Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing - Apple Bites Into Healthcare

Episode Date: March 31, 2025

The company behind the iPhone aspires for its “greatest contribution” to be beyond personal computing. (00:21) Jason Moser and Mary Long discuss xAI’s latest purchase, Apple’s healthcare endeavors, and what Larry Fink is looking forward to. Then, (19:50), Anand Chokkavelu hosts Fool contributors Jason Hall and Tyler Crower for a Scoreboard episode on Next Era Energy. To become a premium Motley Fool member and gain access to all Scoreboard episodes, go to www.fool.com/signup. Companies mentioned: TSLA, META, AAPL, BLK, NEE Host: Mary Long Guests: Jason Moser, Anand Chokkavelu, Tyler Crowe, Jason Hall Producer: Ricky Mulvey Engineers: Dan Boyd, Michael Schweitzer Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

XAI eats its sibling. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. I'm Mary Long, joined today by Mr. Jason Moser. J-Mo, thanks for joining us on this Monday. How are you doing? Very happy to be here. Thanks, Mary. So we'll kick today off with some news that actually hit on Friday. Mr. Elon Musk, who just happens to always be finding a way to stay in the news cycle, announced that he sold X, the social media company formerly known as Twitter, to XAI, Musk's AI startup.

Price tag for that, about $45 billion, net $12 billion of debt. what does combining these two Musk-owned companies allow for both this hybrid model to do that couldn't happen when they were separate companies? It seemed like this was always the plan in the back of his mind. I mean, I know he had mentioned it before when the general idea was to do this eventually. And I think there are a number of potential benefits and there are risks that come with it as well. I mean, it's just like any investment. But I mean, you consider the nature of Twitter or X and kind of what it does. I mean, that is just a free-flowing stream of just information at all hours of the day with, I mean, a considerable number of global users. And so you

think combining these two, you could certainly open up XAI to a lot of data, a lot of information as he tries to establish Grok and build out his versions of sort of his own kind of like chat GPT. But I think having those tools and having these companies work together, you can see a better user experience in the way of both. I mean, you're going to get more data over there to Grok, and Grok's tools might actually be able to build out a better, more personalized, more useful experience on X. It certainly gives them the opportunity to innovate because they'll have so many tools at their disposal, right?

There won't necessarily be the separation that existed before. They could absolutely maximize efficiencies there, right? They may not need to necessarily have everybody and everything with the two companies remaining separate. So, as we see with acquisitions, oftentimes they get in there, they cut the fat a little bit, and they make it a little bit more efficient. I think it certainly can open up to additional tech developments and synergies, as they love to say in this world.

And I think the economies of scale that come with this, I mean, you combine the operations that, like I said, it'll lead to cost savings and essentially improved profitability in the long run, assuming this is executed effectively. X and XAI aren't obviously not Musk's only companies. Do you see there being potentially another chapter here? Does this move? Musk has done this before. Tesla bought a Musk-related company back in 2016. Might we see Tesla swallow up this new X-XAI hybrid? What about the Boring Company, Neuralink, these other companies that exist within the Musk universe? Might we see more of them kind of start to fold together explicitly? Certainly, Musk does not stand still, right? He is always doing something, and he's got a lot

with which to work. And so, I don't know that that would necessarily be the most effective move there, but I think what we've learned with him is just never say never, and I would expect something of that nature to appear on the horizon at some point or another. It's difficult to say exactly what would go where. And with Tesla, I don't know. To me, that's one that it's already becoming a little bit un-understandable because the energy tie-ins there, along with the car company, the battery technology, and the solar, and what does it all mean? So, there is a downside to making a business too complex and too complicated to understand. It's always an impossible question to ask you to predict the future, but I think especially

when Elon Musk is in the equation, the crystal ball gets even hazier because you never really know what his next move is going to be. When it comes to X and XAI, the clearest storyline here, and you mentioned this, synergies, is that unfettered access to X allows XAI to train its large language models to be even more human-like. They've got this treasure trove of human language, like its quirks, its abbreviations, its personalities. XAI already had some access to the platform X. So just how big a boost does this combining actually give Grok? That's difficult to say because we don't really know exactly how close that relationship was. I mean, when you think about it's beyond data, right? I mean, it's about

developing these APIs for other developers to use, and obviously introducing more documentation, production documentation. But yeah, that's very difficult to say. But my guess is, again, you said that word, I think, right, unfettered. I mean, this really, I think, just cleans up the lines of communication between the two and probably makes it a little bit more efficient. So what's interesting to me about this is Meta already has access to this kind of treasure trove of human data, arguably even more so than X, right? It's got pictures and videos and really developed user profiles. Have we seen that data benefit Meta's LLM in the way that many might expect it to? Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think not only is this helping Meta develop things like

agents, which most are out there trying to work with, but it's also the technology that's ultimately serving its advertising business. And we know that's the crux of the business today. More than 4 million advertisers are now using at least one of their Gen AI ad creative tools. And that's up from a million users just six months ago. So we've seen growth really ramp up there. That's just indicative that they're getting a lot out of it and having fun using it and building on it. And that's that meta open source model, so to speak. When you go back to the most recent earnings call. Zuckerberg, I think, has a lot of aspirations. He believes this year is going to be the year when a highly intelligent and personalized AI assistant reaches more than 1 billion people.

Right now, they stand at around 700 million with theirs. But we know he places a lot of value in that 1 billion number, because that becomes very difficult to disrupt, and it can be very rewarding from a data perspective as well. He also said he expects this year is going to be the year when it becomes possible to build an AI engineering agent that has the coding and problem-solving abilities of around a good mid-level engineer. Now, I don't know about you, Mary, but I think I'm aiming for something a little bit better than a mid-level engineer, right? But I guess this is the process, right? It's just progress. And my suspicion is we would see that language change in 2026 and 2027 to eventually an expert engineer. I mean, I think that's what this is

all leading to. I think from Meta's perspective, they're doing a lot on this front, and it is absolutely helping their business in all regards. It's one thing in my mind to talk about how social media companies like X, like Meta, can use data to train their own AI models. There's kind of an inverse angle here, too, that I'm curious about, and it's how increasingly powerful AI actually affects the platforms themselves beyond coding, but the actual experience for users. Earlier this year, Meta kind of had a back and forth in the news about AI-powered accounts because in early January, their VP of generative AI told the Financial Times that the company expects homemade AI users to appear on its platforms much in the same way humans do. They got a lot of backlash

for this, ultimately kind of rolled back that statement a little bit. But when that statement first came out, Meta was quite excited about it. To me, that sounds like a nightmare. Like already the incessant advertisements on social media make them a far less appealing platform to me. I want to see my friends. Why would I, why would I want to see AI chatbots? I might be different than the rest of the populace, but why is that so appealing to meta in theories? Well, I think you made a good observation there and you may be different than others. And that's what we all have to remember because I agree with you on this one. It's not something that's very attractive to me, but I also fully know not to extrapolate

those views out to the greater audiences that they serve, because there could be plenty of people that are interested in this. I'm not exactly sure why. I mean, I don't really care so much about following just made-up accounts. It's the rise of the virtual machine, so to speak. It feels like it takes away from the personal connections that have earned those platforms their success in the large audiences to date. But by the same token, I do understand the desire to try something new, right?

If they feel like there's a next evolution of social networking where people want to interact with those catered experiences, then it could be something that adds to the engagement factor. And I think that's ultimately what they're trying to figure out here. Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn't. If it does, great. If it doesn't, I'm certain they take some lessons from it. But yeah, it does feel like they had to kind of take their foot off the gas on that one a little bit, because maybe the general public wasn't quite as on board as they were from

the beginning there. So we'll move to another AI-related story to kind of start off our week and close out the month. Apple is planning to build a health coach, an AI health coach, into its Apple devices. This is called Project Mulberry. Previously, it was called Project Quartz. And it involves a completely redesigned health app that includes an AI health coach. So potential release date for this is maybe spring or summer of 2026, but it would work

like this, right? The health app gets data from your devices, and then an AI coach uses that data, that information to make personalized recommendations for you about how to improve your health. Okay, with the caveat that we just made that, hey, what I want might not be with the general populace ones, Jamo, I'll turn to you. Do you see yourself using a platform like this? Is this something that's at all appealing to Jason Moser? Personally, for me, no. I get a kick out of checking my step count after I get done mowing my lawn, because I'm just always astounded

that it takes me about five miles of walking to get all the work done. I'm not interested in any kind of an Apple Watch or device like that. I'm not looking to be that connected. That's just me personally. And I think that in regard to Apple, I don't think that, at least in the near term, I don't think this is about monetizing something like this as much as it's about adding another reason for users to stay in that Apple ecosystem. It's about engagement. And we see them do that all along the services front with all of their different offerings that they have. They're just wanting to give users of their hardware another reason to stick around. And for a lot of folks, I mean, that health care data is something they're into. And so, I think they see that and say, well, we've got this large base of users that we feel like would get something out of this.

And it's not really about, hey, we're trying to directly make money off this, as much as we're trying to make our platform a little stickier and keep people in our universe so that they'll upgrade to that next iPhone. Maybe they will go buy an Apple Watch or AirPods, whatever they are, AirPods, whatever other hardware development they end up coming up with in the future. Tim Cook has said repeatedly that at the end of the day, when all is said and done, Apple's greatest contribution to society will be in healthcare. So, seemingly, this is kind of a step closer to that. But I hear that, and I think that is a big, bold statement from the company that invented the iPhone and truly changed personal computing and how humans interact with hardware devices. So, you got any immediate takes on that? Okay, yes, it's one thing to want to keep people in the Apple flywheel.

It's another thing to say, hey, we know we've done some big stuff, but what's coming next in healthcare is even bigger. Right. It is a very bold statement. And I think it's important to sort of parse that out and say, well, he said greatest contribution. And so, I would say, well, that doesn't necessarily mean this is going to be the biggest revenue crater for Apple in the future, as much as they feel like this is how we can contribute to society. So, I don't know how that'll shake out ultimately. But you're right, it is a very bold statement. And only time will tell if that actually is the case. I do think if it is the case, it's likely much further down the road, and it's going to come from some future invention, device, service that they come up with. And I

think that probably goes back to these health aspirations in this new AI-generated platform that they plan on introducing. I mean, that could just be another step along the way on that journey yeah and anything health related is admittedly it's just inherently lofty even if your goal isn't for that to be your biggest contribution it's hard work it is apple is known for having great devices with with smooth user interfaces and yet still the apple watch is not necessarily the go-to wearable for athletes um and it's still far away from being like a medical lab on your wrist which is what it's what it's hoped to be the health app is pretty basic ultimately. The company has been working on a non-invasive glucose monitor for over 15 years,

just to underscore how difficult this stuff can be. Why do you think Apple's health ambitions have proven so difficult, despite this being something that seemingly they care a lot about? I think that part of the challenge with health at this level is it's a two-way transaction. Having the technology is great, but you also need the folks that want to use that technology and use it consistently and not everybody feels the need to be so connected and get so granular with their day-to-day health data right i mean it's great that the technology can do that but is it something that you're going to really stay in touch with every hour of every day i don't know if you're younger you probably don't care as much if you're older you're probably paying a little

bit more attention to that stuff but when it requires a lot of effort to keep up with all this data, whether it's food management or checking your exercise or your sleep patterns or whatever, I mean, it does require effort on the part of the consumer to actually get in there and do that work. So, I would assume that they're working on developments to help reduce that friction because I think reducing that friction might make it more attractive to more people. It's not to say there aren't plenty of people out there who aren't interested today. They are. But their goal is obviously to have this be their greatest contribution to society. So that means they need as many people on board as possible.

So we'll close out today with a nod to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink. His annual letter to investors was published this morning. It's a 27-page letter. It's kind of part love note to capital markets and part roadmap for BlackRock's recent past and their future. A big theme of the letter is infrastructure. So Fink argues that governments need to fund infrastructure, but they can't do that through deficits because deficits can't really get much higher. So instead, governments, he's predicting,

are going to need to turn to private investors. So Fink sees a need for $68 trillion in new infrastructure between now and 2040. He calls this out in the letter. I'll quote here because it really stuck out to me. That number, $68 trillion by 2040, is, quote, the equivalent of building the entire interstate highway system and the transcontinental railroad start to finish every six weeks for the next 15 years. That's the end of the quote. Jason Moser, big number to me. Any immediate reactions to that and Fink's whole argument? It is a very big number. I think he's likely not far off. Infrastructure has evolved over the years with all of the investments in AI and data centers, for example. It's not just roads and

bridges and power grids anymore. It's something to keep in mind that infrastructure evolves as technology evolves. And that, I think, continues to offer really attractive market opportunities. And of course, this is one of them. And I mean, he noted even in that letter, NVIDIA's Jensen Huang said, right now, we're $150 billion of AI infrastructure into trillions of dollars we have to go build. So just in that short little time frame on that one little opportunity there, I mean, we see massive opportunity for growth there. But I mean, His point, too, it's not always an easy market to gain entry to these days, which is why he started talking more about private markets. So it does sound like that might be starting to change as

well. Yeah, private markets and expanding access to that, also a massive theme of the letter. Notably, that's a space that BlackRock is increasingly stepping into. So that's something to keep in mind when reading. I'll close this out on this one question because Fink's letter opens talking about volatility, right? He addresses upfront, literally within the first sentence, that basically everybody he's talking to is, quote, more anxious about the economy than any time in recent memory, end quote. What's interesting to me is he opens with that, and then he kind of paints this picture about something that he's seemingly very excited about for BlackRock and for largely the world, and that's, again, infrastructure. I mention this

because we got Tariff Liberation Day coming up in two days. That's causing a lot of anxiety among investors and other folks as well. Nobody really knows what to expect, what things are going to look like on Wednesday, after Wednesday. Let's maybe step away from the anxiety and close us out today with something that you're hopeful about. Think said infrastructure. What say you, Jason Moser? I definitely think infrastructure is an attractive opportunity. I know it can be easy to get frustrated during anxious times like these. There's a tremendous amount of uncertainty there. And it seems like every day brings a different headline with a different sort of priority. But as we always say in investing, right, it's a forward-looking exercise.

So, I would say personally, really, I'm just excited about the future, Mary. I mean, I think there are going to be a lot of great opportunities that come up with the places that AI and extensions of that technology will take us. I think it's fair to say, too, there's a new paradigm with AI and And even just understanding exactly what it means for businesses and how they can use it effectively. So that will take a little time, as most important things do, for us to really understand those best use cases. But, I mean, sitting still also isn't an option. You've got to keep moving forward. And AI, generally speaking, directionally speaking, that's where the puck is headed.

And so companies will need to continue working on trying to figure out how to make it work best for them. And I think that, to me, is really exciting in the near term, discovering all of these best use cases for AI technology and all of the great things that are built on top of it. Mr. Jason Noser, always a pleasure to talk with you. Thanks for starting your Monday with us. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Spotify Advertising connects you with an audience that's engaged and ready to discover your brand. Launch a campaign with Spotify Ads Manager. Since we're already talking about excitement for the future, one area with a lot of promise is renewable energy. Anand Chakravallu hosts Fool contributors, Tyler Crowe and Jason Hall

for a scoreboard episode on NextEra Energy. Business first, including factors like industry and competition. A 10 is invincible. A one is hopeless. Both of you are at nines, Tyler. It's a regulated utility. Utilities are a really durable business, especially regulated ones like NextEra Energy's core business, which is Florida Power & Light. It has the rarity in utilities where it's growing at a faster rate than most other utilities because it has a combination of strong demographic trends in Florida from migration, things like that. And it has an unregulated side of the business that it builds renewable energy capacity, and it's allowed them to grow considerably faster than

you would consider your run-of-the-mill regulated utility. Yeah, what Tyler said. But I think it's especially the combination of the demographic trends in its geography, and then bolting on that unregulated business that has so much room for growth, even though, and we'll talk about it, they have had a little bit of a flesh wound with that business on their bottom line. When I saw the nines, I was amazed. I was like, oh, yeah, it is a utility. It makes some sense. Let's talk about management. A 10 is Warren Buffett. A 1 is Homer Simpson. Jason's at a 7. Tyler, you're a little lower at a 6. I'm docking at some points because it really dragged its feet with a subsidiary, NextEra Energy Partners. This was a financing vehicle for

a lot of its renewable energy. It's now changed its name to XPLR Infrastructure because, I don't know, maybe NEP was just too toxic of a name these days. It was a project finance physical that they overleveraged, but kept telling all its investors that everything was fine and the dividend growth would continue. They needed to bring out their dead, though, apparently, because last month, the XPLR infrastructure suspended its dividend indefinitely to repair the balance sheet. It was really pulling the wool over investors' eyes here. Even though it is a subsidiary, NextEra Energy had considerable control over the business. I mean, it's definitely more than just a scratch, too, because the idea was to drop

down those assets to what was formerly NEP, but still, through its equity ownership and control of the partnership, to get dividends and get cash flow from them. Now, that's affecting it directly as well as the shareholders of that business as well. This was definitely a management mistake. If you run a utility, you have to get the financing right for your non-regulated business, because you don't get regulators to bail you out at the expense of rate payers like they do on the regulated side. So, that non-regulated business, you've got to get your financing right. And they've stumbled in that. Let's talk about the financials.

A 10 is a fortress, a 1 is yikes. Both of you are at a 7, Jason. The one thing that they haven't done as well as you would want to see for a utility company, the reality is that over the past decade plus, growth was wallpapering over what was a growing problem with a lot of their financing. But when the growth slows, the warts show through. But again, I'm picking Nitz here because this is a very strong business and its balance sheet is perfectly fine. And it does have plenty of ability to continue to grow its cash flows just based on being an adequate managed business that happens to have all of the benefits of growth that most utilities just don't have.

The financials for the parent are still, I would say, decent, not great, because it did transfer a lot of debt risk to that subsidiary that we've been talking about. The one thing I did notice on its most recent investor presentation is its debt levels are hovering relatively close to a threshold that would merit a credit rating downgrade from the ratings agencies. So, something to monitor. I would like to see how it manages its spending and leverage in the coming years. Obviously, the regulated side, probably not as much of a problem, but that unregulated renewable power business is going to significantly change. I'd like to see what they do with it. Jason, for valuation, I have these

questions. Three, how well will NextEra stock do over the next five years? How safe is it? Keeping in mind a 10 is a short thing, a one is a lottery ticket, and what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? My question for you is, is that a European or an African swallow? Don't say that because we need you around for a couple more minutes to finish the show on it. My safety score is an 8, and I expect returns around 5-10%. For the first time in years, thinking about the safety side, NextEra Energy is actually priced appropriately for a utility company. Along that great growth run, we saw so much expansion of its multiple. Now, you get to a reasonable valuation that's in line with most of its large peers. Combine that with its ability to grow earnings

at a faster rate. 3% dividend yield, I think its dividend is pretty well protected at the corporate level. And I think, again, hitting that 5% to 10% range of returns without the downside risk that the valuation created in the past when money was cheap and investors didn't appropriately price that risk of higher capital costs, I think the higher end of that outcome is probably the most likely case. I actually had the same in returns and safety. A manager was protecting earnings growth rate in the 6% to 8% range for the foreseeable future, and similar dividend growth, which lines up with its historical returns. But basically, the stock hasn't done anything for the past five years. And that's come from valuation contraction. It went from 60 times

earnings down to 20. So, I think it seems more appropriately valued now and can land close to that 10% range. Time for everyone's favorite topic. Jason, is there a company in NextEra energy space that you like more? I'm going to pivot a little bit, because I'm contractually obligated to mention a Brookfield entity in every Motley Fool appearance that I make. But seriously, I want to talk about Brookfield Renewable. Like NextEra Energy, the stock is down a lot. But the difference is that Brookfield Renewable's business has probably never been stronger. The worries about utility-scale wind and solar are probably inflated right now because of political reasons that I don't think are going to carry over to the real

world decisions, particularly for a business that's increasingly growing outside of North America. So, whether it's the partnership, BEP, or the corporation, BEPC, I think that's where I would be looking right now. Well, I'm also contractually obligated to mention the most obscure stocks possible whenever I make my appearances. So, I'm going to go with Pinnacle West Capital Corp. This is actually the Arizona regulated utility. So, same idea, regulated electric utility. Similar demographic trends as Florida in terms of net migration to the state, favorable demographics. Also, it has a massive industrial manufacturing growth going on recently. I don't know. It seems like every single time you read a newspaper about a new manufacturing plant,

for some reason, it's in Chandler, Arizona, for some reason. I think that will drive electricity demand in the state significantly, benefiting both unregulated people like Brookfield as well as Pinnacle West. The projected earnings are a little bit slower than NextEra Energy because it doesn't have that unregulated side, but it's a much more conservative balance sheet and trading at a considerably lower price to earnings multiple. Every now and then, we share scoreboard episodes on Motley Fool Money, but premium Motley Fool members get access to all scoreboard episodes, which drop every weekday at 7 p.m. Eastern. To become a premium Motley Fool member and join our flagship investing service, Stock Advisor, head to www.fool.com slash sign up. We'll also

drop a link in the show notes. 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 Motley Fool editorial standards and are not approved by advertisers. For The Motley Fool Money Team, I'm Mary Long. Thanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow. you