Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

2.1K Followers

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

On July 24, 2026, Synaptics Inc (SYNA) shares fell 3.9% today, closing at $113.00. This decline is notable, especially considering the stock's 52-week range of

On July 24, 2026, Pegasystems Inc (PEGA) shares rose 3.1% today, closing at $26.84. This price is significantly lower than the stock's 52-week high of $68.10 an

On July 24, 2026, RingCentral Inc RNG shares rose 25.1% to a current price of $48.31. This significant uptick comes amidst a 52-week trading range of $23.59 to $50.14.

GF Value™ verdict: The current price of $48.31 is 25.4% above the GF Value™ of $38.53, indicating that the stock is overvalued.GF Score™: RingCentral has a GF Score™ of 73/100, which is considered above average, suggesting it has potential for higher long-term returns.Insider activity: Insiders sold $3.1 million worth of stock in the last 3 months, without any buying activity. Is RNG Overvalued or Undervalued? The current price of RingCentral Inc RNG at $48.31 is significantly above the GF Value™ estimate of $38.53, which means the stock is currently 25.4% overvalued. This overvaluation presents a potential risk for current shareholders, as the price may need to adjust to align more closely with its intrinsic value. GF Value™ is GuruFocus' proprietary measure of intrinsic value, calculated from historical trading multiples, past business growth, and future performance estimates.

The GF Valuation label indicates that RingCentral is "Modestly Overvalued," suggesting that while the stock has seen substantial price growth recently, caution is warranted regarding its sustainability. Investors should consider whether the current price accurately reflects the company’s future growth potential and profitability.

How Does RNG's Valuation Compare to Its History? Metric Current Historical P/E (TTM) 38.6x 57.5x Forward P/E 9.8x N/A Currently, RingCentral's P/E ratio (TTM) of 38.6x is 33% below its 5-year median P/E of 57.5x. Additionally, the forward P/E of 9.8x indicates a more favorable outlook for future earnings. This P/E analysis aligns with the GF Value™ verdict of the stock being overvalued, as the current valuation metrics suggest that while the stock price has increased, it may not be justified by its earnings potential.

What Does RNG's GF Score™ Tell Us? Metric Rating GF Score™ 73 Financial Strength 4/10 Profitability 4/10 Growth 6/10 Valuation 9/10 Momentum 9/10 The GF Score™ of 73/100 indicates that RingCentral is positioned above average in terms of overall performance potential. The strongest aspect of the score is its Valuation and Momentum ratings, both at 9/10, highlighting the company’s recent price movement and relative valuation compared to its own history. However, the weakest areas are Financial Strength and Profitability, both rated at 4/10, which may indicate underlying concerns about the sustainability of its financial health and profit margins moving forward.

What Are Insiders Doing with RNG Stock? In the last three months, insiders have sold $3.1 million in RingCentral shares, with no reported insider buying during this period. This selling activity may suggest that those with the most intimate knowledge of the company's operations are taking profits or expressing concerns about future performance. The lack of buying may also indicate that insiders do not see sufficient value at the current price levels, which could be a red flag for potential investors.

What This Means for Investors Based on the GF Value™ assessment, RingCentral Inc RNG is currently overvalued. With a significant premium over its intrinsic value, potential investors may want to exercise caution and look for more favorable entry points or evidence of sustainable growth before committing to the stock.

For the complete analysis, visit the RingCentral Inc RNG stock page. You can also explore the GF Value™ page for detailed valuation methodology, or use the GuruFocus Stock Screener to find similar opportunities.

Frequently Asked Questions What is RNG's GF Score™?

RingCentral has a GF Score™ of 73/100, indicating that it is positioned above average and has potential for higher long-term returns based on its fundamental aspects.

Is RNG overvalued or undervalued?

According to the GF Value™ assessment, RingCentral is overvalued, with its current price exceeding the intrinsic value estimate by 25.4%.

What is RNG's P/E ratio?

RingCentral's P/E (TTM) ratio is 38.6x, which is significantly below its 5-year median P/E of 57.5x, indicating that it may be trading at a more favorable valuation relative to its historical performance.

This stock alert was generated using automated technology and GuruFocus financial data to provide readers with timely and accurate market reporting. This content was reviewed by GuruFocus editorial team prior to publication. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected].

Levi Strauss is poised for continued outperformance, driven by robust sales momentum and a compelling valuation. LEVI's Q2 beat-and-raise, fueled by accelerated marketing and strong comparable sales growth, underpins my reiterated buy rating. The company's focus on its core brand, high-teens growth in value-oriented segments, and ~60% gross margins support a bullish thesis.

245 Followers

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - July 24, 2026) - WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Futu Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: FUTU) between May 24, 2023 and May 27, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 25, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Futu securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Futu class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/futu-holdings-limited/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 25, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Futu was not in compliance with the requirements of the China Securities Regulatory Commission (the "CSRC"), including because Futu continued to conduct securities business, public fund sales business and futures business in mainland China without obtaining the requisite licenses or approval; (2) as a result, Futu was reasonably likely to face regulatory penalties, including the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and other penalties; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Futu's financial results were overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Futu's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Futu class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/futu-holdings-limited/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

-------------------------------

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/306478

Source: The Rosen Law Firm PA

Ready to Announce with Confidence? Send us a message and a member of our TMX Newsfile team will contact you to discuss your needs.

Contact Us

Shares of Apple (AAPL +3.52%) climbed to near record highs on Friday, as investors applauded the iPhone maker's relatively modest artificial intelligence (AI) investments.

Image source: The Motley Fool.

Apple's conservative strategy is looking smarter by the minute Hyperscalers and other tech giants are spending staggering sums to build out their artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure networks. For just two examples, Amazon and Alphabet are planning to spend a stunning $200 billion each in 2026 alone.

Today's Change

(

3.52

%) $

11.31

Current Price

$

332.97

Investors are beginning to question whether these massive capital expenditures will produce the type of returns they've grown accustomed to. Moreover, fears are mounting that the AI boom could be expanding into a bubble. Bubbles eventually burst -- and often lead to a crash.

You don't always need to spend money to make money Rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars in a futile attempt to keep pace with the latest AI advances, Apple is partnering with other AI leaders to bring the products of their massive spending to its customers.

Apple has partnered with Alphabet, Nvidia, and OpenAI to bolster the AI features on its iPhones and other devices. It's also working with Chinese internet giants Alibaba and Baidu to offer AI-powered services in China.

This collaborative approach is prudent and cost-efficient. In turn, savvy investors are beginning to appreciate Apple's AI strategy more each passing day.

Joe Tenebruso has positions in Amazon. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Baidu, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends Alibaba Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

In this episode of Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing, Motley Fool contributors Travis Hoium and Lou Whiteman, along with Motley Fool analyst Emily Flippen, discuss:

Tech crashing.What we’re watching.Netflix earnings.History of tech.Gemini delayed.Radar stocks.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.

This podcast was recorded on July 17, 2026.

Travis Hoium: A new AI model is crashing the market. Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing starts now. Welcome to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. I'm Travis Hoium, joined today by Lou Whiteman and Emily Flippen. Guys, we got to talk about the topic of the market, at least over the past 48 hours or so. That is tech stocks dropping like a rock. This is everything that was on fire, Emily, over the past six months, over the past maybe 18 months. Now they've suddenly fallen back to Earth. We're talking about memory, we're talking about equipment makers. There's a number of different catalysts here. This could be the AI model Kimi that has come out of China. It could also be earnings season. When you're seeing these stocks fall, what is in your mind as an investor?

Emily Flippen: The first thing that comes to mind is trying to understand what is the core driving principles that's resulting in a sell-off that we're seeing across the board. Trying to reconcile Netflix and Micron, you're probably scratching your head thinking to yourself, what do these companies have in common? The short answer is, they're very popular with retail investors. In fact, if you look across the board, a lot of the stocks that are down massively are very popular with retail investors. We've seen a lot of people flood into companies, whether that be for fear of missing out, whether that be just part of the hype cycle. As we start to get earnings from these businesses, as people's fear starts to grow, then you have people who never really had a thesis in the first place for buying in start to panic.

When you buy into a company without a real thesis for why you're holding that business, hopefully for the long term, then it's really easy to panic whenever the market starts to sell off. I think the across the board selling off that we're seeing, it can be a result for Micron of memory shortages, for Netflix, as a result of earnings, for IBM. Good Lord, who knows as a result of IBM, whether it be internal struggles or a sell off in the software industry in general, but all of these things are different dynamics, all being driven by the same core principles, which is I'm an investor, and I'm afraid. I'll tell you what, the market is made up of humans. It's made of people who make emotional decision. I think I see personally a lot of emotional decision making happening this week.

Lou Whiteman: It's fine, we never notice it on the way up. Micron is down, how much percent, but they're also trading where they did in early June. IBM is at its worst day in history, and it fell back to where it was in May. We take it for granted on the way up, and then we panic about it on the way down. It's not healthy investing. It's not fun. It's why I don't have any hair. But I think it's separate to the core principles of fine good companies and stick with them. This is just the market marketing. This is day to day fluctuation. Like I say, it's a ton of fun on the way up, and it's a ton of despair on the way down. Trying to normalize and maybe not get too caught up in it on the way up, and not get too caught up in it or lay down is probably the way to go. But hey, you tell my emotions that because that's not easy.

Emily Flippen: There's actually a lot of good psychological evidence to your point, Lou, that shows investors feel losses twice as worse as they benefit from gains. If the stock goes up 20%, that's great. You feel good about that, but you actually feel twice on average, worse when a stock goes down 20%. You feel those losses a lot more. It's understandable if a lot of people are listening to us today feeling really afraid, feeling literal pain from what's happening in their portfolios.

Lou Whiteman: If you think about, by definition, like if I buy a stock, the stock goes up, I'm not really affected by that. Like, that's why I bought it. But then when it goes down, I think on a deep psychological level, we are wired to notice fear more, but also just common sense. It's like this isn't going to script. We are now having a moment where things aren't going to script.

Travis Hoium: There's a lot of threads that we can pull on here. I want to get to things like leverage in the market and some of that short-term dynamic that we've seen with options. I know there's a ton of leverage in South Korea, for example, which is impacting some of those memory stocks. But, Emily, you talked about earnings. One of the things that I have noticed with a lot of the commentary among that retail investing crowd, those are the people that we are talking to on a day-to-day basis is you see an earnings report from a Netflix or from a Micron, and you go this earnings report was really good. Why is the stock down?

I think this is a reminder of one, the market is a forward-looking mechanism. The market is thinking about what is the world going to look like 6-18 months from now? But taking an even longer-term view is where the winds come in, The Motley Fool style of investing, of long-term investing. There are lots of people who are thinking about the next month or the next quarter. The market is thinking about the next 6-18 months. Very few people have the ability to think about the next 5-10 years unless you're investing your own money. That's where there is Alpha to be had, but if you're doing then you have to read those quarterly reports in a little bit different way.

Emily Flippen: That's why some of the data I actually saw come out earlier this month was particularly heartbreaking to me, Travis. FINRA reported that there was more than $500 million in new margin, new debt, margin accounts, mostly driven by retail investors at banks across the United States. That's a massive increase. There's a lot of reasons for that. Obviously, inflation is high. The value of our market is higher. All of these things can push up the average balance of a margin account. But also, most importantly, we've expanded the amount of financial securities that retail investors have access to, options trading being a really big one. More and more people, in my personal experience, just speaking anecdotally, tend to view investing like gambling. Those two things are very different in my mind.

What you're doing as a retail investors, if you're trading on margin, if you're putting up stop-loss orders, if you're participating in the prediction market, or trying to buy individual stocks, the same way you would a betting account, then that is a concern because your No. 1 advantage as a retail investor, as an individual person is that you are beholden to nobody but yourself, which means you can have as long term a view as you want. Banks and other financial institutions systematically have shorter-term views because they’re held to shareholders or stakeholders, and that’s part of that equation.

Travis Hoium: If you're running a fund, somebody can pull their money out of your fund. You’ve got to outperform this quarter this month, or I'm going to take my money out and put it elsewhere.

Emily Flippen: Why would you, as a retail investor, as somebody just listening to this podcast, take away what is your number one biggest asset, which is your long-term view, and start to trade based off of short-term noise? It's how you set yourself up for failure. How you set yourself up for success is by taking the broader points. In fact, this short-term trading usually offers buying opportunities for investors who are prudent enough to hold through these downturns.

Lou Whiteman: Morgan Housel is, I think, saying this the best, that your advantage is playing your game, and that's what Emily is talking about. By default, I don't give analysts a hard time when they miss because their job is to look three months into the future. My job is to try to find companies that are strong enough that whatever may come in the near term, that they will survive and thrive long term. The one I love to point out is all the banks sold off when Silicon Valley Bank went down. A lot of self-recommendations or hold recommendations were issued. That made sense because the next 3-6 months were going to be really nasty for the banks, and that is what those holds or sells were reflecting. But I don't have to worry about 3-6 months. I can say this is a good institution that's going to be around, I think, for the next 50 years. It was a buying opportunity for me, even if they were correctly calling it a sell for near-term momentum. That's the mindset that I think works. But again, this sounds so good on paper. Then a stock that you just bought is down 20% the next day, and it's much harder to execute on.

Travis Hoium: Speaking of stocks that are down, when we come back, we're going to talk about Netflix and why shares were down double digits early this morning. You're listening to Motley Fool Hidden Gems investing.

ADVERTISEMENT: In 2026, I’ve been trying to improve my health, but here’s the thing I found: if you’re not tracking your blood work, you’re basically flying blind. That's why I'm excited to partner with Rhythm. Rhythm is the world's easiest blood test to help you learn what's happening inside your body. Takes about two minutes at home, no needles, just a sleek and painless collection device that sticks on your arm. Once your blood is collected, you put the sample in the package that Rhythm provides, and they will even arrange to have it picked up from your front door. I did my first test about a month ago. The Rhythm kit came in the mail. I drew my blood in about two minutes. Couldn't be easier. The results were live in about two days, and their portal makes it easy to understand what's going on. They've even got an AI health coach to help explain your results and recommend actions. Since I got my labs, I've changed the way I've eaten. Pounds are starting to come off, and it's easy to determine if something like a GLP-1 is right for you. I'm not one to run to the doctor so the fact that I can do this at home and get fast results is what has me hooked, and my second kit is already on the way. Rhythm is only $79 per month, a fraction of traditional lab testing, ships right to your door, and you can cancel anytime. Right now, Rhythm is offering our listeners 15% off for your first month and free shipping at rhythm.com/fool. That's Rhythm with one h, rythmhealth.com/fool for 15% off your first month and free shipping. Stop guessing, start testing rhythmhealth.com/fool.

Travis Hoium: Welcome back to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. One of the big earnings reports for this week, and we've got a ton that's coming over the next two weeks, but Netflix caught a lot of investors off guard. Stock was down double digits early this morning. We're recording on Friday morning, down about 8.6% as we're recording right now. Emily, as you look at the numbers, is there any major red flags here, or is this just Netflix becoming the bigger, more mature company that has to deal with regular big company stuff that they all do?

Emily Flippen: How about a third option, which is, I think the reaction. Now maybe I'm overstating it. I think the reaction has nothing to do with its maturity or the numbers it was reported. I think it has a lot to do with the commentary management provided about what investors should be looking at. We saw a very similar reaction just over two years ago when Netflix reported first quarter earnings, I believe in 2024, and despite the fact that the results were good, the stock was down because they said that they were going to stop reporting their paid subscriber numbers. Everybody panicked and was like, crap, we've been using that as a barometer for success. Now you're telling us not to look at it, presumably, to make up for what will be poor subscriber numbers. Netflix, of course, has done well over the course of the past couple of years. It didn't really make a difference. But one thing they said this quarter, I think, could be causing the same market reaction, which is that they're going to no longer be reporting at least not to the same frequency, their engagement metrics. Again, the market is presuming here, are you trying to cover up poor engagement?

Travis Hoium: Does this also coincide with the Nielsen data is the one that I always think is interesting. Nielsen has said Netflix's market share of TV time is either flat or maybe even declining, depending on the month you're looking at it, and YouTube is the one that's taking share.

Emily Flippen: Exactly. The market is extrapolating this and saying, we've been using engagement now as our barometer. It looks like engagements going down. You're giving us less information. In Netflix's defense, part of the logical reasoning, I think, they're providing for this is that competitors, to your point, like YouTube, don't actually report a lot of this stuff. Use third-party data, and you can get an idea for it, but it's not like Alphabet or Google is out here telling us all the details about the most successful YouTube shows on their platform. They don't necessarily need to. I think Netflix is looking at itself and saying, why are we jumping through all these hoops just to be judged by investors when our success, in this case, they want people to look at revenue and operating profit should speak for itself.

But I have to say, as an investor, just on a personal level, I like Netflix. I think Netflix will probably be fine. I have to roll my eyes because I went back to that 2024 letter, where they explained that they were taking away subscriber numbers, and one of the things they said investors should look at in exchange was engagement metrics. They said, "Success in streaming starts with engagement. The more they watch, the more they stick around, they recommend Netflix more often, and place a higher value on the service. This is more information than any of our competitors provide, and we expect to provide even more over time." Within the period of two years, they have once again changed the goalposts here for investors, and that irritates me.

Lou Whiteman: Emily Flippen, bringing receipts.

Travis Hoium: That was sick.

Emily Flippen: They put it out there for everyone to read. You expect us to read it. I'm reading it.

Travis Hoium: Usually, if you're going to do that, you got to take that letter down before you have the new conference call.

Lou Whiteman: You know what's great, too, is because the whole issue here is short attention span, and Emily says, I have a attention span here. But look, moving the goalposts is really annoying. I think Emily, like you said, there's probably a reason that they are, and maybe it's a lesson for all of us that CEOs say what works at the moment, which I guess we should know. But to that point, when someone tells you who they are, believe them. Netflix has been screaming from the top of the mountain for a while, things are changing.

I almost think the problem isn't them, it's us. It's investors, because we are just inevitably going to be slow to realize that things have changed and change our own expectations. Last year, they tried to buy WBD. I heard so many times, they don't need it. It's a want, not a need. Well, this is the smartest management team in streaming, I would say. They don't strike me as the type that are doing something on a whim. I think they were saying, this could really help our business. Our business is changing. They apparently kicked the tires on Roku. These are not signs that business is as normal is working the way it used to.

The latest where we had reports just this week that they're thinking about bringing back free trials. As a rule, companies that had free trials and then got rid of free trials and then bring back free trials, that's probably a sign that they have to bring back free trials. We’re moving the goalposts, yes, but the reality is the Netflix of now is a more mature company, it isn’t growing the way it used to be, and it’s on us, the investor base, to realize that. I don't want a victim-blame here because, but really, this is a great franchise. I still think the best management team, I think they'll figure it out, but just the company of before is not the company of today, and I think that is what we have to recognize.

Emily Flippen: Can I draw attention to one thing that also graded my gears? It sounds like I'm such a Netflix bear. I promise I'm not, I'm pretty neutral on the company today. But I will say they have been expanding a lot of their offerings to your point, Lou. I think they’ve been trying to acquire some opportunity here, but they’ve also been changing the platform, especially with things like gaming. They have been pushing this at users. I know because I'm on one of those active users.

Lou Whiteman: It's so annoying, isn't it?

Emily Flippen: It is annoying. But here's the thing, if that was being successful, what did you expect to get an update from management, and when I read through their letter, there's virtually no commentary around their pushing to gaming. There's a lot of commentary around live sports, live events, and how that's driving sign-ups. That's great, I really appreciated that color because that's obviously costing them a lot of money up front to get these deals. But obviously, gaming isn't working, so what's the plan there? I want an update for management, I don't have that.

Lou Whiteman: Reid and Ted, if you're watching, we actually went on the Netflix one day to watch something, got caught up in this FIFA game that we couldn't get out of with our Roku remote. We just ended up watching something on Peacock instead, so learn.

Travis Hoium: The strange thing, I appreciate the push into sports because I think that could be potentially a big thing, allows the media to a higher price point. But the fact that Netflix is I think, fumble that, they had the Christmas game last year in my local team, the Vikings was on. I don't usually watch football games live because we have YouTube TV. I have kids, we're eating dinner at the time the game was on. By the time I turned it on, I couldn't find it because it just vanished into thin air. That seems like the thing that's going on with Netflix is they would just lost sight of who they are, which is the company that was leaning into abundance. You can watch anything here at any time. Now, if you're looking for that abundance maybe YouTube is the better place to go.

The other question that I wanted just pose to you guys a little bit is, is Netflix having an identity crisis in what they're supposed to be for the consumer? When I say this, I’m taking this a little bit from my personal experience, but we have kids, and they do not have free rein of Netflix. Netflix has a lot of garbage on it. There's a lot of good content, and this is the problem with having a million shows. They also don’t have free rein of YouTube, but they do have free rein of Disney+. They can go on there and find a number of great shows to watch. Where do you fit in a world of YouTube, which is everything, and Disney Plus, which is maybe more of a spook or an HBO Max, which is going to be high-end content, or Apple TV? Emily, is this like they don't quite know where they fit in that world because they used to be everything and now everybody's specializing.

Emily Flippen: Well, the competitive landscape has certainly changed, and to your point about their own confusion about what's next for them. You can draw straight to comparison with businesses like YouTube versus Netflix, where a Netflix, they sell you an ad tier. Again, I mentioned I'm on the ad tier. I pay a monthly subscription fee to access the ad tier in a very inflationary environment where Netflix has raised prices, and everything else in my life costs a lot more, too. There's also a lot more competitive streaming services that also try to charge me to access their ad tier. I pay all this on a monthly basis without even having full rein over the content that I'm watching without seeing ads.

Now compare that to a proposition for YouTube, I pay nothing to go onto YouTube. Now, I have to watch a few ads when I get on there, but that's the same experience that I have on all of my other streaming services, and YouTube is free. I do think some of the engagement we're seeing, yes, there's a difference in quality content and directionally like the type of audience that Netflix is targeting, all of that is up for discussion, but I would say the bigger dynamic we're seeing is probably cost-cutting broadly, especially here in the United States, but even globally, in the face of higher inflation, lower wages where people cannot afford to have 500 streaming services, they instead go to what is quite literally the free option. Maybe that's the reason why Netflix is bringing back free trials is because they're recognizing that they have to be more competitive with free platforms like YouTube. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future, Netflix just installs more ads and makes their ad tier free in order to attract better engagement.

Lou Whiteman: Maybe so. Travis, to me, your story is just back to this point where it isn't the Netflix of old. I think that what they have to do is have enough compelling content that I think what the ad tier here is what, 8.99 now or something, that I just have it on inertia. Again, I think they're well capable of that.

Travis Hoium: Their turn is still really low. I think it's 3%, industry is pleading.

Lou Whiteman: But again, as investors, we can have this company, and we can enjoy it, and it can be a good company, but it's not going to be the growth story it was. That just takes it full circle for me. They are what they are. They aren't just conqueror of all worlds, the way we thought a few years ago. It's still a well-run company that can make money.

Travis Hoium: It's going to be really interesting to see what they do in the future, especially as a company like NBCUniversal, which happens to have theme parks is now spun off, maybe acquired by somebody at some point in the future. That could be a really interesting asset if they were interested in Warner Brothers Discovery. When we come back, we are going to talk about how fast the world is moving these days. You're listening to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing.

ADVERTISEMENT: Everyone's talking about AI, but here's the insider tip. Business success hinges on people who know how to lead projects, align teams, and deliver now more than ever. The PMP certification, how the ambitious get ahead. Get PMP certified. Learn more at pmi.org.

Travis Hoium: Welcome back to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. In this section, we like to have a little bit of fun with investing. I want to bring history into this once again, give a little bit of a quiz. But the idea here is to show how fast things are moving these days, why? What seems really obvious in 2026 may seem completely antiquated by 2027 or 2028. But let's go back and look at how slow things happened years and decades ago. Let's start with the auto industry. Emily, do you know when the first Model T was produced?

Emily Flippen: I know I have to go back a long time here because I have to ask you, Travis, Model T, that was Ford, right?

Travis Hoium: Ford, yes.

Emily Flippen: First vehicle. Gosh, my dad is a U.S. history professor. This is going to be especially embarrassing, but I'm going to ask.

Travis Hoium: I'm not going to send him this episode, are you?

Emily Flippen: Certainly not. You would be ashamed. I'm going to say, I assume it's the early 1910.

Travis Hoium: Pretty close. Lou?

Lou Whiteman: One dollar. Now, I'll go 1905. I don't know.

Travis Hoium: 1908, so Emily takes this one. It's so interesting how not a lot has changed about the four wheels, the engine, obviously, the vehicles have gotten better. But that industry has not just fundamentally been disrupted. Since then, you could maybe argue something like Tesla coming in with a more vertically integrated business model. But the next major disruption, I would argue would be Uber. Lou, when was the first Uber ride? I'm going to actually demand a month here, as well.

Lou Whiteman: Gosh, da da da da, January, because they started at the beginning of the year of 2011.

Travis Hoium: Emily?

Emily Flippen: I want to say I'm at a disadvantage here because I'm pretty sure I wasn't even of legal driving age when Uber [inaudible] first.

Travis Hoium: Perfect. You can see what matters more here.

Emily Flippen: But I'm going to go maybe a bit earlier than what Lou is expecting. I remember using the app when I went to college in China in 2013. If I was catching on to it by 2013, then I'd assume it was at least around for a while. I'm going to do a one dollar on Lou. I'm going to say January of 2009.

Travis Hoium: Emily, you are very close. March of 2009 is the correct answer. One of the first apps on the App Store, I think that was when the second iPhone came out, right? That would have been 2008. I don't know the exact date of that, but that was really the thing that pushed them into developing that. It was Uber cab, originally. That brings us to autonomous vehicles because we went 100 years from the first mass market vehicle to the first ride-sharing app that caught on, and it caught on extremely fast. But the first autonomous ride with no driver, there was a safety driver at this point. Emily was in what year? If you have a month, I will give you bonus points.

Emily Flippen: I think it's probably much earlier than people expect. If we're talking about Uber and 2009-ish. I want to say it's maybe 2014, 2015, with a safety driver on existing roads. You said a month right, Travis? Let's go with May 2014.

Lou Whiteman: That's really close. I want to do just June 2014 to do that to you. I'll say May 2015. It's right around there somewhere, though.

Travis Hoium: Maybe, maybe I missed this caveat. The first commercial ride was December 2018. They were doing testing rides with safety drivers, but there was no one who could actually physically get in one unless you were working for Waymo, and that was the Waymo One. Let's go to computing. Lou has got a good memory here. When was the first Apple computer, the Apple I?

Lou Whiteman: I can go back to when I was in school for this. God [inaudible]

Travis Hoium: It looks like the Apple II.

Lou Whiteman: You're right. Apple I late ‘70s, '70, '78.

Emily Flippen: There's no way. It was that early.

Lou Whiteman: Wasn't it? It was.

Emily Flippen: My gosh. Well, I going to have to take the over on that. I think it was probably in the ‘80s. What's one day past what Lou picked? No, I'll go somewhere in 1980.

Travis Hoium: Emily takes a dollar. Lou, you are too late. It was 1976. The Apple II came out in 1977. Now, here's a question. This is really going to tell you how much you know about the history of computers. I'm going to say, when was the first Windows operating system computer? I will accept one of two answers.

Lou Whiteman: Who's this for?

Travis Hoium: Lou.

Lou Whiteman: Emily, for the record, I couldn't drive then if that makes you feel better. Windows originally came, I was in middle school. I'm going to say 1986.

Emily Flippen: Again, I'm embarrassing my family here. My husband works in cybersecurity, and he's a Linux developer. I'm trying to cross-reference what I know about what Windows took from Linux when Linux was developed. Remind me again what Lou picks some where in the 1980s.

Lou Whiteman: It's '86, I think, mid-80s.

Emily Flippen: Just to save myself embarrassment, 1989.

Travis Hoium: The first Windows-branded operating system was 1985. But the other answer I would have accepted was the original Microsoft operating system, which was Lou?

Lou Whiteman: DOS.

Travis Hoium: DOS. In 1981, the company that they acquired when Bill Gates promised IBM that they had an operating system that was in the works, and he lied through his teeth and created the company that we know today.

Emily Flippen: These questions feel a little bit like age discrimination.

Travis Hoium: But the fascinating thing here is this was between the 1970s, and I would argue even today, it's still the same companies who are dominating a lot of these spaces. Apple, Microsoft. Quickly, first iPod, Lou?

Lou Whiteman: God, this I don't know. Gosh, 1999.

Travis Hoium: 2001, Emily, you got to know this. When was the first iPhone?

Emily Flippen: You think I know that? When I was never cool enough to have an iPhone, or are you kidding me, I had a flip phone through all of high school? I'm going to say 2009.

Travis Hoium: 2007. I think it was earlier.

Lou Whiteman: It killed my Palm Pre.

Travis Hoium: Remember Uber launched in 2009. There was a bunch of different. I have friends who still love the Palm.

Lou Whiteman: I want the Palm Pre back.

Travis Hoium: The Internet is, I think, one of the most fascinating, partly because The Motley Fool grew up on the Internet. I believe it was 1994, that was started on the message boards and AOL. When did Prodigy launch its first dial-up service, Lou?

Lou Whiteman: Prodigy. We were a CompuServe family, so I don't know about that.

Emily Flippen: What is Prodigy and CompuServe?

Travis Hoium: This is before Netflix. This is before AOL launched. This was the first time I got on the Internet.

Lou Whiteman: Do you know if Prodigy was before CompuServe Vic or AOL? It was, wasn't it?

Travis Hoium: It was before AOL.

Lou Whiteman: I'm going to say 1985 again. That's just going to be my go-to answer for all these.

Emily Flippen: You're not going to let me embarrass myself any further.

Lou Whiteman: Embarrassed for Sofia.

Travis Hoium: It was 1988. I don't know exactly when we had it, but we had this for a few months. The interesting thing was, it was extremely slow. The first dial-up service, and it was extremely slow, very limited information. The interesting thing going back and looking at this was they were trying to figure out what the business model was. There was no putting credit cards on the Internet at that point. There was no, you know, SaaS business model, so you had a limit of 30 personal messages a month. I was just different.

Lou Whiteman: It was owned by AT&T? I think it was or something like that.

Travis Hoium: Maybe it was later on. Emily, when did Netscape launch?

Emily Flippen: If I'm comparing to Prodigy, I'm going to assume in mid 1990s. Let's say 1995.

Travis Hoium: 1994. Lou, this one is for you. I have a two-part question. When was AOL founded America Online founded as a company, and when was it actually named America Online?

Lou Whiteman: It was quantum computer service before that.

Travis Hoium: That's a good memory.

Lou Whiteman: I'm going to keep doing this. I'm going to say 1985.

Travis Hoium: Wait. Is that going to be for them?

Lou Whiteman: It was 1985. It was founded as Quantum Computer service, and then later renamed as America Online.

Travis Hoium: It's renamed in early ‘90s.

Lou Whiteman: 1991. It's just that one it was so interesting how influential they were, but it was one of these stories of a company that started doing something completely different from what they ended up being known for.

Travis Hoium: Nice little lesson here, Emily is? Just guess ‘85 for everything.

Emily Flippen: Got it.

Travis Hoium: A lot that happened in 1985. Let's run through these quickly payments because I think it's interesting how fast this has changed. Emily, the first check was written.

Emily Flippen: I would assume 1930s maybe.

Travis Hoium: Goes back about 2000 years.

Emily Flippen: My God.

Travis Hoium: A little bit of a trick question there. Lou, first credit card.

Lou Whiteman: It was probably a QU back then. Is that? The first credit card was the Bank of America card, which became Visa. I don't know. The ‘50s.

Travis Hoium: Your memory is really good on this. The Bank of America card was 1958, but that actually dates back to travel air travel cards. Deltas of the world, the Uniteds of the World, have been in the credit card business since 1934, goes all the way back to then, and then a few of these were consolidated into a diners club in 1950.

Lou Whiteman: That's where that came from.

Travis Hoium: But, Emily, the first digital transaction online happened in what year? If bonus points for the company, which you know that took the money. I know so many people said, Amazon would fail because people would never put their credit card attached to an online purchase. That had to be the late 1990s, I would imagine, so I'm not to go with Amazon in 1999. Lou, do you have a different guess?

Lou Whiteman: I would guess earlier that there was some weird payment 1985, I think.

Travis Hoium: I think my credit card, my underage credit card was online by 1999. 1994, and the company, I actually have a screenshot of the website that I'll share with you guys was Pizza Hut. Pizza Hut. Put your name.

Emily Flippen: What happen in Pizza Hut.

Lou Whiteman: Isn't that, too, the famous Bitcoin story where someone bought a pizza?

Travis Hoium: It was a pizza. I was going to ask you, the first blockchain transaction was 2009. That was the last one. But it's funny that pizza is the first thing that people want to buy online. When we come back, we're going to get a little bit into what's happening with Gemini and the new model from China. You’re listening to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing.

ADVERTISEMENT: What if the drink's pink and the cream's pink? It's no big deal. Just get the new strawberry candy plus frappe from our new McCafe Summer drinks range. Now at McDonald's. Available until 7 September. Price and participation may vary. Frap is not available on delivery. Subject to availability.

Travis Hoium: As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about, and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows The Motley Fool's 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.

Our final topic before we get to the stocks on our radar is Alphabet stock was down this week after Gemini said that they were delaying Gemini 3.5 Pro. Interesting that the stock is down. We also have this new model coming from China that's supposedly really good, Emily. Is this something or just the noise that we've been talking about in the market?

Emily Flippen: Unfortunately, I do think it's something, and I have to say it was only a couple of weeks ago that I think I'm on video, saying in reference to Alphabet losing a lot of their top AI leaders and engineers to companies like OpenAI, Anthropic. I said, I don't think this is a big deal. They don't need the most cutting-edge model. It's only a big deal, if say, I don't know, the Gemini Pro 3.5 launch is delayed, and here we are. Do think maybe there's something happening under the hood here, but I would challenge the assumption and say, CheerPoint, we see a lot of models coming online that are either open-sourced or highly competitive. Companies are spending billions of dollars trying to get the next best model. Does Google even need to be competing here? Maybe we should just call it a loss at this point.

Travis Hoium: Lou, isn't this a distribution game for them?

Lou Whiteman: So far it has been, and they've been really good at it. They have the consumer. But yet come to Emily's point, what if it doesn't matter? I asked Gemini. Gemini said, there's 2.5 million open source models right now, and hey, Gemini should know, right? Not all of them are good. Not all of them are safe. Not all of them have value. But we focus on these frontier models, and what if they're just science projects? What if they have some value, and especially with coders, and so that's why they're all the emphasis. But for most of the business and consumer enterprises, these free things are good enough. Now, that's scary, given all the spending, so I don't know if that's good news for Google, but I sort of wonder here. It's like, maybe we're focusing on the wrong thing.

Emily Flippen: I personally vows Google would let other companies spend the money to try to have the best frontier model, but I will say, so far, the data shows that actually open source models really aren't taking massive portions of enterprise spend, even versus their more expensive competitors. There's a lot of reasons for that maybe because a lot of the better open source models are coming out of China, and there could be security risks there. But companies that, add AI into their tech stack are generally sticking with these closed paid models, thinking that they're more reliable, they have better API access, operational things, including security that just make it more feasible. Now, that could change, but right now, we're not actually seeing open source AI models take away from the majority of enterprise spend, which is where the real big bucks are.

Travis Hoium: Emily, do you think that the thing to look at would be, is there pressure on these models from a cost standpoint, though? That seems like the elephant in the room is these prices are going up for a lot of these models, especially on the frontier. But if companies start cutting back and going, Hey, we got to spend less on AI, then the option is we'll do this cheaper model.

Emily Flippen: Yes. Much more on the throttling on that cost side, but I will say it's more likely that you move down to a cheaper model probably provided by a closed system moving to an entirely open source system. I'm not the chief technology officer at a company, though, so they can make the choices for themselves. But the security risks and the closed access, we have seen this play across software. There's always been open source alternatives for paid software, but enterprises still generally pay for software. I would imagine the same is true for AI models.

Travis Hoium: A lot of things I'm going to be looking for during conference calls during earning season. Like, what is that AI spend? Are you seeing ROI from it? Because that could potentially be the pressure on some of these AI companies as we go throughout the year. Let's end with stocks on our radar, and we're going to bring in Bart Shannon from behind the glass. Emily, what you got this week?

Emily Flippen: This week, I'm looking at Uber, of course, the ticker is U-B-E-R. I imagine everybody knows it, but it's on my radar this week because they're making a relatively large acquisition just under $15 billion of a Germany based-delivery company called Delivery Hero. They already had an economic interest, so it's not entirely surprising to the market, but the reason why it's on my radar is because it kind of seems like the food delivery land grab is over between the acquisitions that DoorDash has made over the course of this year, plus this acquisition from Uber, their investment into Southeast Asian grab, as well, further diversifying their exposure. It seems like a lot of these smaller players are their intention is really, to get scooped up. Their larger competitors that have built up scale. It's really hard to be profitable in the food delivery market, but DoorDash and Uber are continuing to show that they are the leaders when it comes to food delivery and profitability, I think is a smart acquisition from Uber. Bart, are you a Uber Eats user?

Bart Shannon: I am an Uber Eats user. But I'm also cheap, so I use it sparingly.

Travis Hoium: I happen to be a DoorDash user here, but I use Uber for rides. The whole Unified app thing, I almost fall on Lou's case here that unifying all these apps is not necessarily going to be the way to go. But I don't know, maybe geographically, it's going to work out for Uber. Lou, what do you got this week?

Lou Whiteman: Bart, I'm looking at TransDigm, Ticker TDG, and they're an aerospace parts supplier that for more than two decades now has somehow managed to generate software like 50% plus margins. The stock has been a huge winner over the years, up 5,000% in 15 years, largely by acquiring companies with patented parts that are hard to compete with and just charging airlines what they want for. This week, though, TransDigm called off its latest deal, a $960 million acquisition because the Department of Justice concluded it would create a monopoly on certain parts needed for the F-16. Pentagon wasn't happy about that. This is a real shift in tone from regulators, and it does make TransDigm's path forward harder. The stock traded off as a result, near 52-week low. I note that most of TransDigm's oversized profits through the years have come from commercial. Delta Airlines doesn't care if they need a part. I think the company's now sitting on about $10 billion in firepower to either find new deals or if the DOJ really does cut them off, we turn, I don't know, maybe like one seventh of their market cap to shareholders. TransDigm at a 52-week low historically has been a time to look at it, give them the track record. I'm intrigued.

Travis Hoium: Bart, what do you think about TransDigm as an option? I have thoughts on TransDigm. It's their name. It sounds like it would be the evil Mind Control corporation in the David Cronenberg movie. But then again, maybe that's a plus. It could be. You have one stock that's going on your watch list. You pick TransDigm or Uber.

Bart Shannon: I'm going Uber.

Travis Hoium: I think probably a good pick. TransDigm. Let's just change the name to something a little bit more fun. That's all the time we have for today, thanks to Lou and Emily and Bart behind the glass and Travis Hoium. We'll see you here tomorrow.

Robbins LLP informs investors that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: HTZ) common stock between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who suffered significant losses during the Class Period may be eligible to participate in the lawsuit and should contact Robbins LLP for information about becoming lead plaintiff.

Why Was Hertz Sued?

The complaint alleges that Hertz made materially false or misleading statements regarding its business, operations, and financial condition during the Class Period.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to disclose:

Hertz’s liquidity was deteriorating far more rapidly than represented, and the Company’s available liquidity was not sufficient to fund its operations and obligations for the next twelve months without resorting to a distressed, dilutive financing;the softness in the used-car market that defendants had characterized as “isolated to the quarter” and “transitory” had in fact recurred and was materially depressing the Company’s net depreciation per unit (“DPU”) and Adjusted Corporate EBITDA;because of the foregoing, the Company was likely to undertake a dilutive, distressed capital raise that would materially harm existing shareholders; andtherefore, defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and liquidity position were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.What Happened?

On June 24, 2026, before the market opened, and just weeks after assuring investors that the Company’s liquidity would be “sufficient to fund our operating activities and obligations for the next twelve months and for the foreseeable future thereafter” and projected year-end liquidity “north of $1.5 billion,” Hertz announced a massive dilutive capital raise. Through its wholly-owned indirect subsidiary, Hertz intended to offer $300 million of Exchangeable Senior First-Lien Secured PIK Notes due 2030, together with a concurrent share-lending offering of more than 37 million shares of common stock from which the Company would receive no proceeds, and simultaneously disclosed that “unexpected softness in the used car market” had caused losses on the sale of vehicles in May 2026 and would drive second-quarter Adjusted Corporate EBITDA down to a range of just $50 million to $80 million.

Investors were shocked. And on this news, the price of Hertz’s common stock declined more than 40% to close at $3.00 per share on June 24, 2026.

The very next day, the offering priced on still more dilutive terms, upsized to $350 million (up to $400 million) at a 6.75% coupon with an exchange price of approximately $3.58 per share, and with the borrowed common stock sold to the public at just $2.70 per share.

Who May Be Eligible?

The lawsuit seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz common stock from February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2026.

Investors who suffered losses during that period may have legal rights under the federal securities laws.

What Is a Lead Plaintiff?

The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed investor who represents the interests of all class members throughout the litigation. Serving as lead plaintiff is not required to share in any potential recovery. Investors who do not seek appointment may remain absent class members if the case proceeds and later resolves successfully.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the lawsuit about?

The lawsuit alleges that Hertz's available liquidity was insufficient to fund its operations and obligations and the Company would have to resort to a distressed, dilutive financing.

Do I need to join the lawsuit now?

Not necessarily. Investors may remain absent class members and still be eligible for a recovery if a settlement or judgment is obtained, subject to applicable legal requirements.

Does it cost anything to participate?

Robbins LLP represents investors on a contingency fee basis. Fees and litigation expenses are paid by defendants only if there is a recovery.

Contact Robbins LLP

Investors seeking additional information about the Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. securities class action may contact Robbins LLP by submitting an inquiry, emailing attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or calling (800) 350-6003.

About Robbins LLP

Robbins LLP is a shareholder rights law firm focused on representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. The firm has helped recover more than $1 billion for investors, obtained significant corporate governance reforms, and has represented shareholders in cases involving alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

"Companies have an obligation to provide investors with complete and accurate information so that markets can function fairly and efficiently," said Brian J. Robbins, Founding Partner of Robbins LLP.

To be notified if a class action against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260724932433/en/

Roblox (RBLX -0.10%), which encourages people to build and explore their own digital worlds on its gaming platform, will report its second-quarter earnings on July 30. Analysts expect its revenue to rise 11% year over year as it narrows its net loss.

However, Roblox's stock has still declined 60% over the past 12 months. Let's see why it dropped, and if it's worth accumulating before it posts its latest earnings report.

Image source: Getty Images.

Why did Roblox's stock sink? Roblox lets its users create games with a simple block-based system that doesn't require any coding knowledge. Its developers can monetize their games with features to earn an in-game currency called Robux. Its players can directly purchase Robux on the platform.

Roblox generates most of its revenue by selling Robux to its players, but it's also building an advertising business with integrated videos and in-game metaverse ads. Roblox's simplicity made it popular among tween users, who drove most of its growth during the COVID-19 pandemic. But as the pandemic passed, it focused on gaining more older and overseas users.

Today's Change

(

-0.10

%) $

-0.05

Current Price

$

47.50

But after peaking at 152 million daily active users (DAUs) in the third quarter of 2025, Roblox's user base shrank to 144 million DAUs in the fourth quarter and 132 million DAUs in the first quarter of 2026. Its total hours engaged also dropped from 40 billion in the third quarter of 2025 to 35 million in the fourth quarter of 2025 and 31 million in the first quarter of 2026.

That ongoing decline -- which it attributed to a seasonal post-summer drop, waning interest in viral games like Brainrot, international outages and bans, and safety-related reforms -- spooked its investors. The high costs of expanding its infrastructure, upgrading its safety features to protect minors, and converting its users' Robux back to cash will also keep it unprofitable for the foreseeable future. In other words, it hasn't yet proven its business model is sustainable.

Roblox's stock isn't cheap at eight times this year's sales, and its insiders have been net sellers over the past three months. Therefore, I suspect that Roblox will disappoint the market again with sequential declines in its DAUs and engagement hours in the second quarter. While its stock might look like a tempting contrarian play after its year-long decline, I wouldn't touch it unless those key metrics move in the right direction as it stabilizes its steep losses.

Leo Sun has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Roblox. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Securities Fraud Investigation Into Pentair plc (PNR) Continues - Shareholders Who Lost Money Urged To Contact Glancy Prongay Wolke and Rotter LL

, /PRNewswire/ -- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors that they have until August 28, 2026 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against  Hub Group, Inc. (NasdaqGS: HUBG) ("Hub" or the "Company"), if they purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between April 28, 2023 and May 11, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Get Help

Hub investors should visit us at https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaqgs-hubg or call toll-free (833) 538-3604.  Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to discuss your legal options.

About the Lawsuit

Hub Group and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. 

On February 5, 2026, the Company disclosed that its financial statements and reports for the first three quarters of 2025 should not be relied upon due to "an error that resulted in the understatement of purchased transportation costs and accounts payable in the first nine months of 2025" and that it planned to restate the statements. On this news, the price of Hub Group shares fell approximately 18%, from $51.33 per share on February 5, 2026 to $41.96 on February 6, 2026.

Then, on May 12, 2026, the Company disclosed that it had "identified certain transactions that were prematurely or incorrectly recognized or not adequately supported," causing its 2023 and 2024 annual reports filed with the SEC to be "materially misstated," such that they should no longer be relied upon, and "expect[ed] to conclude that it did not maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting for each of the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023." On this news, the price of Hub Group shares fell an additional 13%, from $41.86 per share at close on May 11, 2026 to $36.62 on May 12, 2026.

The case is Lawler v. Hub Group, Inc., et al, No. 26-cv-07596.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com.

SOURCE ClaimsFiler

On July 24, 2026, Primoris Services Corp (PRIM) shares experienced a decline of 4.5%, bringing the current price to $86.51. This price movement comes in the con

SpaceX launched its massive Starship rocket Friday evening from its company town and launch facility in Starbase, Texas, in a 13th test flight and the first since the company's record IPO last month.

The rocket's Super Heavy booster detached from the Starship spacecraft about two minutes into the flight, and made a controlled splashdown in the Gulf.

In a statement following the flight, SpaceX said the landing was not perfect as the booster, "attempted to relight its engines for the landing burn," but only a subset successfully ignited before the "hard splashdown."

The upper stage of the rocket made a "soft splashdown" in the Indian Ocean, SpaceX said, "coming to rest intact in the Indian Ocean and providing critical views of an intact heatshield for the first time."

Employees called the test flight "lucky number 13," in a livestream of the event.

Elon Musk's aerospace and defense contractor designed Starship, the largest rocket ever built or flown, to be fully reusable and to lift more cargo for less cost into orbit. Starship is considered crucial for the company's goal to vastly expand its Starlink satellite network, among other missions.

About 18 minutes into Friday's test flight, SpaceX successfully deployed 20 of its new Starlink V3 satellites into orbit, a first chance for the company to see how they performed in flight. The satellites were intended to burn up after about 20 minutes.

The new satellites, produced at a SpaceX facility in Redmond, Washington, are built to be larger, and more powerful than Starlink's earlier satellites. They're also equipped with solar arrays that generate twice as much power as prior generations, a SpaceX business analyst explained in a livestream.

SpaceX is now developing Starmind satellites, which the company intends to launch and eventually use as orbital data centers.

Besides using their largest rockets to launch the new, larger satellites, SpaceX wants to use the Starship rocket to bring U.S. astronauts back to the moon's surface, and to eventually power manned missions to Mars. The company is preparing Starship for a major NASA test flight next year.

Friday's test flight marked the second for Starship V3, the latest version of the rocket.

TMF Associates' Tim Farrar, a satellite services industry expert, said the test flight showed SpaceX has made some progress with Starship but "remains a long way from achieving rapid reusability of the entire ship." He pointed to problems SpaceX had relighting its Raptor engines on Friday. "Any similar failure during an attempted landing at the company's launch site could cause severe damage to the launchpad," he said.

In a post on X, which is owned by SpaceX, the company said it delayed an earlier test flight planned for Thursday "due to weather." It also previously scrubbed a test flight on July 16, after the rocket's booster triggered a hold, which "shut down the engines right as they were starting to ignite," a SpaceX employee said during a livestream of the earlier event.

SpaceX's stock has dropped in four of the past five weeks, slumping 43% from its peak close on June 16.

watch now

The most interesting exchange on Tesla's (TSLA -2.14%) July 22 earnings call wasn't about margins. An analyst asked CEO Elon Musk whether he eventually sees synergies from combining Tesla with SpaceX (SPCX -2.85%), the rocket and satellite company that went public in June. Musk didn't say yes. More notably, he didn't say no.

There's "more and more overlap" between the two companies, Musk said on the call. He pointed in particular to Terafab, SpaceX's planned chipmaking venture, which he said is "really going to be a gigantic project."

As for a deal, Musk said he couldn't discuss "combining companies and that kind of thing" in that setting. It has to happen through "the appropriate process."

That is not a denial. And coming from the CEO of both companies, it's enough to make a merger a live question for two of the largest shareholder bases in the market.

Image source: White House.

The overlap is already real business The companies are intertwined today. Tesla's general counsel noted on the call that the relationship deepened this year through an investment and a framework agreement between the two companies. Grok, the AI (artificial intelligence) assistant built into Tesla vehicles, comes from the xAI business SpaceX absorbed before its initial public offering (IPO). Tesla's Cybercab robotaxis are expected to lean on SpaceX's Starlink network for connectivity. And Terafab could eventually supply the chips Tesla needs for its cars and robots.

Bankers have noticed, too. JPMorgan told clients this month that a combination would make strategic sense on paper, uniting Musk's ambitions in AI, transportation, and space under one roof. But the firm also cautioned that executing a deal is a far messier matter than the logic suggests.

The messy part deserves the emphasis. Two obstacles stand out.

Today's Change

(

-2.14

%) $

-6.85

Current Price

$

312.84

The first is pricing. A merger needs an exchange ratio (how many shares of one company each share of the other is worth), and both of these stocks trade on stories rather than current profits. SpaceX carries a $1.5 trillion market value on trailing-12-month revenue of about $19 billion (up 33% from the year before), and it's still unprofitable. Tesla, valued at about $1.2 trillion, trades at more than 300 times earnings after this week's post-earnings sell-off.

Musk himself complicates the math. He controls about 85% of SpaceX's voting power, versus about 20% of Tesla's, so he effectively sits on both sides of the negotiation. Tesla's board needs an independent process robust enough to survive the shareholder lawsuits that reliably follow deals like this one.

The second obstacle is Washington. SpaceX is a major defense and government contractor. Tesla operates one of its largest factories in Shanghai and depends on China for a meaningful share of its sales and supply chain. Folding a national security asset into a company with deep Chinese exposure invites regulatory scrutiny in both countries -- and Starlink isn't even approved to operate in China. Of course, a review like that could stretch on for years, with no guarantee of approval.

Which shareholders would a deal reward? It depends entirely on the exchange ratio, and that's the problem. SpaceX shareholders own the larger company by market value, and the asset Musk has the deeper economic interest in. Tesla shareholders get exposure to Starlink's fast-growing revenue in a deal, but they'd be paying with stock the ultimate decision maker has less personal incentive to defend. Every version of the math involves the same person on both sides of the table.

Today's Change

(

-2.85

%) $

-3.37

Current Price

$

114.87

My take is that investors shouldn't own either stock because of a potential merger. A combination may eventually happen, and Musk's comments suggest the idea is at least alive. But the timing and terms are unknowable today, and the regulatory path could take years.

What investors can evaluate is each business on its own. Tesla just reported a 1.4% operating margin for the second quarter as it pours money into AI and robotaxis, and its shares sank about 14% on Thursday. SpaceX is weeks away from its first earnings report, due Aug. 4. Both stocks already price in spectacular futures, and I think each company should have to prove its own case first. Treat any merger as news to react to if it comes. Betting on it in advance is just speculation.

Key Takeaways More Mag 7 earnings are on their way, with AMZN, META, AAPL, and MSFT all slated to report soon. Alphabet's results showed a solid job of operationalizing and monetizing AI capabilities.Overall, total S&P 500 earnings for Q2 are expected to grow 39.1% YoY on 12.3% higher revenues. The market reaction to Alphabet’s (GOOGL - Free Report) Q2 results has significantly raised the bar for its Magnificent Seven peers that are on deck to report results this week, namely Microsoft (MSFT - Free Report) and Meta Platforms (META - Free Report) on Wednesday, July 29th, and Apple (AAPL - Free Report) and Amazon (AMZN - Free Report) on Thursday, July 30th.

The raised bar isn’t solely related to AI-centric capex spending plans and the effect that is having on cash flows, though that is a very critical issue for most investors, but also to the impressive operating momentum that Alphabet showed in its cloud business. Performance on the cloud front will be closely watched for Amazon and Microsoft, with the latter’s recent showing on this front having been less than satisfactory.

Alphabet showed further acceleration in its cloud business, with Google Cloud revenues up +82% from the same period last year. This follows year-over-year Google Cloud revenue growth of +45.2% in the preceding period (2026 Q1), +38.5% in 2025 Q4, and +35% in 2025 Q3. Alphabet’s results on the search, advertising, and AI monetization fronts were equally impressive.

Alphabet’s results show that it is doing a better-than-expected job of operationalizing and monetizing AI capabilities. But this wasn’t enough to convince market participants to buy the stock, with another capex hike becoming the trigger for the sell-off.

Alphabet’s free cash flow moved into negative territory for the first time in its public life, with management indicating that the Q2 cash flow trends will likely persist over the coming quarters as well, with a combination of debt and equity issuance making up for the shortfall. Alphabet shares the capex and cash flow issues with Amazon, Meta, and, to a smaller extent, Microsoft.

Alphabet’s reported earnings benefited from the unrealized gain on its SpaceX stake, which accounted for an estimated $77.4 billion in the company’s $112.1 billion net income. If we use Alphabet’s reported Q2 earnings, then quarterly earnings for the Mag 7 group as a whole are on track to increase +83.1% from the same period last year on +26% higher revenues, as the chart below shows.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The Q2 earnings growth pace for the Mag 7 group becomes a relatively more ‘reasonable’ +28% once Alphabet’s non-operating unrealized gain is stripped out.

The chart below shows the Mag 7 group’s earnings and revenue growth on a calendar year basis.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Importantly, the Mag 7 group has consistently enjoyed a steadily improving earnings outlook, with analysts raising their estimates, as the chart below shows.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

It is useful to keep in mind that the Mag 7 group is on track to bring in more than 27% of all S&P 500 earnings this year, up from 16.4% of the total in 2020, and accounts for 32.2% of the index’s market capitalization.

Q2 Earnings Season Scorecard

Through Friday, July 24th, we have seen quarterly results from 135 S&P 500 members or 27% of the index’s total membership. Total earnings for these are up +67.8% from the same period last year on +12.6% revenue gains, with 87.4% of the companies beating EPS estimates and 79.3% of them beating revenue estimates.

The comparison charts below put the Q2 earnings and revenue growth rates for these index members in a historical context.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The comparison charts below put the Q2 EPS and revenue beats percentages in a historical context.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

As you can see above, the Q2 EPS beats percentage for this group of 135 index members is a new 5-year high, while the revenue beats percentage is toward the high end of the 5-year range.

The unusually strong earnings growth rate of +67.8% and revenue growth of +12.6% are benefiting from Micron and Alphabet’s blockbuster results.

The chart below shows the reported Q2 earnings growth picture, with and without Alphabet and Micron.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

As you can see above, Micron and Alphabet account for more than 60% of all reported earnings growth at this stage, an unusual level of earnings concentration.

The Q2 reporting cycle ramps up in a big way this week, with more than 800 companies on deck to report results, including 172 S&P 500 members (34% of the index’s membership). In addition to the aforementioned Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Meta, this week’s line-up ranges from Exxon and Chevron to Visa and Mastercard, Starbucks, Ford, and many other bellwether operators.

The Earnings Big Picture

The chart below gives you a big-picture view of the overall earnings picture. It highlights current Q2 expectations right alongside actual results from the past four quarters and forecasts for the next four (including 2026 Q2).

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

As you can see here, total S&P 500 earnings for 2026 Q2 are expected to increase by +39.1% compared to the same period last year on +12.3% higher revenues.

Of the 16 Zacks sectors, 11 are expected to have positive earnings growth in Q2, with Energy (earnings growth of +126.1%), Tech (+91%), Basic Materials (+49.1%) and Finance (+24%) as the major growth drivers.

Q2 earnings growth drops to +14.3% from +39.1% once the Tech sector’s substantial contribution is excluded.

The +126.1% earnings growth for the Energy sector is meaningful, but aggregate earnings growth would still be +35.2% on an ex-Energy basis.

The Tech sector has been a pillar of earnings growth over the last two years, and the sector is expected to continue playing that role in Q2 and beyond. The chart below shows current earnings and revenue growth expectations for the sector relative to what the sector actually reported in the preceding two periods and what is expected in the following three quarters.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The Tech sector is unlike the other 15 Zacks sectors, as it alone brings in 41% of all S&P 500 earnings and accounts for 45.6% of the index’s total market capitalization.

As noted earlier, Alphabet’s Q2 results included a huge boost from a non-operating side, specifically the unrealized gain it has been forced to book on its SpaceX stake following that company’s IPO. Alphabet isn’t alone in having an outsized impact on the sector’s growth pace, as Nvidia and Micron are also exerting an outsized influence.

Excluding the contribution from Alphabet, Micron and Nvidia, Q2 earnings for the rest of the Zacks Tech sector would be up +27.6% (vs. +91% otherwise).

The chart below shows the Tech sector’s earnings growth picture, with and without these three companies.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The chart below shows the aggregate growth picture for the S&P 500 index on a calendar year basis.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

As with Q2 expectations, the Tech sector has an outsized impact on the annual earnings picture as well. Total Tech sector earnings are expected to increase +40.1% from the same period last year on +18.5% higher revenues.

Excluding the Tech sector’s substantial contribution, total S&P 500 earnings for the year would be up +13.2% (vs. +22.4% otherwise).

As we saw with Q2 expectations, contributions from Alphabet, Micron, and Nvidia are also significant here, as the chart below shows.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The way to read this chart is that the +22.4% earnings growth expected in 2026 drops to +13.2% once the Tech sector is excluded and +15% once only Alphabet, Nvidia, and Micron are excluded from the index. In other words, one-third of all S&P 500 earnings growth in 2026 is coming from these three Tech companies.

For a detailed view of the evolving earnings picture, please check out our weekly Earnings Trends report here >>>> S&P 500 Earnings Beats Hit 5-Year Highs as Growth Accelerates

NVIDIA logo is seen in this illustration taken July 20, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

CompaniesSAN FRANCISCO, July 24 (Reuters) - Nvidia (NVDA.O), opens new tab and South Korea's SK Group on ​Friday unveiled a more than $500 ‌billion AI initiative spanning large-scale AI data centers and next-generation memory, ​Nvidia said.

The initiative includes ​a long-term partnership with SK Hynix (000660.KS), opens new tab ⁠to secure next-generation memory ​supply for Nvidia and jointly develop ​high-bandwidth memory for AI training, AI agents and physical AI applications.

The Reuters Inside Track newsletter is your essential guide during the World Cup. Sign up here.

As part ​of the initiative, SK Telecom (017670.KS), opens new tab ​plans to build a 2-gigawatt AI data ‌center ⁠powered by Nvidia's Vera Rubin chips and SK Hynix's HBM4 high-bandwidth memory, with the first ​facility ​due to ⁠come online in 2027, Nvidia added.

Separately, Nvidia said ​it, Naver (035420.KS), opens new tab and Brookfield ​plan ⁠to expand Naver's AI data center in South Korea.

Reporting by ⁠Stephen ​Nellis in San ​Francisco and Heekyong Yang and Jack Kim ​in Seoul; Editing by Chris Reese

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

By PYMNTS  |  July 24, 2026

 | 

Highlights

Visa’s managed platform, Samsung Wallet’s USDC demonstration and Ramp’s business accounts show competition shifting from token issuance to control of banking relationships, software, settlement and distribution.

Deposit-dependent banks fear stablecoins could drain low-cost funding, while firms such as Goldman Sachs may see opportunity in trading, custody and tokenized markets. Delayed U.S. legislation and tougher global anti-money-laundering scrutiny leave the rules unresolved.

Smartphones, FinTech platforms and regional institutions could put stablecoins in front of millions of users, but consumer awareness remains low and the industry has yet to demonstrate a compelling everyday advantage over cards and bank payments.

Stablecoins spent years waiting for regulatory legitimacy. Now that legitimacy is creating a more complicated problem: almost everyone wants a piece of the business.

As a result, the biggest stablecoin news this week didn’t come from crypto-native companies. Visa launched a new Visa Stablecoin Platform (VSP) that gives financial institutions, FinTechs and crypto companies a single managed environment for minting, redeeming, holding and transferring stablecoins. Goldman Sachs’ CEO broke with parts of the banking lobby over pending crypto legislation while federal regulators confronted another implementation deadline and Samsung previewed stablecoin functionality inside its consumer wallet.

Individually, none of those developments settles the future of digital dollars. Collectively, they show that stablecoins are no longer primarily a cryptocurrency product. They are becoming a contested layer of financial infrastructure.

See also: This Week in Stablecoins: TradFi Doesn’t Want DeFi. It Wants Blockchain 

The Stablecoin Stack Is Up for Grabs The week’s developments do not suggest that one company is winning. They suggest that the competitive battleground is shifting away from who issues the token and toward who controls the software, banking relationships, settlement infrastructure and consumer distribution that make digital dollars usable at scale.

That strategic tension is playing out in Washington, where a newly released draft of the text for the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is revealing a financial sector fault line of banks versus banks, with each institution assessing whether stablecoins threaten its existing economics or open a new line of business.

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, for example, has reportedly expressed support for advancing the Clarity Act, despite objections from banking trade groups concerned about the treatment of stablecoin rewards and the possibility of deposits migrating outside conventional banks. Goldman became a deposit-taking institution after the 2008 financial crisis.

Institutions dependent on low-cost deposits have reason to resist stablecoin products that resemble interest-bearing accounts. PYMNTS covered how on Friday (July 17) the European Central Bank added its voice to banks in the United States in warning that widespread adoption of stablecoins could pull retail deposits out of traditional banks, weakening a critical source of funding for lending.

Firms with large trading, custody, market-making and investment-banking businesses, however, may see more upside in the expansion of tokenized finance. The central question has shifted from whether stablecoins will be legal to what kind of company can profitably operate one.

Still, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Thursday (July 23) that he did not expect the Senate to pass crypto market structure legislation before the August recess, a significant blow to the supposed progress negotiations around the Clarity Act had spurred. At the same time, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is urging governments to bring decentralized finance platforms under anti-money laundering rules when developers, token holders or other identifiable parties retain meaningful control. It warned that many purportedly decentralized platforms are not as decentralized as they claim.

Read more: Banks and Credit Unions Win Crypto Trust by Explaining It First

Distribution Remains the Missing Piece and Unproven Prize  Across the consumer end of the market, Samsung used its Wednesday (July 22) Galaxy Unpacked event to demonstrate stablecoin functionality inside Samsung Wallet. The interface reportedly showed USDC capabilities including sending, receiving and funding an account. The potential distribution is substantial because Samsung Wallet is already embedded in the company’s device ecosystem. But the demonstration came without a confirmed launch date or detailed rollout plan, making it a signal of intent rather than a finished consumer product.

The stablecoin industry has become adept at announcing infrastructure. It has been less successful at proving that mainstream consumers need a blockchain-based dollar for everyday domestic purchases. Existing card and bank-payment systems provide fraud protection, dispute resolution, credit and familiar rewards. Stablecoins must either reproduce those benefits or solve a problem conventional payments handle poorly.

A day earlier, on Tuesday, the financial operations platform Ramp announced it had begun offering customers stablecoin accounts and payments through a new business-focused offering.

Still, the PYMNTS Intelligence report “The Wallet Effect: How Credit Unions Can Close the Digital Currency Access Gap,” produced in collaboration with Velera, found that only 7% of credit union members said their institutions support cryptocurrency transactions, while 67% did not know whether that capability existed. Uncertainty was even greater around stablecoins, with 70% of members unsure whether their credit unions supported them.

In this episode of Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing, Motley Fool contributors Tyler Crowe, Matt Frankel, and Jon Quast discuss:

Uber’s acquisition of Delivery Hero.How “sticky” are ridesharing apps.GE Aerospace’s earnings.Can AI infrastructure cause supply chain headaches for others?Mailbag: How to view emerging industries & technologies.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.

This podcast was recorded on July 16, 2026.

Tyler Crowe: Who ordered the Uber acquisition today on Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing? Welcome to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. I'm your host for today, Tyler Crowe, and today I'm joined by longtime contributors Jon Quast and Matt Frankel. Earning season is starting to heat up. Not as many companies are rolling in. We're going to start to see that later in the month and early August, but we do have some early trickles in. Notably today, we had GE Aerospace. We'll also get to our mailbag, where we have some listener questions.

But we want to start today with the big announcement from Uber Technologies, who announced that they are going to acquire Germany delivery company, Delivery Hero in a $14.8 billion deal. Now, this has been telegraphed a little bit. Uber already had an outstanding stake in the company, and they agreed to acquire from, I believe it's, I hope I don't pronounce this wrong, but Prosus, they had a stake in the company, and they've agreed to sell it to Uber. Uber is going to have a 53% stake with this and then do a voluntary, “Hey, who wants to sell their shares to us, we'll buy them at a set price.” That's how the deal is structured. There's also a little bit of sell some of Deliver Hero’s assets in certain countries to avoid any jurisdiction, regulatory, anti trust issues. But I think the big thing to me, and, Matt, I want to really read in on this here. When I think of Uber, we always think of, like, hailing more specifically than delivery, and so this $14.8 billion deal seems to be like, Hey, we really want to be much more in delivery than we do just the ride share part.

Matt Frankel: Most investors don't realize it. But Uber's mobility, which is the name for the Rideshare business, and their delivery bookings are almost dead even, almost 50-51 in terms of booking volume. Now, the average person spends more on a delivery order than on a mobility order. You might get an Uber ride somewhere for $10, but the average meal you have delivered $50 or $60. Both grew about 25% year over year in the most recent quarter, but Rideshare is still Uber's biggest revenue source by a significant margin. They take roughly a 50% larger cut from bookings on ride-share versus delivery. This deal will make the delivery business significantly larger by bookings compared with Rideshare.

The bigger question here, as you mentioned, is why? Delivery Hero has an established presence in several markets already, so this allows Uber to expand its physical reach without building market by market, which is expensive and a risk. It roughly doubles the number of markets where Uber will offer both delivery and Rideshare in its app, which is a big competitive advantage. Speaking of competitive advantages, this is really a response to DoorDash, which has been aggressively expanding internationally and is really trying to outcompete Uber.

Tyler Crowe: Jon, not to like completely discount it, too, but in addition to rideshare delivery, which is creating this ecosystem, they do have a rather burgeoning advertisement business, as well, that, can layer onto this rather well, right?

Jon Quast: I think that there's absolutely an angle here that we need to consider with advertising, not to discount anything that Matt just said, I mean, there is a competitive angle here to this acquisition of delivery hero. Certainly DoorDash figures into the equation somewhere. But as you think about what Uber is, people don't realize how big and important the advertising business is. Really, it was the launch of advertising that propelled Uber to become a profitable business a few years ago and really just changed those economics considerably.

Now, if you think about what does it take to build a digital ad business, you really want platform adoption and interaction with that platform so that you can display the digital ad to the user, to the eyeballs, if you will. If it can get people adopting the platform more, the Uber platform, if it can get people interacting with the platform more, that's a greater chance for digital advertising. You want to grow both the mobility, the ride sharing, but also the delivery, the meal delivery because that's another, if you will, just another touch point with that end user. I think that as you're considering, hey, how do we build this food delivery or grocery delivery even more than what we have today? I think that there is an aspect that the management team is thinking, how do we get people interacting more with the platform because we want to show them an ad because that's really good for our business?

Tyler Crowe: It's funny, they say bad news comes in three, but I just want to say, news in general comes in three because, Matt, you, myself, and our Tuesday potting buddy, Lou Whiteman, we actually had a member live Q&A earlier this week, and Uber came up, specifically related to a lawsuit or a legal fight that they're picking with Alphabet's Waymo and it's related to autonomous taxis in Washington, D.C. area. We don't have to get into the details, but it's basically like Uber is saying, Hey, you need some humans every once in a while, and Waymo saying, No, you don't. But look, the broader point was, I think the legal fight exposed that, these ride-hailing or ride-sharing apps, whatever we want to call them, may not necessarily have that sticky network effect as much as people have initially believed. But does that same problem show itself in the food delivery segment, Ubers, delivery, DoorDash? Does that segment of the baby, is it as sensitive to this network, that, Well, I can pick whatever app I want, and it's not quite as sticky as, maybe food delivery is?

Matt Frankel: Well, it's not an easy answer. One conclusion that we drew in the discussion that you're talking about is that Waymo doesn't really need Uber's app to dominate a market. It certainly helps, especially at first, but it isn't totally necessary on a long-term basis. Riders are simply going to gravitate toward the largest and most liquid booking marketplace in their area. With delivery, there's even less stickiness in a lot of ways. Most people have two or three delivery apps on their phone. Many restaurants are on multiple platforms, so it's not exclusive. Usually, at least DoorDash and Uber Eats, and customers can price compare between the two apps. Some run fee specials on one app, but not the other. It's really not a sticky platform, but on the other hand, the Uber 1 membership platform that covers rides and delivery, that can be a competitive advantage when it comes to customer loyalty. DoorDash doesn't have the rideshare aspect of that. But the acquisition shows that scale and market density are really the true cues to winning in this business, not a sticky customer base.

Jon Quast: I just want to add on here a little bit. When we talk about network effects, I think that Uber does have a network effect, and it is a big deal. You think about what does it have? It has a two-sided marketplace. You have the consumer on one end, the person who needs a ride, but then you also have the driver on the other end. These are people voluntarily coming to the Uber platform saying, I'm going to offer my services here because there are potential customers on the other side of that marketplace and vice versa. That is really powerful, and I think that when you are a brand such as Uber, that is ubiquitous in many regards, that makes a big deal.

But what Waymo does is it's actually disrupting the game in an important way. It's not a two-sided marketplace. It's a one-sided marketplace. Can you gain that ubiquity with the one-sided business model cause you don't need the driver? That's my point. You're having the driverless cars. Really, it's just the proliferation of the vehicles themselves in those markets. It's disrupting the game, not that Uber doesn't have a powerful network effect. If we're playing the two-sided marketplace game, that's really important. But if autonomous vehicles are able to change the rules of the game by offering the one sided marketplace, I think that's where, this does get a little bit disruptive.

Tyler Crowe: All right, so we've got burgeoning advertising business that's layered on. It's creating profitability. It's growing market share and overall revenue and deliveries for all of it's part of the apps. But, we're talking about the risks here. I want to put you a little bit both on the spot with our last question here. Shares of Uber are more or less flat for a little over two years now, and I think they traded it I think when I checked this morning it's like 18 times earnings. Is this deal for Deliver Hero enough of a move-the-needle deal for this company? Or do you see this as like, it's just still treading water? I can't say I'm too interested in the stock right now.

Matt Frankel: For me, the answer is not really, and for two reasons. For one, this feels like more of a defensive move to me than an offensive growth strategy. No. 2, the multiple compression we've seen in Uber lately. You mentioned the stock's been flat for two years, even though the business has grown. It's primarily from worries about the ride-share side of the business, specifically Waymo, as a real threat to that part of the business. For those reasons, I don't think this is going to be a needle mover, but it's going to, be a preventative move.

Jon Quast: This is just a hot take for me, but I'm pretty lukewarm on this deal for Uber, mostly because it already has this really large international presence as a brand. I think it has incredible brand recognition globally. Then to acquire these assets from delivery hero and Uber CEO saying that he really appreciates some of these assets, I don't see that these assets are superior to its own. I think that Uber has superior assets. To spend this much money to acquire what I would consider inferior assets in international markets, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, so I'm lukewarm on this deal right now, still processing it, but that's how I feel.

Tyler Crowe: All right, fair enough. Coming up after the break, we're going to talk about GEO spaces earnings.

ADVERTISEMENT: In 2026, I've been trying to improve my health, but here's the thing I found if you're not tracking your blood work, you're basically flying blind. That's why I'm excited to partner with Rythm. Rythm is the world's easiest blood test to help you learn what's happening inside your body. Takes about 2 minutes at home, no needles, just a sleek and painless collection device that sticks on your arm. Once your blood is collected, you put the sample in the package that Rythm provides, and they will even arrange to have it picked up from your front door. I did my first test about a month ago. The Rythm kit came in the mail. I drew my blood in about 2 minutes. Couldn't be easier. The results were live in about two days, and the portal makes it easy to understand what's going on. They've even got an AI health coach to help explain your results and recommend actions. Since I got my labs, I've changed the way I've eaten. Pounds are starting to come off, and it's easy to determine if something like a GLP 1 is right for you. I'm not one to run to the doctor so the fact that I can do this at home and get fast results is what has me hooked, and my second kit is already on the way. Rythm is only $79 per month, a fraction of traditional lab testing, ships right to your door, and you can cancel anytime. Right now, Rythm is offering our listeners 15% off for your first month and free shipping at rythm.com/fool. That's Rythm with one h, rythmhealth.com/fool for 15% off your first month and free shipping. Stop guessing, start testing rythmhealth.com/fool.

Tyler Crowe: Last week on the podcast, we talked about GE Vernova quite a bit, talking about the advantages, disadvantages, how it's been the strange darling of the GE breakup. It only seems fair that we discussed GE Aerospace because it did report earnings earlier today. The company's results beat expectations. Management raised guidance. But as we're taping this show right now, shares are down about 3.2%. Guys, can you help me connect the dots here. At least, as far as I saw, it seemed pretty good.

Matt Frankel: For one thing, and I know Jon has some thoughts about this, the market clearly had high expectations going into this. I was trading for about 50 times forward in earnings before this report. Even though management raised guidance, they still flagged a few things that represent uncertainty, like elevated jet fuel prices, the macro environment, things like that. Demand is clearly outpacing supply here, which is good for pricing power, at least in the short term, but it also means that GE can't fully capture its opportunity right now, and I think that's a little bit of what investors are reacting to, as well.

Jon Quast: I would definitely double down on the valuation component here. You think about stocks that outperform the market. Usually growth is a very big component of that outperformance, and you look at how big and mature GE Aerospace is at this stage of the game. It's hard for me to imagine it's sustaining above average growth over the long term from here, and to Matt's point, trading right now at I believe it's 43 times its earnings, that's quite elevated relative to the average valuation of the stock market right now. I think that even if the stock, I think there's a case where the stock could drop further to come down to a reasonable valuation, but even if it doesn't, I think that it's going to have to sustain some really powerful, impressive growth over the next several years just to justify where it's at right now. I think that even though it did deliver that double beat, I think that investors are saying, maybe this is a little bit too hot to handle right now, and we'll just trim our position.

Tyler Crowe: The thing that stood out to me, and this is taking it in a slightly different direction, thinking a little bit more of, like, supply chains and what's going on in the manufacturing world of America right now is that commentary from management about that availability of material for spare parts. It wasn't just like, we're running a little short on something. It was specifically like material because there happens to be another major turbine maker, GE Vernova, who also is building way more turbines than they can basically fulfill right now. They've got a five-year backlog on what they need to do. I don't want to sound like a broken record, I would call it, like, the super niche, only maybe five people might get this joke, but whenever I say AI infrastructure, I'm most be like, Pee-Wee Herman was like, Ah, you said the secret word because we seem to do it every single day now.

But, that AI infrastructure build-out and AI's, infrastructure's ability to hoover up every spare dollar of capital or spare part out there. The capital expenditures that are going into this are crowding out a lot of other spaces. As we think about GE Aerospace and supply chains and disruption and like AI being the whale of the manufacturing industry and gobbling up everything it can, is there a real risk for these non-AI companies like GE Aerospace, that could run into supply chain crunches and cost inflation from AI taking up all its spare capacity?

Jon Quast: I want to just try to illustrate a little bit the tension that you're bringing out here, Tyler, and this is a complicated supply chain story with GE Aerospace. If you recall coming out of the pandemic, the pandemic certainly disrupted supply chain immensely, and a huge part of this business is the spare parts business, the repair business, right, that maintenance revenue, and if you look at what it just did in the most recent quarter, GE Aerospace, record internal shop visits. It is fixing stuff at some record volume here and so that's a really big deal. It is coming out of those supply chain constraints from the pandemic, breaking records in some places. But then at the same time, it said that material availability restraints grew 20% from the previous quarter. On one hand, I would say that GE Aerospace is getting it done operationally. It is definitely doing a lot of work and fixing supply chains where it can, and at the same time, as you highlighted, the AI market is just sucking up all this demand out there from so many places. It is still struggling to keep up with supply chain needs, and so it's a complicated story.

Matt Frankel: Spare parts demand is exceeding available supply. They have a $210 billion backlog. They can't get materials fast enough. The parts that go into turbines and data centers aren't identical. But they do use the same universe of specialty metals manufacturers. It's totally possible we'll see costs and lead times here get worse before they get better.

Tyler Crowe: It'll be an interesting thing to see, again, because it is hard to underestimate that ability of AI infrastructure to just suck up all the available resources, considering, you can go like four or five levels down the supply chain right now, and they're like, we're strained, and our backlogs are growing like crazy. It'll be curious to see if anyone that's not AI-related can end up getting the parts they need because it could be a challenge down the road. Coming up after the break, we'll jump into the mailbag.

ADVERTISEMENT: What if the drink's pink and the cream's pink? Chill. It's no big deal. Just get the new strawberry candy plus frappe from our new McCafe Summer drinks range. Now at McDonald's. Available until 7 September. Price and participation may vary. Frappe is not available on delivery. Subject to availability.

ADVERTISEMENT: Everyone's talking about AI, but here's the insider tip. The more technology changes, the more valuable it becomes to know how to lead projects, align people, and turn ideas into results. That's why more than 1.6 million professionals have earned the PMP. Team leads, project managers, producers, and business professionals who use those skills to move their careers forward. The PMP from Project Management Institute for professionals who want to lead, deliver, and stand out wherever their careers take them. Get PMP certified. Learn more at pmi.org.

Tyler Crowe: Hey, everyone, just a quick reminder. If you want to get a question into us, you can email us at podcast at fool.com. That's podcast with an s at fool.com. It's also in the show description. If you need a link. At three requests when you do it or number one, keep it Foolish. Two, keep it short enough, we can read on air and three, we can't give any personalized advice, so try to keep it as general as possible.

Today's question comes from Suleiman in Saudi Arabia. The question is, hello, fools. I found your podcast my first week of the job in 2024, and I haven't missed a single episode since. Hey, thanks for that Suleiman. That's awesome. I learned so much how to analyze companies and ask right questions. Question that he had was with many new emerging industries, there are some companies that are leading a small market with huge potential for expansion, and the one that he was specifically talking about here is Deep Sea mining. However, the industry is still facing legislative obstacles and operational uncertainties. Is this considered a foolish investment or an unnecessary risk? There's one company that he asked about specifically, and that's The Metals Company, which is Ticker TMC. Guys, I'm going to let you take a swing at it, and then I'll see if I can wrap it up at the end.

Jon Quast: This is a great question, and I think that emerging trends are pretty difficult when it comes to investing, and that is because they are so grounded in the future, none of us are very good at predicting the future with certainty. We all are limited in time and space. It's challenging. There are three questions that I would ask as I approach an emerging trend. Here's the first question. Will it emerge? Second, when will it emerge? Third, how will it emerge? Will it, when will it, and how will it? Those are really three important things to answer if you're going to start investing in a trend.

To the first one, will it emerge? I can rewind the clock to 3D printers when this was just coming out onto the market. I don't even remember how long ago anymore, but it was probably over 10 years ago. I really was a believer that these were going to be in every single home in the United States in the world. It was going to be completely like a TV in your home. You're going to have a 3D printer. Alas, it did not play out that way.

Three-D printing is bigger today than it was 10 years ago, but it didn't play out the way that a lot of us were thinking about at the time, or a lot of people were talking about. Did it emerge? Not really. Second, when will it emerge? Now, quantum computing is another example that we can use here. It's a huge in the public awareness right now, quantum computing is big because there's publicly traded companies and stocks are doing well. But those of us who have followed the quantum computing space much longer, I think, 20 years or so. This has taken a long time to play out. Directionally, I think it's still right, but the speed at which it is being adopted and coming to fruition is way behind what some people would have projected years ago, and maybe there's still a long time yet. When will it emerge? Hard to say. But finally, how will the trend play out?

Because you can theoretically be right about a trend, and you can be right about a timeline, but it might take a different route or go down some different train tracks than you anticipated, and therefore, the opportunity is in a place that you didn't really expect when you started investing. I would use e-commerce as an example here. Did e-commerce play out and very quickly? Yes, it did.

But think about how many of the physical retailers were able to lean into omnichannel. Now, e-commerce played out maybe differently than we thought, so maybe we thought that Walmart would be completely disrupted. But in reality, Walmart’s become one of the largest e-commerce players in the world because it leveraged its existing store base as a distribution center network through omnichannel. It played out quite differently, and I think that you would have invested a little bit differently depending on if you could foresee how it was playing out.

Matt Frankel: I want to expand on what Jon just said about how you can be directionally right about a trend, but the investment opportunities might be a different story. Think of the dot-com era, which is right around when I started investing. Being right about the trend and which companies will be the biggest winners from a trend are two completely different things. The Internet changed the world. No doubt. It's been the biggest technological change in our lifetimes. Period. Some of the highest flying stocks of the dot-com boom, pets.com is a good example. If you just said, who, that's my point. It went to zero, and investors lost a ton of money, but Amazon survived and thrived. It had a true cost advantage. It was building a scale advantage.

Business fundamentals that apply no matter what the trend is. I’m not well-versed in deep-sea mining, at least not enough to intelligently comment on the opportunities there. But quantum computing has a lot of parallels. Should you invest in the pure-play quantum stocks with impressive technologies or the established businesses with deep pockets and just happen to have quantum divisions like Cisco and IBM? The market misjudging timing and, market size with emerging industries is a common pattern. Jon mentioned 3D printing. That's exactly what happened there. Keep that in mind when it comes to position sizing and the real possibility that some of the most hype stocks in any trend could go to zero.

Jon Quast: With this question regarding Deep Sea mining in The Metals Company, let's say that you have satisfied yourself with the answers of will it, when will it, and how will it? The other thing to consider here is the economics. Assuming that Deep Sea mining plays out as a trend in the timeline that you think the metals company is a leader in the space, are the economics of that business at scale ones that are attractive for an investment? Because oftentimes, mining isn't a very compelling investment venture from an economic perspective. The economics are complicated and not always the most attractive. That would be the further question that I would ask once you've answered the other three.

Tyler Crowe: Jon stole my thunder a little bit here because I might be the only deranged person who follows materials in mining of the three of us a little bit. With a lot of these, like, speculative mining companies that are like, pre-revenue, and they put all these things like, Man, if we could mine all of this, it's trillions and trillions of dollars worth of revenue. No. 1, they always tend to over inflate how much is actually, like, available for them to recover. No. 2, they always underestimate the costs. They always tend to overestimate the profits with, the cost of metals at the time that they're acquiring it. On paper in the investor decks, it looks spectacular. But then when, the rubber hits the road and all the capital that means to go into these things, they tend to not turn out great.

Now, I'm not saying that The Metals Company is exactly going to go this way, but I feel like I've read 40 or 50 investor decks that looked a lot like this. One of the things I always say is there are multibillion-dollar mega mining giants out there, and they're not touching this. There's probably a reason. If they were to see some big mining backing from this, that could be the case. But otherwise, this is really, like, you might as well be buying Lottery tickets.

That's my thought on mining. You can tell I'm not exactly a huge fan of it, even though I have studied it in the past. Guys, that's all the time we have for today. Matt, Jon, I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts. I’m going to hit disclosure, and we'll get out of here.

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 or sponsored content provided for informational purposes only. See our full advertising is closer, please check out our showrooms. Thanks for producer Bart Shannon and the rest of The Motley Fool team for Jon, Matt, and myself. Thanks for listening, and we'll chat again soon.

Verizon (VZ +5.84%) reported second-quarter results on Friday morning, July 24, and the numbers themselves gave income investors plenty to like. But the most interesting disclosure came on the earnings call. CEO Dan Schulman said the telecom giant has signed an agreement worth more than $1 billion to supply dark fiber to Google, the search and cloud company owned by Alphabet, which will use it to connect its data centers.

Dark fiber is fiber-optic cable that the customer leases and lights up with its own equipment, giving it dedicated capacity between facilities. And demand for it is coming from exactly the customers with the deepest pockets in the market right now: companies building out data centers for AI (artificial intelligence).

Meanwhile, at about $46 per share, the stock's dividend yield sits near 6.3%. This makes it a great dividend stock for income. So the question for income investors is whether a new AI infrastructure revenue stream changes the case for owning a high-yield telecom.

I think it does, and in the right direction.

Image source: Verizon.

A growth business Verizon is expanding Schulman told analysts the Google agreement is only the start. He said Verizon expects to announce additional deals by year-end that, taken together, could be worth multiple billions of dollars in revenue over the next several years. The company's low-latency fiber network, he argued, has become exactly the kind of asset AI data centers need.

Management clearly wants investors to see a turning point.

"Our core connectivity business is gaining momentum, and with the emergence of AI infrastructure revenue, we are fundamentally reshaping Verizon's growth trajectory," Schulman said in the company's second-quarter earnings release.

Of course, some perspective keeps this honest. Verizon generated $34.3 billion of total revenue in the second quarter alone, so a fiber agreement worth more than $1 billion spread over several years is small.

But it lands in the right place. Verizon's business segment, which has spent years as the company's sleepiest corner, grew revenue just 2.6% year over year to $7.2 billion in the quarter, though the segment's operating income jumped 37%. A multibillion-dollar pipeline of long-duration fiber contracts would give that segment a reason to grow that it hasn't had in years.

The dividend math got better again Now for the part income investors care about most.

Free cash flow for the first half of 2026 came in at $10.2 billion, up 16% from $8.8 billion a year earlier. Dividends paid over the same six months totaled $5.9 billion. In other words, the payout consumed less than 60% of the company's free cash flow, leaving billions for debt reduction and buybacks.

And the guidance is moving the right way. Management raised its full-year outlook for the second consecutive quarter, now calling for free cash flow growth of 9% to 10% and adjusted earnings per share between $4.99 and $5.04, or growth of 6% to 7%. Additionally, second-quarter adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) of $13.7 billion, up 7.2% year over year, was the highest the company has ever reported.

The trajectory may matter even more than the levels. Mobility and broadband service revenue grew 2.8% year over year in the second quarter, and management expects growth to approach 3% in the third quarter and about 4% in the fourth -- an acceleration, not a plateau.

Subscriber momentum supports the forecast. Verizon delivered 184,000 total postpaid phone net additions, along with its best consumer second-quarter postpaid phone result in five years, and more than 550,000 total mobility and broadband additions.

Of course, this is still a slow-growing business. Total revenue actually fell 0.7% year over year, dragged down by a nearly 20% drop in equipment revenue as upgrade volumes fell and Verizon pulled back on device subsidies. Earnings per share also fell 22%, mostly on special items (the largest a $746 million loss tied to classifying its international wireline connectivity and managed network services business as held for sale), though adjusted earnings per share rose 6.6%.

Today's Change

(

5.84

%) $

2.56

Current Price

$

46.38

But that's exactly why Friday's disclosure matters. For years, the dividend case rested on cost discipline and a slow-growing connectivity business. Now cash flow guidance is rising, subscribers are coming in, and there's a new revenue stream attached to the biggest spending wave in technology. The payout was already well covered. If Schulman delivers the deals he's promising, the conversation starts to shift from covering the dividend to growing it.

So I'd be comfortable owning the stock here for the income. The 6.3% yield pays investors well today -- and Verizon finally has a growth story worth watching while they collect it.

SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)---- $HTZ #Car--Robbins LLP informs investors that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: HTZ) common stock between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period").Investors who suffered significant losses during the Class Period may be eligible to participate in the lawsuit and should contact Robbins LLP for information about becoming lead plaintiff.Why Was Her.

​The company, which has a 50% stake in a giant oil-and-gas field in Kazakhstan, spoke with U.S. officials after a Ukrainian attack hit a tanker chartered by Chevron in the Black Sea.

Two of the president's priorities—cutting prices for U.S. consumers and increasing domestic semiconductor production—come into conflict.

Strategy (MSTR -2.09%) is the largest single holder of Bitcoin on the planet. It holds almost 844,000 units of the top cryptocurrency on its balance sheet.

This has worked out well at certain times. At Bitcoin's peak last October, Strategy shares had rocketed 2,300% higher over the prior five years. But since the digital asset is currently in a bear market, Strategy's stock trades 79% below its record.

Despite the disappointing price action, the business continues to advance its efforts to integrate the leading cryptocurrency into the traditional financial services industry, further legitimizing the digital asset.

On July 13, Strategy unveiled the Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index. Here's what it might mean for Strategy shares.

Image source: The Motley Fool.

Introducing a new industry benchmark The Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index is a scorecard that ranks 25 financial institutions based on how extensively they have adopted Bitcoin in their operations. Categories include trading and custody, products, margin, and leadership. Fidelity sits atop the list, with a 71% index score. Royal Bank of Canada is last, with a 13% index score. Overall, the group has a 32% rating.

On the one hand, the combined score is encouraging. It shows that well-known financial institutions are building capabilities with Bitcoin.

On the other hand, there is still a lot of work to do to get the score higher. These banking entities likely need to see tangible results, such as new customer sign-ups and higher revenue potential, before investing additional resources in Bitcoin initiatives.

Today's Change

(

-2.09

%) $

-1.96

Current Price

$

91.67

Strategy is positioned as a leader in this new arena It's impossible to know exactly what the creation of the Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index will mean for Strategy shares. But it's clear that investors hope this is the start of a major bull run. It's been difficult to watch the stock fall 79% from a record high of $473.83 in November 2024 to around $100 per share.

What this might do, however, is further solidify Strategy as the leading innovator and authority when it comes to Bitcoin integration. And it positions the business as the pioneer for establishing benchmarks and ratings that move this niche forward. Financial institutions that want to improve their index scores could even consult Strategy on best practices.

Billionaire Michael Saylor has transformed Strategy into a Bitcoin capital markets enterprise, with a suite of preferred equity and convertible debt offerings that provide different classes of investors with unique exposure to the most dominant cryptocurrency. Now that it has introduced the Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index, the company aims to boost its credibility in traditional finance.