In this episode of Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing, Motley Fool contributors Tyler Crowe, Matt Frankel, and Lou Whiteman discuss:
-
Samsung’s big profits and big stock drop.
-
Amazon’s $25 billion debt deal.
-
Lockheed Martin goes underwater.
-
Are defense companies ready for the changing landscape?
-
Mailbag: How to navigate the sunk cost fallacy?
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.
Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a “Double Down” signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same “Total Conviction” signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue »
A full transcript is below.
Should you buy stock in Samsung Electronics right now?
Before you buy stock in Samsung Electronics, 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 Samsung Electronics wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut are built for long-term growth and 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 $371,842!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005… if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,244,783!*
That performance is why people listen. With a track record of beating the S&P 500 by 4x, Stock Advisor offers a distinct advantage. Don’t miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built for the long haul.
*Stock Advisor returns as of July 19, 2026.
This podcast was recorded on July 7, 2026.
Tyler Crowe: Meeting lofty AI earnings expectations today on Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. Welcome to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. I’m your host, Tyler Crowe, and today I’m joined by longtime fool contributors, Lou Whiteman and Matt Frankel. We’re going to talk about defense companies later in the show, talking about some of the big moves that are happening in the industry lately, and as well as hitting led to some questions.
But before we get started today, hyperscalers, those builders of AI, they just keep spending more and more, and semiconductor companies are posting record results, but even that doesn’t seem to satisfy the market. Samsung Electronics recorded by what I think any measure would be a resoundingly successful quarter. But the stock dropped so much that it caused a circuit breaker suspension of trading on the entire Korean composite stock price index today. Those losses have carried more or less over into the semiconductor space today, as many memory and processing chip manufacturers are down as of this morning. Guys, how on earth did we go from profits up 19 times compared to this time last year at Samsung to stop the entire Korean stock market.
Matt Frankel: A lot to unpack there. A lot of these stocks were priced for not necessarily perfection, but to report blowout quarter after blowout quarter. When you expect a blowout and you get, as you call it, a resounding successful quarter, it’s enough to make the stock drop. We’ve seen this with several recent earnings reports and not just in the memory space, and several of Invidia’s reports look fantastic and the stock ends up falling. In Samsung’s case, yes, you’re right. They are expecting a roughly 19 times increase in quarterly operating profit. But that’s being driven by AI memory demand. Investors seem to be questioning whether or not the AI memory chip rally has gotten ahead of itself. It’s not just Samsung.
If you look at Micron, for example, even before today’s sympathy drop, it was down by about 30 percent since earnings, and that was just a couple of weeks ago. The company also slightly missed revenue guidance, it’s not a flawless quarter. There’s also SK Hynix U.S. listing that raised billions and billions of dollars of capital, and that could be adding pressure as there’s just more memory stock supply in the market right now. The bottom line is you’re right, Samsung didn’t have a bad quarter by any definition.
But the amount of good news that has been priced into these stocks seems to have gone a little bit too far. On the market, it’s holting the market thing, it’s important to note that two companies, SK Hynix and Samsung make up about 53 percent of the Korean total market index. This one company can hold to market. But look, even with this, Samsung is up 150 percent to others are up more. This seems 100 percent rational to me. The market is forward looking. We’re always looking to the future. This is either going to last forever or it’s not and if it’s not going to last forever, at some point you should take profits. I think that’s what we’re seeing today. I don’t think there’s really too much to read into it more than that. I think investors are looking at the same world that I think the rest of us are and saying, Look, this has been great. I don’t know if it can go on forever. I’m going to buck some gains.
Tyler Crowe: The thing that’s hard for me to also rationalize when we’re talking about the expectations game of all of this is that even by most standards, this is looking like from a fundamental basis, like you look at the underlying numbers of capital investment and all that stuff. It still looks incredible. It’s almost hard to fathom that this can’t meet the appetite of what Wall Street is expecting. Amazon earlier today announced it was raising about $25 billion in debt. At very favorable rates, I mean, of course, it’s Amazon. What else would you expect? This isn’t the first company to do it either. I mean, Alphabet’s tapped the debt and equity markets this year, and nearly all hyperscalers from Alphabet to Amazon, Meta, you name it. They don’t even raise an eyebrow, or even CFO doesn’t even seem to lose a bit of sleep when they’re increasing their annual capital spending budgets, seemingly every quarter. How do we rationalize these wild stock moves and what we’re saying, playing the expectation games when the fundamentals still look surprisingly strong.
Lou Whiteman: First of all, on Amazon. For these big companies, the focus is always on cost of capital. You raise money at the most cost-effective way you can. As you said, they’re getting very favorable rates here, 40-year money at less than 150 basis points above U.S. treasuries. That is a really good deal. Given their massive cash needs, forget AI. What about logistics, everything else? Given the cost here, they’d be crazy not so I don’t think this says anything other than they are a large company doing as they should.
As to the bigger question, though, what’s going on here? Is it sustainable? Why is there this dissidence? I think I got to credit Jeremy Grantham here, the very smart investor. This is his point, but it’s such an important one. All of these companies, all of the Mag 7, all of the hyperscalers, Amazon, Alphabet, all of them, got to where they are by jumping into a niche and dominating. The collective learned experience from this group of leaders is the pathway to access is to build your empire, claim your turf as quickly as possible. No one is backing down on AI in that scenario, especially since AI has been presented as the Holy Grail, the quest, like no other. You are not going to back down unless you have no other choice. Are things getting out of hand? Maybe, probably, but I really believe that these companies, it will continue until they can’t. The debt raise here is a reminder there are still plenty of levers to pull, and so they will be continuing.
Matt Frankel: Just to throw some additional context behind that, this isn’t just a $25 billion capital raise from Amazon. This is in addition to the 65 billion or so they’ve already raised this year through bond sales. That’s 90 billion from Amazon this year. Alphabet’s raised about 85 billion in debt over the past year. They might not be done. I saw one statistic that total hyperscalar bond sales are expected to reach about 300 billion this year versus 121 billion for last year. Lou’s right, these terms are very favorable, especially for 40 year bonds. They serve that extra purpose of not only low-cost capital, but locking in the rate for decades, protecting from interest rate fluctuations. The investor interest we’re seeing. All of these deals that I just talked about, the 85 billion in deals from Google, they’ve pretty much all been oversubscribed. It shows that any further capital raises this year are likely to not be a problem. Both these companies still have very low leverage ratios, at least on paper. These are massive companies. I mean, 0.4 to 0.7% debt to EBITA ratios is what we’re seeing here. The overall investment grade credit-rated average is about three times debt to EBITA. There’s a lot of cushion here.
At the same time, these are the first time these mega cap tech companies are really adding this type of debt to their balance sheets. The question of whether or not it’s sustainable, these AI investments are going to have to start generating high-margin revenue at a pace that satisfies investors, and now that’s vague for a reason. We don’t know what that means. But that’s what we’re going to need to see here.
Tyler Crowe: We’ll keep playing the quarterly expectations game because we do have second-quarter earnings coming up in the not-too-distant future here. Coming up after the break, we’re going to do some movers and shakers in the defense industry.
ADVERTISEMENT: Let Abercrombie handle summer with tea pieces made for days that don’t slow down. Their linen-blend henleys and woven shirts are easy layers that work from daytime plans straight into nights out. For everything in between, everyday shorts and relaxed denim keep outfits feeling easy but still refined. Shop Abercrombie in the app, online, and in stores.
Tyler Crowe: With the NATO summit happening this week in Ankara, Turkey, there’s likely going to be a lot of defense-related announcements this week, and in the coming days, because a bunch of CEOs get together, they start talking, deals start to happen. We got one of the first ones yesterday when Lockheed Martin announced it was acquiring Sonar specialist at its private company, Ultra Maritime, for 3.45 billion. Now, I get that, on a Lockheed-scale thing, is a relatively small deal. But does this change the company’s standing in the industry at all? Correct me if I’m wrong, Lou, but I think Lockheed is trying to diversify its portfolio, not be quite as reliant on the F35 fighter, which has been their flagship platform for a while.
Lou Whiteman: Lockheed Martin is arguably the most diversified portfolio in the sector, but the F35 is still a lot of it, about 30% percent of annual revenue. Lockheed does helicopters. They do missiles, missile defense, sensors, space. They do a lot of things, and a lot of those capabilities, especially in areas like sensors and electronics, came via acquisition. The primes have a long history of augmenting their R&D with bolt-on deals. That’s part of the trend here. This is an area where Lockheed isn’t as strong as maybe some other players. It is an area of interest among many other things. But it fits well in the overall trend, but I don’t think this is really a statement deal as much as it is opportunity.
Tyler Crowe: Lou, when you talk about bolt-on deals, and this is something I think I’ve seen you write about for, I don’t know, probably the past 10 years is the idea of there’s only so much acquisition that the companies like Lockheed can do because it’s a pretty consolidated industry when it comes to the defense primes and there’s certainly no place where Lockheed and RTX can join forces these days.
Lou Whiteman: Nor did I want to, really. But I think the way to think of this isn’t necessarily it’s hard to add platforms. Lockheed did it when they bought Sikorsky, so there are some opportunities there, but in that case, the seller just wanted out, so the Pentagon needed to get a good home for the helicopter business. What you are buying here is the R&D. What you are buying is access to technologies, access to the supply chains more than you are new platforms, and that’s where you see most of the prime deals.
Tyler Crowe: Matt, just for some concepts here, Lou was talking about helicopters, space, aeronauts and stuff like. I didn’t mention as much about submarines and sonar. In terms of Lockheed, where does this position them a little bit? This is moving into new territory here?
Matt Frankel: You’re right in the sense that this is a very small deal in the overall business. It’s less than five percent of Lockheed’s total annual revenue. It does significantly grow the position in anti-submarine warfare, and that’s really an area of defense where we’re seeing global demand rising right now. Undersea deterrence is a big priority of U.S. and NATO in response to what’s going on overseas in the conflicts we’re seeing.
Tyler Crowe: Certainly, anything that can be tied to intelligence sensors, seeking, stuff like that, versus metal-bending seems to be the trend here. One of the things I found most intriguing about this ultra maritime deal is, I think it hits at one of the lesser discussed stories in the defense industry, and that’s the changing priorities for defense spending. One thing that has become abundantly clear in conflicts this decade, whether it be Iran, Ukraine, elsewhere, is the emergence of small, cheap, single-use drones that are very effective against much more expensive equipment. Is this trend like a complete game changer or industry? I certainly think, though, or what do you guys? Is it that or just like a supplemental add on? Because the way I see it, drones and smaller equipment doesn’t require the massive supply chains and coordinated efforts to build the F35 or a gigantic aircraft carrier or something like that. The things that Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and the other defense prime contractors have specialized in for decade is taking 27 different subcontractors, pulling them all together and doing something epically large. Single-use drones, I don’t know. Fifteen, 25 pounds couple explosives in a remote control. It seems to really change the way we’re doing things here.
Lou Whiteman: The emphasis on cheap, single-use drones, it’s a clear shift in defense budgets. It’s happening alongside their traditional contract model, not necessarily replacing it. It’s a big line item in the Pentagon’s budget right now, but the traditional line items have mostly increased as well. I mean, the Department of War they have their drone dominance program that aims to buy hundreds of thousands of small attack drones, but they consider them consumable supplies, not as durable equipment. The Pentagon’s ordered about 22,000 of these, so it’s not a small order, and productions just ramping up. But these are different tools for different jobs compared to like fighter jets, submarines and missile systems.
Matt Frankel: There is some supply chain simplification, but I think if you look at some of these big companies like AeroVironment or Kratos, you will see that there is still pretty complex supply chains. These are at the end of the day, systems integrators, and you still need to do that work. It’s just at a different scale. The issue as an investor, a business story with these low-cost drones is what makes them intriguing to defense planners makes them, I think, less intriguing for investors, the cost. You really have to make it up on volume here. The bigger trend though, Tyler, and you mentioned this to move away from metal. The big trend here is the same trend you see in every other industry, digitalization.
The value is shifting from just the people who make the big objects to the ones that make them smart, the electronics. That’s the story behind the emergence of L3Harris. That’s the story of Lockheed wanting to buy Ultra Maritime. This will continue. The thing is and the real big trend here as far as whether it replaces the primes, I think it actually ends up working for them. The middle market is brutal for defense contractors. There’s almost not a middle market. It just gets consolidated out of business because it’s a tough business to survive. The biggest competitive advantage the Primes have is their ability to work on the timetable and communicate with the Pentagon. That is hard for especially a Silicon Valley start-up to learn. Most of these companies will not be independent in 5 to 10 years. The successful ones, there might be one or two new companies that come out of it. Most of them will be part of bigger portfolios, less successful and will be sold for parts, but I think this is just continuing a 20- or 30-year story in just looking to smarter rather than just powerful big mammoth equipment.
Tyler Crowe: To the portfolio, shuffling, moving around thing, just an anecdote, and it speaks to that industry in general. I have an uncle that works on basically sonar electronics for the Navy, and that particular project has, I think, moved to five different defense primes at any given time, and it really shows the hot potato nature that one moment it could be a part of one portfolio could be part of the other. There seems to be a lot of shuffling around and optimization of assets. I wouldn’t be surprising to see a lot of, like you said, the smaller middle market people either getting gobbled up or sold off for parts and we’ll take a little bit of this here and then sell off the rest.
Lou Whiteman: The one I think interesting thing too here, you have so many companies even there’s one that’s really popular in underwater uncrewed vehicles. Lockheed just put a valuation multiple on these. They’re paying about four times sales for Ultra. Which I think it’s interesting now as an investor to compare that to some of the public company valuations out there. May suggest that a lot of the future growth is priced in.
Tyler Crowe: I feel like you want to name a company here. Do you want to name the shame or?
Lou Whiteman: No, there’s a lot of them. Let’s just leave it at that. I think as an investor, you should always look at the cons, though.
Tyler Crowe: Coming up after the break, we’re hit some podcast questions.
ADVERTISEMENT: People who are psychopathic just don’t intrinsically value other people’s welfare that much. Every interaction is about, like, what can I get? What can I get out of this person? What can I get out of this situation? That’s why there’s so much manipulating and lying exploitation is it’s because people, most of the time, are just tools to get whatever the ultimate goal is. All of us know somebody with psychopathy.
ADVERTISEMENT: To hear the science behind who actually does the most harm, check out Episode 1293. It might change how you see everyone around you.
Tyler Crowe: Everyone, quick reminder, if you want to get your question read on air, go ahead and email us at podcasts at fool.com. That’s podcast with an s at fool.com. Just remember, keep it Foolish, keep it short, and don’t ask for try to any personalized advice because we certainly can’t do that without getting in trouble.
Today’s question comes from Lisa. The question is, I just heard about the sunk cost fallacy. I’m a new investor to individual stocks, and I’ve been holding on to some stocks that have had significant losses. I’ve also been looking at some stocks with huge gains in my portfolio. I wonder what point do investors reinvest in companies that could gain money and still lose it. So far, I haven’t sold for loss, and I feel like I’d be opening up a can of worms for myself mentally. Thank you for the awesome advice. I listen to your podcast daily.
Thank you, Lisa, for the kind words. Matt, before you give your answer to Lisa’s question, why don’t you just give us a quick refresher on sunk cost fallacy for anybody who may not necessarily be as aware of it?
Matt Frankel: The sunk cost fallacy, it refers to letting money or effort that you’ve already spent influence a forward-looking decision. To put that in the context of what we’re doing here, what you originally paid for a stock has nothing to do with whether or not it’s a good investment today. Lou bought Rocket Lab for $3 a share. That has nothing to do with whether or not it’s a good investment at the current price. Only the current state of the business and its future growth prospects do. Psychologically, making a loss real by selling it is a tough hurdle to overcome. Honestly, it’s probably why I held on to Boston Omaha for two years longer than Tyler said I should have. It essentially serves to confirm a decision didn’t work out the way you wanted to, which can be difficult to accept.
Try asking yourself this question. If you had cash today instead of these shares of stock, would you choose to buy that exact stock at today’s price? If the answer is no, it’s probably a sign that you should go ahead and move on. Remember that selling today doesn’t mean that your original decision was wrong. It just means that the stock is no longer a good investment right now. It could 100 percent be the right move when it’s based on today’s information.
Lou Whiteman: Got a similar answer. For me, it’s always. I try and focus on the reasons I bought in the first place and ask myself if they’re still valid. If anything, time just gives you added data. You can maybe make a more informed decision. But if the reasons are still valid, whether it’s up big or down big, I try and hold on. If they’re not, then I probably should sell. It’s possible my original reasons to buy were wrong if something’s way down. I think, again, the additional time gives you data you should reassess. But I don’t personally let performance drive my buy-and-sell decisions. Most stocks I’m buying, I’m hoping to hold for a long time, in decades, not quarters. If things haven’t worked out in a year or so, say, that isn’t necessarily a reason to believe it can’t work out long-term, but you’d be crazy not to at least reassess and look at what has happened since you bought.
Tyler Crowe: This is a really relevant question too, for a lot of people because we’ve seen recently, single-stock investing has been quite volatile relative to times we’ve ever seen. We were just talking about at the top of the show, big moves and semiconductor stocks that are moving hundreds of billions of dollars on any given day. It can be extremely challenging to separate the business case. Which I think for most of us is the thesis that you buy a stock versus the price machinations in any given moment, the valuation.
That can be a hard bridge for a lot of people to cross or get over when it comes to investing is understanding, have the business fundamentals of why I bought this business still maintain and is what I’m seeing today more valuation-related than it is related to actual deterioration of business or management change or something that may materially change the trajectory of the business. As you’re thinking through these things, trying to find that separation of Is it stock valuation-related or is it business change-related, and finding the difference between those two can really help you make those decisions.
As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks to 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 is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. Thanks for producer Dan Boyd and the rest of The Motley Fool team. For Lou, Matt, myself, thanks for listening, and we’ll chat again soon.
Lou Whiteman has positions in Boston Omaha, Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, L3Harris Technologies, Lockheed Martin, and Rocket Lab. Matt Frankel, CFP® has positions in Amazon and Kratos Defense & Security Solutions. Tyler Crowe has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends AeroVironment, Alphabet, Amazon, Boston Omaha, Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, L3Harris Technologies, Micron Technology, RTX, and Rocket Lab. The Motley Fool recommends Lockheed Martin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
AI Expectations Hit a Fever Pitch was originally published by The Motley Fool