebrows, with critics calling it a superficial fix for empty stadiums according to the Daily Mail. There is no doubt this less about passion and more about perceived popularity. Botafogo beating Champions League Winners PSG has been the biggest 'upset' so byThese changes scream spectacle, tailored for American audiences craving entertainment. Live VAR and referee cams feel like reality TV, while the hefty fines ensure a star-studded cast. Yet, some fans on X worry the tournament's soul is lost in the glitz, prioritizing flash over football's gritty essence. Players coming out to glamour and glitz one-by-one is an odd-one! Chelsea midfielder Romeo Lavia is clearly a fan. He said: "I think it's something special and new for us. I enjoyed it. Why not bring it to the Premier League?" Advertisement He went on to say that whilst a bit show-biz it might be fun, but also noted that being first out might mean a bit of a wait for teammates; which, in England in the cold wet rain might cause a few raised eyebrows. Lop-sided games are no fun for fans or viewers. That should change. The expanded 32-team format, up from seven, boosts inclusivity, featuring clubs from every continent says FIFA. However, whispers of a 2029 expansion to 48 teams and relaxed two-club-per-nation limits have European giants grumbling on X. The balance between global reach and elite quality, teeters. Player welfare remains a hot topic. With packed schedules, forcing clubs to bring top players risks burnout, especially post-season. FIFA's innovations aim to elevate the game, but critics argue they cater more to casual US fans than diehard supporters. The "8-second rule" for goalkeepers has been seen for the first time. The Club World Cup's new vibe is undeniably fun, with tech-driven excitement and a festival-like atmosphere. Yet, the Americanized gloss, think big screens and even bigger bucks, has some fans nostalgic for simpler times. Will FIFA's gamble make this a global celebration or a commercialized circus? Advertisement FIFA's vision is bold, blending cutting-edge tech with football's heart. The body cams and live VAR add intrigue, but the push for spectacle might alienate traditionalists. As the tournament unfolds, its legacy hangs on whether it unites fans or divides them over its flashy new face. This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 21, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Checking In on the Economy and Some Stocks Worth Watching
In this podcast, Motley Fool senior analysts Asit Sharma and David Meier join host Ricky Mulvey to discuss: The latest Fed meeting, and what Jerome Powell is watching. What AI means for a consulting giant. Earnings from Kroger and Darden Restaurants. Two stocks worth watching: Ferrari and Cava. Motley Fool contributor Brian Stoffel interviews Motley Fool co-founder and CEO Tom Gardner about how AI has changed his investing process. To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you're ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy. A full transcript is below. Before you buy stock in Kroger, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Kroger wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $687,731!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $945,846!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 818% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 175% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 23, 2025 This podcast was recorded on June 20, 2025. Ricky Mulvey: It's the Motley Fool Money Radio Show. I'm Ricky Mulvey, joining me on the internet today are Motley Fool senior analysts Asit Sharma and David Meier. Great to have you both here. Asit Sharma: Good to be here, Ricky. David Meier: Likewise. Ricky Mulvey: Asit, we're going to kick off with the Big Macro. This week, the Federal Reserve decided to leave interest rates unchanged. Two key phrases in Jerome Powell's press conference were that ''uncertainty is unusually elevated'' and ''the economy is in a solid position.'' What did we learn from Mr. Powell? Asit Sharma: Ricky, we didn't learn a lot that we didn't already know, although those two phrases together do seem to be a bit in opposition. Chairman Powell talked about last year's very nice GDP growth of 2.5%. The economy was chugging along nicely last year. He mentioned that this year, the picture is a little more murky in terms of growth because all of this trade war overhang that we've got, uncertainty in the economy is making the data hard to read, especially the near-term import export figures. That's throwing some mud into the water. He did point to, let's round it to 1.5% GDP expected growth this year from the numbers he cited. That's not the Fed's estimate, but Chairman Powell was just citing some common figures that are looking out past this quarter for the rest of the year. He also mentioned that inflation is still somewhat elevated. Now, we're shoppers, so we understand that. Lastly, Chairman Powell also talked about the unemployment rate still being in a quite healthy place at 4.2%. That's low. It indicates pretty full employment in the workforce. You put all these factors together, and the message is, look, there's still some stuff we'd like to have a better beat on. We're in no hurry to lower interest rates just now, but reading between the tea leaves, investors can expect that the Fed probably will go ahead with two small-sized rate cuts later this year. Ricky Mulvey: The thing that doesn't make sense to me, David, is you heard Powell talking about how a lot of companies were pulling things forward to get ahead of tariffs. Liberation Day was April. We still have April and May in Quarter 2, and they're saying, GDP is going to bounce right back, while that was going on. We saw this from Edward Harrison in Bloomberg, and that ''the short version is that the US economy is decelerating so much that we should expect fed rate cuts to resume in September.'' I'm not asking you for a rate cut prediction because that's a fool's errand. But what do you think? Is the economy really decelerating right now? David Meier: Yes, it is. Ricky Mulvey: We'll move back to Asit. I'm kidding. Please continue with your thoughts. David Meier: Sorry, you got me there. Yes, it is. In 2023, the economy grew at 2.5% for the year. In 2024, 2.9%. It contracted in the first quarter, and we're only expecting somewhere between 1.5, and I've seen estimates as high as 2% growth. Yes, it is slowing down. Are we going into recession? No, I don't think that's going to happen. But I am of the camp that what we learned from Chairman Powell is that he's actually worried. He's not doing anything, not because he's like, this is necessarily the right thing to do. I think he's like, I don't exactly know what to do. Is inflation going to go up? If it ticks up and he cuts rates, what does that mean? That means that inflation could go up higher. If he cuts rates and inflation is, in fact, going higher, then what's going to happen? The bond yields are going to go up. Prices are going to go down. There's not a lot of good things for Jerome Powell to do right now, nor the FOMC. I agree there is a lot of uncertainty, especially because we don't have the full impact of the tariffs in the labor market, in the inflation numbers, so we're just going to have to wait and see. It's a terrible place to be, actually, to wait and see. It would be better if we didn't have all the uncertainty, but that's where we are. Ricky Mulvey: I pulled forward some spending, definitely on clothes, before the tariffs came rolling in. But, David, have you noticed any spending changes among your friends, family, or your communities? David Meier: Yes, I have a golf buddy who comes down about every other week, and we are not going out to dinner as much. We're eating in. We're getting things from the grocery store, and we're changing what we're getting. We're getting cheaper items. That's because we're feeling the impact of rising prices as consumers. I'm sure I'm not the only one, and I'm sure us together are not the only ones that are changing a bit of their spending patterns. We just got to see how that percolates through the economy. Ricky Mulvey: Well, we're seeing changes in diners' spending patterns, especially at those big chain restaurants. We're going to get to that a little bit later in the show. Asit, let's stay focused on the labor market, though. From Jerome Powell, he basically said, the labor market is at or near maximum employment. We've talked about this story quite a bit on the show, especially the disconnect among new college grads and the labor market they're facing. There's also a Wall Street Journal story this week titled the biggest companies across America are cutting their workforces. This big claim at the beginning that corporate America is convinced fewer employees mean faster growth. Do you understand the disconnect between what Fed Chair Powell is saying and what corporations are telling the Wall Street Journal? Asit Sharma: I think I do, Ricky. Fed Chair Powell is focused on the numbers of people who are employed. We have a labor force which is at around 164 million people in the United States that are productively employed just now. If you look at the largest companies in the country, and I'm just going to focus on the S&P 500 as a proxy, they employ about 17% of that total workforce. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other in some ways. There are two ways to look at this. One is that the labor force, among the S&P 500, is so small that it really doesn't affect the overall numbers. But 17% to other folks, that's a big percentage. Now, if we flip over to what this means in value to the US economy, I would argue that that smaller percentage of people employed has a disproportionate share of value. These largest corporations keep trimming highly skilled workers, that's going to have an impact on the economy. At that point, it might not matter that to Jerome Powell, hey, there's overall employment, and that's good. The drag on the US economy might start to show up if corporations keep gunning for fewer employees, higher profits. Ricky Mulvey: David, there's a key part of this Wall Street Journal story that talks about how revenue per employee being back is a metric that investors follow. They pointed to the dating app Grinder and how CEO George Arison doubled that number from $1 to $2 million in just a few years. Is this a metric that you follow? You're an investor? David Meier: No, it's actually not. The reason I don't follow it explicitly is because that number, in my opinion, is highly dependent on the business model. A follow up question for George Arison that I would have is, what did you do? Did you double revenue, or did you cut the number of employees? I'm sure it's some combination of both. That's actually not a problem. But did something in the business model change? That would be what I would want to know as an investor, because I want to know what is it that you're doing to either make employees more productive, make the business model stronger, or some combination of both. I understand it in terms of, hey, you would definitely want to be productive. You would want to have the least number of employees doing the best work that they can in order to generate the most revenue possible. But like I said, it does depend on the business model that you're using. It's actually quite useful if I'm comparing companies in similar industries to seeing which business model might be useful. That happens if I also look at what is the return on invested capital associated with those businesses, as well. Ricky Mulvey: Asit, is this a number that you look at, or are you in David's camp here? Asit Sharma: Yes, it is a number that I look at and quite frequently, but I'm in David's camp as well, because we both came up through manufacturing, and so both of us appreciate the trade-offs between having lots of employees versus maybe having a big subcontracted workforce. For me, it tends to be just as David was saying, contextual. I do pay attention to it, but I like to understand within the industry that I'm studying, what tends to be the trend here? Our company's mostly employing lots of people, so it's full-time equivalent employees. How are they succeeding or failing with that? I actually like to see sometimes that metric go in the reverse of what some people would like to see. When a company is in growth mode and adding dollars to its revenue base, when it's really growing, sometimes you need to add more employees to service that, whether you're a restaurant chain or a cybersecurity company. Ricky Mulvey: Should we go out to eat or stay in? Up next, earnings from big grocer and big food. Stay right here. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Ricky Mulvey, joined today by Motley Fool senior analysts Asit Sharma and David Meier. We've got an earnings rundown. We're going to kick it off with Asit in Global Consulting Giant Accenture. The stock is down a bit this morning, and that's because the company beat expectations, but bookings are down, and the street really didn't like that Asit. What's happening behind those numbers? Asit Sharma: Ricky, bookings represent new sales that are coming in. The simplest way to look at it. The revenue that a company recognizes often is already in the can, so it makes the revenues by earning what's prepaid in deferred revenue. To keep this from getting too complicated, what we can think of as new bookings is stuff that's hitting the books to be earned in the future. Now, these aren't long-term contracts typically. Wall Street looks at this number a lot because it indicates what a company is going to earn in terms of its top line in the future. Even though the results look perfectly fine for me for Accenture this quarter, in fact, they were pretty strong, when you look at the total new bookings, that decline of 6% is telling. The bigger part really is in managed services. Accenture has consulting services and then managed services, which are a little more long-term in nature and a little more stable. Managed services portion of those bookings declined by about 10% versus this time last year, and that's a little bit of a yellow flag. It means some of the headwinds we're seeing out in the larger economy. Companies pulling back on spends, some of the trouble that Accentures had with procuring federal contracts in this age of cost cutting at the federal level and maybe some peel off as companies use AI more on their own to further their objectives, that picture might be coming together in a way that suggests that Accenture future revenue might be a little less than investors were expecting. Ricky Mulvey: Well, that's the multibillion-dollar question for Accenture here. What does the AI boom mean for this company? Does it mean that consulting work is easily outsourced to the chatbots? Does it mean that these companies need to pay young, bright college grads to show them how to use large language models? I'll pose that question to you, Asit. Do you think the AI boom ultimately helps or hurts Accenture here? Asit Sharma: I think it's going to ultimately help Accenture because we have to remember this company plays at a really high level across the world, has business with Fortune 500 companies, Fortune 1,000 companies, lots of sovereign governments around the world. It is extremely high tech in terms of its consulting, but it might mean that Accenture is going to have to be a bit more of a focused company and a smaller, leaner company in the future. This is the largest consulting concern on the planet. I think they've got a future at the higher levels of AI spend, but we might see some of its traditional business erode some in the coming years. I would not be surprised. Ricky Mulvey: Right before we move on to our next earnings story, Kroger, I think it's worth pointing out this note from our Chief Investment Officer, Andy Cross, to members of Motley Fool, pointing to the total yield for this quarter at about $8 billion on dividends and buybacks. That's significant for one quarter of about $200 billion company. Ricky Mulvey: David, let's move on to Kroger. You get to talk about Kroger twice this week, you lucky duck. A few highlights for me were that identical sales without fuel, so their comparable sales excluding fuel, up more than 3%. That's pretty significant for a grocer. Earnings about even from last year, and while the street is excited, this seemed like a fairly pedestrian quarter to me, but anything stand out to you? David Meier: Yes, and unfortunately, it's something that the company didn't really do a lot of highlighting about. I dug in a little bit and looked at how much they're expecting to spend in capital expenditures on new stores and maintenance of stores, as well as their free cash flow number. What I backed out is they're expecting about 13% growth in their operating cash flow. Now, for a company the size and the maturity level of Kroger, that's a pretty big deal. That increase in cash flow gives them significant options, which is good because that's what they need. I wish they would have highlighted that a little bit more. I get that same source sales is what people really want to see. But, yeah, to me, that's a really good sign for them. Ricky Mulvey: There's a lot of weirdness with Kroger right now. They had a longtime CEO Rodney McMullen leave fairly abruptly earlier this year. Not a lot of communication around that. How they're using money for buybacks, especially after the failed acquisition of Albertsons, is something that they haven't, in my opinion, been super communicative about as a former shareholder of Kroger. Nonetheless, stocks up 7% this morning. Maybe it's those buybacks. What do you think investors are so excited about? David Meier: The buybacks are definitely a nice to have. But I will say this. Last quarter, their identical sales came in at half a percent versus about 3.2% for this quarter, and as you said, management upped their full year guidance for the identical sales. With all that's going on, what we are seeing is stores are becoming more productive. That is a good sign. Because again, this isn't a big chain. They're not going to be knocking it out of the park in terms of opening up new stores. They sold off their specialty pharma business, so there's a lot going on, but for investors to see that stores in their arsenal are being more productive, I think that's what they're hanging their hat on today. Ricky Mulvey: Let's wrap up with Darden, which is the parent company of Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse. Same store sales up 4.6% for this big restaurant chain. Asit, we've heard about spending pullbacks. Apparently, it's not happening at these value oriented chain restaurants. What did you see in the earnings? Asit Sharma: Ricky, I thought that Darden did a pretty good job of keeping people coming to the restaurants. It's actually not that easy and not every chain which is operating at a lower price point is being successful at this as Darden is. I loved that the company was able to hold its bottom line. You would think with a 10% increase, which is what they generated this year on revenue, they would probably increase earnings by maybe close to the same amount. Actually, earnings were flat. What they did was to absorb some costs in the cost structure, but that allowed customers to keep coming. They ran some nice promotions in the Olive Garden franchise. Not surprisingly, LongHorn Steakhouse also had an appreciable jump in same store sales, 6.7%, very close to Olive Gardens, 6.9% the restaurant chain. Businesses, restaurants, which can pull people from the higher dining segment down, are going to succeed in this environment. Not surprisingly, their fine dining segment actually lost 3.3% in same store sales. All in all, a really good job managing expectations of consumers, managing costs, being able to keep this going. The investors who are watching this industry, the restaurant industry, they really want companies to maintain their traffic. Those are the ones that will be rewarded in terms of share price until we get over this hump in the economy. Ricky Mulvey: Yeah, we've seen declines not just at Ruth's Chris, which is Darden's fine dining chain, but also at Maggiano's, which is at, shoot, I forget the name, but it's the same parent company of Chili's. It's Brinker International. There it is. As we wrap up, quickly, Asit, Olive Garden, offering the buy one take one deal after five years, it means customers get a meal to go along with their sit down meal. Is that bringing you to an Olive Garden, yes or no? Asit Sharma: Sure, buy an entree for six bucks, take another one home. I'll take it. I'll be there. Ricky Mulvey: Up next, how AI is changing the way that we invest. Stay right here. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Ricky Mulvey. How is AI changing the way you invest? Up next is a portion of our members only podcast. It's called Stock Advisor Roundtable. Brian Stoffel caught up with Motley Fool co-founder and CEO Tom Gardner on an episode titled, "Market Volatility: Tom Gardner's Playbook" to discuss how artificial intelligence has changed his process and the broader implications for all investors. Brian Stoffel: The Motley Fool and Stock Advisor started as as a newsletter, the Fool started in 1993. Now, if you were starting it today, you just pointed out some things that would be different. But let me just focus on if you had to give an elevator pitch for how your style of investing has changed from 1993 to today, what would that elevator pitch be for how it's changed? Tom Gardner: The biggest change would just be deepening my understanding and enjoyment of studying companies. I think when I started investing, and we grew up, obviously learning from our father, and then David found Peter Lynch's books. We read those books and really had an earnings driven focus at companies, and a long term earnings driven, those great charts that Lynch had in his books overlying EPS growth with stock price performance over long periods of time. I think I was very earnings driven and very quantitative in my approach in the 1990s. Then I started to see, wow, something's happening that's different at Costco than at other companies. Costco actually was saying, Jim Sinegal, we interviewed him out there in a Costco store in Seattle. I think that's where I flew. Maybe it was in Florida actually, Mack will remember that and correct me on this, but I will say that I just remember Jim Sinegal telling me something along the lines of, we do not want to grow more than 20% a year. But that wasn't my orientation, my thought process about business. I was like, of course, you want to grow, 40%, 70%. If you could grow the top line, 100%, three years in a row, think what would be happening in your company. But in the case of Costco, the idea was, we want this to go on for the next five decades. Every time we grow much more than 20%, that'll rattle and shake up our operations and systems. Every time we grow less rapidly than that, we're losing relevance in the marketplace. We really target a stable growth path. Then from interviews and conversations like that, I really learned about how companies are run and stopped just thinking about the earnings call, the quarterly numbers and started to think more about the larger story, the culture, the leaders, the strategic side of the business. Since we had mentioned AI, now AI's ability to score those elements allows me to see much more than just an interview with the CEO or a company I've dug deeply in myself to look across the whole array of businesses and find patterns that match up with my business thinking developed over years. I think I was very earnings driven, still multi years, but probably looking out two years with valuations. Now I'm much more looking out four plus years with valuation and looking more deeply at businesses. Brian Stoffel: Let me ask you this because it's a perfect segue into our next question. You were talking about AI. Now, a lot of investors focus on financial metrics, and you said yourself, back in the early 90s, that was you too. It's still you today, I imagine, to a certain extent, but AI can help in evaluating those things. But you also emphasize things like you just said Jim Sinegal, leadership, culture, things that are harder for AI to capture. I would call these soft variables. Do you think AI will ever be a substitute for qualitatively looking at such soft variables? When you said it could score, are you saying that it could score and capture the same thing that you remember Jim Sinegal saying, or is that something where there's always going to have to be a human element? Tom Gardner: The first thing I'll say is it's hard to know what's going to happen. I guess that is always true, but with a technology that is more transformative than any technology in human history, trying to understand what the world will look like even four years from now is getting more and more difficult. I would say that right now, the large language models actually weren't good. These weren't computational models. You put math into any of the platforms, and they would do poorly with it. You'd start to say, well, I can't rely on this. This is a joke. Then we began hiring AI engineers at the Motley Fool. I started to see a different thing happening, which is that when you have a collective group, let's just say, of 10 people who have worldwide level expertise in AI engineering, and they're collectively prompting using enterprise licenses and buying massive amounts of data, getting API fees and just buying access to data that we wouldn't even normally have thought to assess as an investor. We know that we can go deeper and deeper. There are people that are measuring back in the day with Iomega at The Motley Fool, How many people are in the parking lot of CompUSA? There's endless amounts of information. How do we organize that information? How do we score that information? How do we weight those scores to get an overall score? How do we adapt that with new information coming in real time, not just about that company, but about its industry, about everything in the marketplace? The butterfly flaps its wings in the Yangtze River, and it has a massive effect somewhere else around the world, but you just can't string together all of the knock on effects of that. It's a never ending game. That's the first thing I'll say. It is a never ending game. However, if you could get all the information about all the communications, if you can get endless amounts of information on the CEO and CFO of a public company, could you score them as leaders? You could, relative to others. How easily can you get that information? Obviously, who knows what is and isn't private. I'm not even going to go in that realm. I'm just going to say there is less information on things like leadership. Our leadership score in our AI Moneyball database is a lower quality score. It just doesn't have enough information, whereas you can process 10,000 10Ks in 20 minutes and create more and more sophisticated prompts to go into those filings that are consistent across all companies. Therefore, scoring is much easier. You're comparing one income statement to 5,000 other income statements over the last 10 years, and you can see amazing patterns will emerge from that. You are correct that most of what we're working on right now is the structured data that comes from financial filings of public companies. Because those filing standards are different in different countries, it does take time for us to go out to the 40,000 businesses, but that is exactly what we're planning to do. Wherever there's consistent data structured, and there are significant amounts of it, you can get signal. You can score things. But when you start getting into the more qualitative areas, as you're noting, it really comes down to how much information you can get. I would say that right now, Meta has an incredible ability to score human beings, based on the massive amounts of data around qualitative soft subject matter in our lives. That's weird, scary, unusual, different, and every quarter, we're moving into a new world faster than most of us can realize and understand. That's why I think it's a very good idea to follow the leaders of AI on whatever social platforms or wherever you can get that access to their information, whether it's YouTube interviews, whether it's being out on Twitter, whether it's being just Google searching. But start to lock in on the top 10 minds and see what they're saying. They're expressing something that does capture the word terrific. It's amazing and it's terrifying. It's a thrilling ride. It's exciting, but I'm scared. They're so far ahead of us, with massive amounts of data and billions of dollars to put against it, and they're showing that it's not about, it hallucinates. Those things are true. These tools aren't perfect, but they're much more powerful than anything we've ever had in human history, and we're wielding them right now with not a clear path for how they're going to be regulated, and I would say that the best place to be in answering that question is, you should assume that everything can be evaluated and everything can be scored. I think that it's just a question of whether you can get that information to score those soft factors, and right now, in some places there's a lot of information and in other places there isn't good structured data, so you're just using what you can to come up with scores that are pretty brittle and fragile in terms of whether they're going to be consistent and reliable. Brian Stoffel: Let me ask you this then. The question is, will AI improve retail investor returns? When I ask this question, I'm not saying, will it improve retail investor returns for The Motley Fool, because you've just outlined all the ways that you plan on harnessing the best of what AI can have to offer. I mean writ large retail investors. Do you think AI will improve returns? Why or why not? Tom Gardner: What I assume you're asking by covering the full scope of retail investors is that there's some investors that love to do research and would like to dig into filings and make their own decisions, but then the majority of investors would like to either get guidance on what to do or just to index. You're asking about the full range of all of them, and I would say that I do think returns will improve, but they're mostly for those cost benefits of automation. We'll get greater efficiency across all of these systems of financial advice and money management. We'll also see, I think, a reduction in fraud in certain areas. It will be harder and harder for companies to be misleading or to get financial advice from somebody that does not have your best interests at heart, because it will become easier and easier to score every financial management company and to understand. One of the ways to think about this is, pick an area of life where you would really like to see major progress in cost reduction for you as a customer and effectiveness of the solution that you're getting. One place that everyone could go would be into the medical world where a lot of medical work and our systems are antiquated. In a lot of cases, when you're going to get a treatment and care for a condition you have or a serious matter of a family member, you're left out there trying to figure out what it is and all the healthcare system costs, and it's just a mess. There isn't the efficiency to bring down costs, and there isn't a clear pathway to understand these are the best three options that you have that are not being told to you by a doctor. If we think of those areas of life where wouldn't it be nice if we had that, I think when it comes to financial management, people would like to know that it's clear what types of returns they might get, and they can simulate things and understand clearly, if I do have a 15-year holding period, what happens if I trade every three weeks versus what happens if I actually just put money into index funds and maybe buy some stocks and just let them go for five years or 10 years, or 15 years? What does that simulation look like if I'm not paying transaction costs or I'm not paying capital gains taxes throughout all the rest? I think we'll get more and more visual data for investors to understand. That will help the aggregate returns when you can more easily see what risks and what opportunities you have out there. But mostly, I think, the benefits will come from continuing cost reduction to where a lot of your financial investment work will not come with a lot of inconvenience or a high cost. If there was one thing I could see that would be negative, it's that we will see, I believe, the creation of more and more digital assets. Less and less tangible assets, even just the collapse in the value of commercial real estate that we're all seeing from office buildings collapsing. The value of physical assets continues to decline. You want high gross margin businesses with high rates of return on investment driven by knowledge and technology, and that's where so much of the wealth is going to go, and that is really a winner-takes-most category. I think we're going to see a lot of wealth inequality and a lot of digital assets that people don't realize are very speculative very soon. The NFT craze, we'll see a return to more and more crypto and NFT investing that will hurt the overall returns because there's such a speculative element to it. But all net-net, I think, we'll get better returns. It won't be material. It's not going to be like- Brian Stoffel: Sure. Tom Gardner: Person by person, but I think the cost management will help. Ricky Mulvey: Members of Stock Advisor and higher level services can check out Stock Advisor Roundtable on Spotify or The Motley Fool app. As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. Our personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and are not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provide for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. Up next, radar stocks. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Ricky Mulvey, joined by Motley Fool senior analysts, Asit Sharma and David Meier. Asit, this weekend on Sunday, Tesla is expected to roll out full self-driving Model Ys in Austin, Texas. Seems like we're pretty close to that full self-driving roll-out that we've heard about for years and years. Asit Sharma: We are, Ricky, but what we're looking at is probably a limited release by Tesla. No surprise, Tesla tends to over-promise and under-deliver. What I'm reading is that we're going to have something which is almost like a geofenced environment, and it's very limited. Here you have Tesla which is competing with the likes of Waymo, which has really come into this space in a big ways. They are now moving on to the East Coast. I want to point out here too, there are some under-the-radar competitors who seem to be actually further along to me than Tesla is, Amazon's Zoox. If you haven't heard of this, or Zoox, not sure how to pronounce it, they're actually working on commercial production of vehicles in a big way. They have a facility which can produce about 10,000 vehicles every year, and they're having a commercial launch in Las Vegas in the near future. I think the competition is actually ramping up, and I'm very curious to see if this is just a bit of a flash in the pan introduction, or if Tesla is really going to show up this weekend. Ricky Mulvey: Quickly, David, before radar stocks, are you buying that widespread self-driving services are just around the corner? David Meier: No. It's difficult. There's a lot of work that needs to go into this for it to be widespread, as opposed to in a certain geographic location, but it'll get here. It will. Ricky Mulvey: Let's wrap up with radar stocks. Each of our analysts will pitch a stock. Dan Boyd, our man behind the glass, will hit you with a question, backhanded compliment, or occasionally an insult. Asit Sharma, what you got this week? Asit Sharma: Ricky, Ferrari, symbol RACE is on my radar screen. Actually, this company has been on and off my radar screen for years to my detriment. It is a market-beating company. One of the things which is important to know about Ferrari is that it sells its vehicles, of course, that really high price point, €180,000 and above, but it controls production and the release of its high-end models, and that keeps demand up. This is a premier brand that is only benefiting from the explosion of interest in F1. It operates at a 29% operating margin. You see that premium for luxury goods. Just a very well-run company, invests a lot in R&D, as you would expect. About two-fifths of the workforce here at this company are engineers solely. This is a company that has staying power through all environments, and it's a little bit recession-resistant, because the price points are so high. Unfortunately, the super wealthy are a lot more able to withstand recessions than your average Joe. This is a company I think investors should watch, and the cars are pretty fun too. Ricky Mulvey: Dan, a question about Ferrari. Dan Boyd: Asit, what kind of car do you drive? Asit Sharma: The Toyota Camry. But hey, I like my Camry. Dan Boyd: Not a Ferrari, though. Asit Sharma: Not yet. Ricky Mulvey: David Meier, what you got this week? David Meier: I have CAVA Group. I will say, I was a CAVA bear for a little bit, and mainly because of the price. Look, this company is just flat accelerating. Opening up new stores, new stores are becoming more productive. There's lots of cash flow being generated. They're profitable. The world is their oyster, pardon that pun. But the thing that has come down is the stock price. We're paying a much more reasonable valuation today than we were, say, six months ago, and that's because the valuation metrics have literally been cut in half. From that standpoint, I'm putting it back on my radar. We want to dig deeper and see why the company is going to be successful over the next 10 years, and we'll see what happens from there. Ricky Mulvey: Dan, quick question about CAVA. Dan Boyd: David, what are you ordering from CAVA? David Meier: My go-to is falafel. I love their falafel. Each time I go in, that's what I get. But the great thing is, they have so much variety that anybody can get almost anything they like. Ricky Mulvey: My beef is the variety. There's too much, there are too many decisions to make when I get to the front of a CAVA. Dan, what you putting on your watch list this week? Dan Boyd: Ricky, I cannot afford a Ferrari, but I can afford some spicy lamb meatballs. Let's go CAVA. Ricky Mulvey: Let's do it. That's all for this week's Motley Fool Money radio show. I'm Ricky Mulvey. That's Asit Sharma and David Meier. Dan Boyd mixes the show. Thank you for listening. We'll be back tomorrow. Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Asit Sharma has positions in Amazon and Costco Wholesale. Dan Boyd has positions in Amazon and Costco Wholesale. David Meier has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Ricky Mulvey has positions in Kroger, Meta Platforms, and Spotify Technology and has the following options: long August 2025 $73 puts on Kroger. Tom Gardner has positions in Meta Platforms. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Accenture Plc, Alphabet, Amazon, Costco Wholesale, Meta Platforms, and Spotify Technology. The Motley Fool recommends Cava Group and Kroger. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Checking In on the Economy and Some Stocks Worth Watching was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
