저자: The Motley Fool · 외국인
요약 보기
방송은 녹화 시점 나스닥이 6% 가까이 하락하는 등 증시가 크게 흔들린 상황에서 시작한다. 진행자 타일러 크로이는 패닉 속에서 평정심을 유지하고 장기적 관점을 갖는 것이 중요하다고 강조하며, 과거 코로나 폭락 때의 경험을 예로 든다. 이어 퀄컴의 실적을 다룬다. 이익은 대체로 예상에 부합했지만 가이던스는 보수적이었고, 메모리 비용 상승과 메모리 칩 확보의 어려움이 언급됐다. 녹화 시점 주가는 약 9% 하락했다. 출연자들은 데이터센터 건설 둔화 우려가 시장 하락의 더 큰 요인이었다고 분석했다. 또 퀄컴이 스페이스X와 맺은 계약은 실적에 반영되기까지 몇 년이 걸리며, 실질보다 과장된 기대에 가깝다는 시각이 제시됐다. 데이터센터 속도 조절이 메모리 가격 안정과 공급망 발전에 도움이 될 수 있다는 의견도 나왔다. 두 번째로 캐바와 더치 브로스의 실적을 다룬다. 두 회사 모두 매출은 20~30%대 성장을 이어가지만, 동일 점포 매출 성장률이 캐바 9%에서 3%, 더치 브로스 8%에서 5%로 둔화됐다. 고유가와 소비자 압박이 배경으로 꼽혔다. 녹화 시점 캐바는 약 10%, 더치 브로스는 약 16% 하락했다. 출연자들은 빠른 확장이 장기적으로 부담이 될 수 있다는 우려를 언급하면서도, 외식 기업은 기회가 있으면 공격적으로 확장하는 경향이 있다고 평가했다. 마지막으로 휴머노이드 로봇 기업 에이전시 로보틱스(AGILT)가 처칠 캐피털 스팩 합병을 통해 상장했다는 소식을 다룬다. 로봇 대여 모델의 비용 절감 가정이 지나치게 낙관적이라는 비판과 함께, 엔비디아, 아마존, 소프트뱅크 등 투자자 구성과 3억 달러 규모의 확정 주문이 긍정 요인으로 언급됐다. 다만 처칠이 과거 상장시킨 기업들의 성과가 부진했다는 점도 지적됐다. 방송은 투자 권유가 아니며 출연자가 언급 종목을 보유할 수 있다는 면책 고지로 마무리된다.
다듬은 글
Today is quickly turning into a day when it would be better to go for a walk. Investing with Motley Fool Hidden Gems starts now. Welcome to Motley Fool Hidden Gems. My name is Tyler Crow, and today I'm joined by longtime Fool contributors John Quas and Matt Frankel. Gentlemen, we had a lot of earnings reports to discuss today .
We will also handle IPO offerings. There's a lot going on in the market, but I think we need to change our plans a bit to start with, because at the time of recording, the Nasdaq is down almost 6%, and the S&P 500 and Dow Jones are also seeing significant declines of around 2-3%. I'm sure a lot of people are panicking a little when they see this.
One of the things we like to do on our shows is talk about long-term investing and staying calm in times of panic. So, just a quick note, what do you do when the market is having a really bad day and you feel like you need a break from it? I've talked about this on other shows and podcasts that when there's this kind of panic in the market, and you're right, Tyler, we're in a panic today.
There is no fundamental reason why all chip stocks should be worth 8 or 9% less than they were yesterday. I look at it and tell myself that today is a good day to do nothing. Historically, it has always been a good idea to wait until the situation stabilizes. During the COVID pandemic, my best investments were made during the initial crash.
This was the moment when everything calmed down and we saw what was what and what the pandemic actually affected and what it did not. So when that happens, I like to do something, you know, mindless. I'll go wash my car, walk the dog, and just try to clear my head to gain a better perspective. Yes, to quote Jack Sparrow, up is down.
I must admit that I once lived without access to the Internet and did not check my wallet for up to 6 months. These were some of my best days as an investor. Seriously, we won't remember today's daily moves, or even why the stock market fell, probably in just 3 months . Let me just say that I have a large cash position that I am itching to invest while I wait for a correction.
So I might be able to use it in the near future. We have a lot of financial results to discuss today, and that's where we want to start, specifically Qualcomm. I don't know if we can say Qualcomm caused this massive chip sell-off, but the company's shares were down 9% at the time of recording. Profits were roughly in line with expectations.
The forecasts were somewhat cautious. Listen, what is the most important conclusion from this situation ? It's safe to say that Qualcomm shares would have fallen regardless of the results, given the reaction of the rest of the market . However, I think that investors are paying attention to some stabilization in this part of the business, which is rather average.
When it comes to its long-term growth engine, the company is betting on data centers, and that is where the question mark comes into play today. Is it about changing the political landscape and slowing down the construction of new data centers? So much of what we have in the stock market right now is based on the assumption that demand will outstrip supply.
This is to keep margins high and so on. Qualcomm is betting heavily on this, but is that assumption now being challenged? This is the engine of growth for the future. So I think that's what investors are reacting to . Yes, and it was quite a violent reaction. Such stock fluctuations have become quite common in recent quarters, especially around financial results releases .
We saw plenty of companies rising 15% or falling 10% after their earnings announcements. These have been some pretty crazy months financially. However, this case seemed to shake up the entire market. I don't know if they were referring specifically to Qualcomm, but they mentioned weaker forecasts. Was there a broader theme in this report that scared the market?
One thing caught my eye: they said memory costs are high and it's becoming increasingly difficult to get memory chips for our operations. Well, first of all, unlike many AI-related stocks that fell after earnings, the reaction here is logical. We have seen many companies lose money after beating expectations and raising forecasts.
In the case of Qualcomm, they significantly exceeded revenue forecasts. Their margins fell short of expectations, so profits were only slightly better than forecast. This is largely due to memory prices, which you just mentioned. And the forecast was really poor. However, some catalysts are coming. We can talk about the contract with SpaceX, which will only appear in the results some time later.
The truth is that the stock market would have behaved the same way today regardless . Qualcomm shares fell 6% after the close of trading yesterday. At that point, Nasdaq futures were rising. So it's not like Qualcomm alone is causing this crash. It's more about political concerns about what this means for data center construction.
In my opinion – without wanting to jinx it – a slowdown in data center expansion may even be a good thing. I want to raise one point since you mentioned the SpaceX deal. Historically, Qualcomm's main business has been supplying chips, primarily for mobile phones. They are a huge supplier to Apple. And sales of mobile devices have been a bit weaker recently.
This may change, however, as Qualcomm recently signed an exclusive agreement with SpaceX, which apparently – and there are rumors about a deal with Boost Mobile – wants to enter the telecommunications sector and become an operator competing with giants such as T-Mobile and Verizon. So I would just like to quickly verify this reality.
John, is this actually something that will significantly impact Qualcomm's sales? I'm tempted to say it's more hype than substance; looks good in the press release, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Well, if there are any specifics here , we won't see them for a few more years. That's because SpaceX wants to be a hybrid satellite and cellular service provider, building thousands of base stations using Qualcomm technology.
This won't start until next year, and then it will take a long time to implement. This is essentially laying the foundation for 6G, and we don't expect that until around 2030. This could be something important for Qualcomm in the future , but it assumes SpaceX operates smoothly, and even if it does , it won't deliver significant business growth for shareholders for several years.
Concluding our discussion about Qualcomm, we will move on to more financial results in a moment . But finally, I have a quick 10-second question for both of you: I want to make sure I'm not going crazy. Many people are reacting to the election changes by claiming that data center development will slow down, as many Democratic candidates have promised moratoriums and there is a clear political push to slow them down.
I, however, argue that this could be beneficial and healthy for data centers. In the short term, computing power prices will likely rise, but suppliers will also gain time to develop their supply chains instead of rushing through numerous bottlenecks. Is this a crazy claim or a reasonable one? Well, we keep talking about bottlenecks in the data center sector.
And it's not just about memory. We have problems with chip production, labor, energy, and many other shortages. Now there are additional concerns about the consent of the spatial development commission for the construction of these facilities. So a slower pace of construction could help achieve market equilibrium with all these constraints.
This could make memory prices more affordable, which would be great for consumers. Nintendo had to raise the price of its Switch console precisely because of memory costs. So such benefits could be passed on to consumers. The build would become more predictable and stable, instead of the current race where everyone tries to guess who will win and who will lose in the AI race.
Let me put it this way: if this race ends , it will be good for the industry, but temporarily bad for investors because we will see huge changes in company valuations when we have to reassess profit margins. We knew this would happen someday, but it may come sooner than many expected. This is an idea I've been thinking about lately .
I think it might make sense, but we'll see how it goes in the coming quarters. After the break, we will focus on further financial results, in particular those of quick-serve networks . It's not just AI stocks that are having a rough day today. I mean, the overall market is a bit down, but even non-AI companies aren't having the best day today.
Two companies that released results before the market opened were Cava and Dutch Bros, depending on how you pronounce it. At the time of recording, Cava shares were down about 10% and Dutch Bros. shares were down about 16%. Both of these quick-serve networks are growing relatively quickly. They have a large scale .
The economics of this particular business model look pretty good in both cases . So, are today's share price declines another case of both companies failing to live up to the high expectations for their shares? Have you found any disturbing signs in their financial reports that made you raise your eyebrows?
There are reasons for these declines, and it's not just about valuation. Same-premise sales growth rarely lasts as long as it did for these two companies, and now we're starting to see the first cracks. Cava's same-premise sales growth has fallen from 9% to 3% over the past year . In the case of Dutch Bros.
from 8% to 5%. We are seeing some pressure on consumers and a lot of uncertainty. Well, it's less tempting to drive to Cava for lunch when I can make it myself because gas prices are, you know, $5 a gallon. You know, you're pressed on all sides. However, it must be admitted that both companies are doing very well considering the current conditions.
Both continue to grow revenues in the 20-30 % range. Their valuations were simply too aggressive for the uncertainty we see in the economy right now. Yes, I agree with your point of view, Matt. Same- premise sales continue to grow for both companies. However, customer traffic in both cases has essentially come to a standstill.
Profits result from price increases. There is a ceiling to this, especially in the current circumstances. I think that's what investors are paying attention to. Cava just reached a milestone by opening its 500th restaurant. It is from these new locations that most of the growth is coming. That's good.
Profit margins at the restaurant level at Cava have declined slightly. This is a bit disturbing. But let's look at Dutch Bros, which plans to open 250 new locations next year, mainly in existing markets. Investors fear one thing: since traffic in stores has stagnated to some extent , will opening new stores in the same areas result in a decrease in the number of customers per store because stores will start taking sales from each other?
This is something that could impact profit margins. This is an issue that worries investors. I must admit that looking at Cava, the company is still valued at around 100 times earnings. The planned doubling of the number of restaurants by 2032 is quite an expensive affair. Let me put it this way: looking at Dutch Bros., currently valued at 2.5 times sales and 37 times projected earnings, with new stores opening so quickly, it's starting to become tempting to me.
One of the most memorable moments in my observation of the restaurant industry was reading Peter Lynch's book, "One Up On Wall Street." He devoted a very long fragment to the Boston Market chain, which was not a typical fast-food restaurant, but was close to it. It emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s and was a spectacular story, somewhat of a failure, because it was one of those restaurant companies that grew too much, too fast, and could n't keep up.
I ask this because both of these companies were market darlings that were growing at a rapid pace. I wonder if a slight slowdown – similar to the AI industry and limiting the development of data centers – wouldn't be healthier for the entire environment. Would a slightly slower pace for a few of these companies actually be a healthier decision in the long run ?
I know that would drastically change the valuation of the company, but I think when you look at these fast-growing restaurant companies, it's often the ones that grow a little slower but at a more sustainable pace that end up being more successful in the long run. Is it healthier? Yes. Will this happen?
Probably not. I don't see Dutch Bros abandoning their plan to open those 250 new locations we mentioned. Restaurant businesses are aggressive unless they have a real reason not to be. We've seen this happen many times, and sometimes it backfires . I invested in one such company, Zoe's Kitchen, which grew a bit too quickly and was eventually acquired by Cava.
And that is precisely why I was withdrawn from this investment. However, restaurant chains are known to be aggressive when they see an opportunity, and I don't blame Dutch Bros. for aggressively expanding into markets where they aren't yet present. The same goes for Cava . They continue to see sales growth in the same premises.
Although not at the same pace as before. They continue to increase revenues in a challenging environment. I assume they will take advantage of every opportunity until there is a real reason not to , and I don't see one yet . I would add that operational complexity plays a key role in the rapid expansion of this industry .
I would say that Dutch Bros' business model is less complicated than Cava's because it's a beverage company. This is a pretty simple menu to implement. That's why I think Dutch Bros. has the advantage here. They also have the slight advantage of selling an addictive product, caffeine. Not that that's a bad thing.
I love caffeine myself, but, you know, the addictive nature of it helps a bit . After the break, we'll move on to robotics and some new companies going public . Listen, robotics is a topic that has been intriguing us lately. I know the three of us have been talking about this, and everyone I know at The Motley Fool is scratching their heads trying to understand robotics.
She seems really, really cool. We see all these videos of humanoid robots doing amazing things, from countless companies in the US, China, abroad, and everywhere else. However, translating this into investable ideas proved a bit more difficult. Mainly because the options are still few or not directly related to it .
But that's changing, as today a new company operating directly in the humanoid robotics sector, Agility Robotics, with the symbol AGILT, went public via SPAC. Okay, we had a chance to take a quick look at it. The company had support from Nvidia. It went public through Churchill Capital Corp via SPAC.
When you started analyzing it and looking at the company for the first time, what were your initial impressions? What did you like about it and what didn't you like? Well, I don't like most of them. That was fast. Let's start with the economics of Agility Robotics itself. I believe this is a trend that will continue to grow rapidly.
I think Tesla will be the company that ultimately brings this whole industry to life. But if you look at this company and what they're proposing, they claim they can deliver a robot to your factory or something like that. They can sell it directly, providing service, or offer a "robot as a service" model.
You pay an upfront fee and then maybe $8,500 a month for that service at your factory. They say it will save companies maybe $100,000 a year, you know, that's an estimate. They base this comparison on the assumption that the robot works 20 hours a day, which is its full capacity. So full availability of a robot working two 10-hour shifts for which you're paying someone $30 an hour.
These are really very optimistic assumptions . I don't think it would actually save the company that much money per year. I think it will be much, much less. At that point, the company will ask: is this something I really want to experiment with since it's unproven? I think it will be difficult to sell, and most of Agility's results assume business scalability, which is expected to bring profits.
On a small scale it will not be very profitable. So I think there are a lot of reasons not to like Agility Robotics right now . Well, I mean, I could partially take the opposite position. Tyler mentioned that they are supported by Nvidia, specifically their venture arm, NVentures . Their investor list looks like a list of companies that would use such robots.
Amazon is one of them . I'm talking about warehouse automation, and no one needs it more than Amazon. SoftBank is an investor, Foxconn is an investor, Sony is an investor. The list could go on. So they have a pretty good lineup of companies behind them. They solve a serious problem for some of these companies.
Industrial automation takes this to the next level . This has been around for some time. And don't worry too much about SPACs. These aren't the SPACs of 2021; this one has a valuation of $2.5 billion, but it makes sense. They already have $300 million in confirmed orders. This is not revenue, but confirmed orders.
The robot is expected to be available at the end of next year. It works based on Nvidia technology. So the cooperation between them is great. There are many promising aspects to this. I know, the SPAC merger story can be pretty ugly, as we've discussed on many shows and as some of us have seen in our own portfolios.
But this is not the SPAC of 2021. Here we have real orders. There is real quality here and important investors who will gain a lot if all goes well. I will also add that this is a SPAC introduced by Churchill. In addition to this company, they introduced six other companies to the stock exchange. Six transactions were finalized.
The four oldest in this group have lost between 80 and 97%. The two newer ones are Inflection Quantum Computing and the nuclear company Oklo, and neither of them currently generates significant revenue. Therefore, I would say that Churchill's track record is not the best, even by SPAC standards. Certainly, the robotics industry is still in its infancy, so there will be many interesting ideas that look more like science projects than real businesses, which is a bit like throwing darts at a board.
Certainly the companies that support this and place orders want this to work and I think they have high hopes for it. As we approach the final minute when we think about robotics, do you have your eye on any stocks in this sector? Give us a 10-second description of what it's about . Quickly I would say it's a big player, like Amazon.
They will gain a lot from the robots they develop and implement, but it is also a well-established, profitable business worth having in your portfolio. When it comes to robotics, I don't favor pure players in this industry, especially those without revenue. I prefer to have an established player who is essentially an option for future robotics development .
How about something in the utilities and infrastructure sector, Tyler? If we deploy these robots on a large scale, they will need system memory, and I think we already have a shortage of it. If this continues, the problem could get even worse. As always, people featured on the show may own the stocks they discuss, and The Motley Fool may have official recommendations about our guest.
Therefore, do not buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content adheres to The Motley Fool's editorial standards and is not endorsed by any advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and are for informational purposes only . For full commercial information, check out our episode notes.
Thanks to our producer Dan Boyd and the rest of The Motley Fool team. On behalf of John , Matt, and myself, thank you for your attention and see you soon.
댓글 0