Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing - Greed is Short

Episode Date: February 28, 2024

When a struggling business comes out with good news, it usually spells trouble for the shorts. Just ask those betting against Beyond Meat today. (00:21) Asit Sharma and Dylan Lewis discuss: - Apple���s automotive ambitions “Project Titan” seemingly being wrapped up, and what it means for the tech company. - Beyond Meat’s short-squeeze-fueled 40% spike, and why shorts are getting greedy with Beyond and some other companies right now. - Coupang’s continued rise as the major player in e-commerce in South Korea. (17:08) Deidre Woollard talks with Carrie Sun, author of the new memoir, “Private Equity,” for a behind-the-scenes look at life at a hedge fund. Companies discussed: AAPL, BYND, CPNG Host: Dylan Lewis Guests: Asit Sharma, Deidre Woollard, Carrie Sun Producer: Mary Long Engineers: Chace Pryzlepa, Dan Boyd Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dylan Lewis. Apple's Project Titan isn't as monumental as the name implies. Motley Fool Money starts now. I'm Dylan Lewis, and I'm joined over the airwaves by Motley Fool analyst Asit Sharma. Asit, thanks for joining me today. Asit Sharma. Dylan, thank you for having me. We've got a double-stack, short squeeze, and the inside scoop on the world of hedge funds, but we're going to kick off today talking about a long-awaited car that it appears will never arrive. Asit, after almost a decade of speculation, Apple is apparently abandoning its vehicle efforts.

Word out this week that the tech giant will be shifting employees working on its auto ambitions, codenamed Project Titan, over to other projects, including those focused on artificial intelligence. You know, this comes as little surprise maybe to some, just because Apple has been working for so many years on this effort, it hasn't been able to come to fruition. So, perhaps this writing was there on the wall. But before we get into maybe some of the implications of the not-so-great part of doing this investment for so many years, I just want to say that Apple has so much in terms of engineering talent on hand, so much on its balance sheet, so much time to innovate that it can do Skunk Works projects like this that for any other business would be existential,

and just pull off. That's maybe not necessarily a bad thing. This truly was a Skunk Works project. I'm glad you dropped that word there. So much of our understanding of what this project was, and even what Apple's ambitions were when it came to cars, really came by way of following permits, following patents, following acquisitions the company had made and sources that reporters had that were willing to spill a little bit about what was going on, the company itself did not give very much on what was happening behind the scenes and what it was trying to do in automotive, which, even in trying to process this information, makes it a little hard.

I think we'd wondered for a while, does the automotive ambitions here mean hardware in the conventional sense, or is there something else at play, even knowing they're going to be diverting some resources away from that? We're still not really sure. I agree. I think most of us thought at the end of the day that Apple was trying to find the next great delivery vehicle, no pun intended, for its software services. The car would be a place where you would have access to all of Apple's great software. In terms of what this was, well, it was R&D, research and development. So much of the time we think of research and development as being innovation or improving products, but it's also tinkering. It's trying

to figure out what could be the next thing that gives us access to this wide, wide path of revenue. For Apple, there were some limitations here in that they were trying to develop something in an industry which itself was undergoing so much change. We still don't know today from a consumer perspective if we want to drive EVs. From an industry perspective, if it should be conventional vehicles, EVs or hybrid vehicles? Are we going autonomous or not? Apple was trying to build a car during a time in which no one really understands what the future is going to be like out on the road, and this made it doubly hard. Throw in the idea of maybe having an AI-enriched product that would be superior to anyone else's software, where you have Tesla, which has been building

a supercomputer and grabbing data from its cars on the roads for many, many years. Trying to compete with this type of technology itself is just another Skunk Works project. I think at the end of the day, Apple called a really good play, which is to exit and say, look, we've got some learning here. We can transfer this to other parts of the business, but this is the best place for us to capitalize on our strengths. Because they're so big and so successful, really not going to hurt them at the end of the day. They'll shuffle some good people around and move on to the next great idea. I think I follow you on that take there, Asit. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if

some of the work, some of the investment, the research and development that went into this project winds up showing up somewhere at some point, just maybe not in the way that we would have expected. I was always a little skeptical that it was going to be cars as hardware and felt like we were going to see something more in the software lane. It's not out of the realm of possibility that some of the work that was done here winds up showing up in cars at some point, just maybe in a way we haven't quite thought of before. I agree. In the requests to other parts of the company, when you're in a unit like this, which is out there on your own developing a technology, there is a lot of,

I think, intellectual reach that goes on. You request of the chip team, could we design chip that would do X. You requested the AI team, if I had to train this neural network to take a left turn suddenly here, how would we do this? Not having that technology in-house. All of these requests that the unit would give to other parts of the company can be expanded upon and put to other uses. I don't think all this is wasted effort. Did they lose a lot of time? Sure, Dylan. I can remember, you probably don't, like seven or eight years ago when I was a writer for Motley Fool and you were an editor, you asked me to do a small report on the then-Project Titan. I don't even know if it was called that again. This is how old it is. Two or three positions ago,

almost a decade ago, I remember you asking me about this. It's something that only a few companies around can afford to spend more than 10 years on. But I do think that still, before we move on to the next topic, maybe it comes back to that ever-present existential question for Apple, what next after the iPhone? It's not going to be cars, clearly. We're still waiting for Apple's next chapter, it turns out. All right, yeah, from cutting-edge tech over to cutting-edge food. Shares of Beyond Meat, the plant-based protein maker, up huge today. It followed earnings asset, but if you look at the earnings results on the surface, not all that impressive. Sales down 8%. Company continued to log huge losses.

But I think as we tape, shares up 40%. That is due in large part, it seems, to the shorts out there that have interest in this company. Certainly, Dylan. When I looked this morning, I was surprised to see how high that short interest is. Something like 38% of shares outstanding are now sold short, and it's going to take several days to cover those shares. I think the days to cover something like eight days. That shows that there is a phenomenal amount of short pressure there, and perhaps any small good news would cause a reaction like this. The interesting thing looking at the trail of this short interest is people have been negative on Beyond Meat for a while. I went to a free site that shows data

for a couple of years. For the last two years, on any given day, the short interest has been 40% plus. It looks like some short sellers have written this successfully down all the way from $26 a share down to the previous day's close, let's put it that way. It's been a decent trade if you're a short seller for a long time. Maybe some people got lulled into thinking this just keeps going on until the stock goes to zero. Yeah. I look at Beyond and I say, this is clearly a company that has struggled. I think their losses were twice their top line, or their operating losses were about twice their top line. This was a business that was having a very hard time finding its footing,

finding the correct pricing for consumers out in the marketplace. I think, in reality, I probably agree with a lot of the points that would be in a short thesis for this company. That said, you mentioned it doesn't take much for a company like this to turn things around or to rise a bit when there's such high short interest. In the earnings report that we saw from this business, management said, we're expecting gross margins in the mid-teens for 2024. Right now, gross margins, negative 20% in 2023. That was the news that sent this company flying. I look at short interest in general. When you see mounting bets against a business like this, I have to say, over the last couple of years, we have seen this

go the wrong way in very high-profile ways for so many investors. I continue to be amazed that investors can be so greedy, piling into something that's so heavily shorted. I totally agree. The people who are short as of yesterday, I think they're in two camps. One, they know exactly what they're doing. And number two, they don't know anything about what they're doing. The first camp is taking a risk. The shares are now down to $6. this is going to zero. They have an idea that Beyond Meat made a fundamental misreading of the market and the shelf space that they could acquire globally, and that's been their problem. You cite the negative margins, and they believe that there's no way this can be turned around.

The other camp is following the herd getting in because the narrative is so bad. But just looking at your point here, Dylan. The balance sheet, while it's not great, has shown some improvement in one important area over the last year. Inventory has gone down from $236 million to $130 million. When you combine that with what is going on in the statement of cash flows, a cash burn that went from $320 million in operating cash to a burn of $108 million in 2023, year-over-year. There are some signs there that maybe if gross margin went positive and costs were cut drastically, this company could stick around for a few years. So, why do we have short interest still at 38%? It comes back to, I think, a keyword you just

uttered, greedy. There's some greed going on here that's getting punished today. Yeah. For what it's worth, there are some other big names out there with pretty high short interest, getting above that 30% range. You look out there, Novavax, Trupanion, Upstart, Carvana, C3 AI, Lemonade, Plug Power. I'm not making a judgment on whether those are quality businesses, but I do think if you're seeing it creep up like that, that is a sign that it won't take very much for you to go upside down on your short bet. I agree. If you're going to be part of that 30% plus, I beg you, people, read the narrative, but also look at the numbers. Just make sure that an unexpected piece of good news doesn't

cause you to race to cover and maybe face a window of eight days to get there. Asit, that story with Beyond was earnings-adjacent. We're going to wrap our news rundown with a true focus on company results. Kupang, the leading South Korean e-commerce company reported this week. Shares up 5% after the company posted its best sales growth since 2021. What's driving the company forward? Dylan, the company is really benefiting from the investments that it made in its pre-IPO phase when they were fueled by crazy money by a number of investors. They were able to invest billions into infrastructure in South Korea, which we've talked about on

this show has just a really interesting topography. The geography of South Korea is very interesting, so it's really hard to build a logistics business. They went there, they raised some public money, built out a logistics and fulfillment arm, and now between their delivery service, services like Coupang Eats, food delivery, and a service which lets small merchants operate like third-party sellers on their platform, much in the way that the Amazons and Shopifys of the world's do here in North America, they were really starting to hit some traction. Net revenues were up 23% year-over-year to $6.5 billion in the last three months, and the company made a profit of $1 billion on that. We're starting to see some traction

in this model. It's not quite optimized yet, and I do think that growth might be lumpy hit some challenges, but at least the narrative that Bom Kim, who is a really great entrepreneur, brought to the market is starting to play out. Plus, they're expanding into Taiwan, which gives some of the bears on Coupang some food for thought. This was always seen as a one-shot play in the e-commerce market of South Korea. Coupang has actually retraced a bit from some other geographies it's tried to expand into, but it is starting to see a little bit of success in Taiwan, which itself is a great market. Maybe there's a silver lining there for revenue. I really like these numbers. I think that the company has mastered this hard logistics

delivery equation in South Korea. They do it profitably and they are investing in some other areas of the business. Those are losing money right now. It's just some small bets on things like FinTech, but they represent growth areas. Last, I want to say just in summary here, I like that the total active customer count is still rising. It was up in the mid-teens. Again, trying to saturate that South Korean market where they've eclipsed competitors. Now, it's their mission to get as much of that market as they can. You do that by growing customers and making sure they're spending a little bit more, which the average spend per active customer was also up about 6%. Just a well-rounded report. I think the stock is performing accordingly

today and probably should be a decent, interesting company for people to research in the coming years, those who are looking for a retail story. Asit, you mentioned the international expansion for them and looking to get into other markets. One of the other ways this company has been looking to grow is through its acquisition of Farfetch, which is more on the luxury side of apparel and retail. They spent around $500 million for that acquisition. I think at the time, it was kind of controversial in terms of its strategic fit and its use of capital. I'm curious, do you feel like we're in a position where we can grade that yet? Or are we still waiting to really see how that shows up?

I think we are OK to wait. Actually, Bum Kim, the CEO, said, look, we just bought Farfetch, we did this because it has $4 billion in gross merchandise volume passing through its platform every year, and that's really what we're after." But he also said, it's really too early to talk about it. We think it's going to be a great decision, but we're still looking on how to capitalize this. I think investors can spot Coupang some time here because their strength is distribution, they've proven that. was one of the problems with Farfetch. While it really brought a lot of small luxury players together in the market, it could never solve the problem of how to give them the tools

for them to sell to a wide audience and then make money at the same time from the take, the take on the platform, the fees that were charged. Coupang is really good at this. That's a strength of theirs. They just haven't done it in high fashion mode, like a luxury type of distribution models. I think letting them tinker around and figure this out is fine, as long as the rest of the business is really firing away as we just walked through and generating a lot of free cash flow, a lot of profits. I'm willing to wait a few quarters to see what they can do with Farfetch. Alright. Asit Sharma, thanks for joining me today. Thanks so much, Dylan. A lot of fun.

up, hedge funds control over $5 trillion in assets. What's it like to work for one? Up next, Deidre Wollard talks to Carrie Sun, author of the new memoir, Private Equity, for a look into the power, pain, and privilege in the world of hedge funds. And just a programming note, some of the answers have been trimmed for length and clarity. Enjoy. You just found out that your sales team is at risk of missing quota. Don't panic. Just ask Rippling AI. Since it's built on your real-time people and business data, Rippling AI can pull metrics

from Rippling and Salesforce into a meeting-ready dashboard showing quota attainment, headcount plan, and monthly revenue to quota by region. In seconds, you'll see exactly what's behind your quota risk and fix it before it's missed. Question answered. Action taken. Crisis averted. When you have critical business questions that need answers, don't just file a ticket and wait weeks for an outdated report. Describe what you need and have Rippling AI build it instantly from

your live people and business data. Whether it's a dashboard with detailed charts or automated workflows with the right triggers, conditions, and approvals. Ready to rule your business? Head to rippling.ai slash fool to get the only AI built to give you full visibility and take complex actions across your entire organization that's r-i-p-p-l-i-n-g dot a-i slash f-o-o-l sign up for exclusive access today rippling.ai slash fool such a mystique around the world of these funds but in the beginning of the book you point out that while the average stock hedge fund beat the s&p total return by over five percent in the years from 1990 to 2009 it's been a different story since then media has talked about that a lot but there's still so much money billions of

dollars flowing to these funds. So what is some of the allure of that world? I just think the thrill of the possibility of extremely high returns to outperform the market is just so, not only is it so American, but I think it gives people so much hope for the future. And I think that possibility itself of just beating the market is just so alluring to many people. So even if, you know, as you mentioned in the last decade and certainly during the 2010s in the bull market, hedge funds have broadly kind of underperformed routinely. I think that thrill of possibly picking a winning hedge fund and sticking with them through years and compounding those returns is just so, so, so exciting for a lot of people. And I think also by investing in

hedge funds, I think people are investing in a certain type of exclusive access. And by that, I mean, you're, so, you know, if you're investing in hedge funds as an asset class, you're investing in their ability to get themselves in front of company management, CEOs, CFOs, you know, fighting for these corporate meetings that, you know, provide more information than say, you know, in financial statements. So you're, you're getting access to the ultimate companies you're investing in, but also, you know, many of these funds have investor days, LP conferences, and just to be on the inside, to be an LP in some of these very, very exclusive, high performing hedge funds, that itself is such an elite exclusive club such that, you know,

if you're at the, if you're at an investor day at, you know, one of these top exclusive hedge funds, you can meet not, not only people who, you know, hold and invest your money, but you can invest other, you, you can meet other LPs and just get a lot of connections and access that way. So I think for hedge funds itself, there's the promise of extremely high returns, which still happens today, even though historically, recently, they have been lagging the market, but just also to be a part of this very exciting kind of secretive club. It's interesting in the book, because you go from the analyst side at Fidelity, and then you take a break, and then you go into private equity. So two adjacent, but it seems very separate worlds. So what really surprised you about that shift? It was totally different. And when I was working on the analyst side, I was an investment side

working in quantitative equities at Fidelity Investment. And then I worked in the private equity, private funds, hedge fund side, you know, for my billionaire boss, who is the founder of this large firm. And I was more in a support role, but I also definitely did a lot of research for him. And I provided both administrative, but also operational and research leverage to him. And I think what surprised me was less so much going from the investment side to kind of a support role, but rather just the whole industry going from quantitative investing to more fundamentally driven investing. And that the difference was just so stark. So at my former job, quantitative in nature, I just sat in front of my computer and I was coding all day. I was

analyzing datasets, pulling datasets, cleaning them, you know, trying to get them to work in order to build multifactor models from them for stock selection. And, you know, it was sitting at my desk, analyzing data, doing, doing a lot of coding, reading research papers, trying to find new factors that might, might work in quantitative investing. And I could go a week without talking to anybody except my boss for maybe, you know, 15 minutes, 30 minutes to just catch up on the work I did throughout the week. And in the private equity side, I learned it was much, much more of a human and high touch storytelling aspect to investing. And that is to say that my phone rain every five minutes. And it was just, I was also, you know, answering the

phone on behalf of my boss, but also many, many people just called me to try to strategize to how to, you know, get to my boss. So my phone was ringing all the time. I was talking to people all the time. And yeah, I was having hundreds of little conversations every day. And, you know, there's this line in my book about my boss saying he got 7,000 emails a day. And, you know, this is in the 2010s and on the quantitative side, you know, my, my phone pretty much didn't ring. Um, I was dealing with numbers. I was dealing less with people. And so I think what that is also showing is that on the quantitative side, I, the decisions were mostly made, I would say what we were doing was more quantum mental, which is a mix of quantitative

and fundamental. But the decisions were made mostly by the computer, sometimes with human discretion to override some of those decisions. But ultimately, at the end of the day, there was no sense of urgency to a lot of the investment decisions that were being made. But then on the fundamental side at the hedge fund, everything was urgent because news happens. And then if news happens you have to update your models for your investments and you know this was especially urgent during earnings season for example and just you were just always on the clock responding to news and so it was everything was urgent every minute of every day versus kind of a more you know at fidelity i really worked nine to five sometimes six five days a week of course after

that though, you know, I was overnight, I was letting my models run and I was doing back tests and simulations, but I really just sat at my desk and did coding for much of the day there. Um, it was, and it was a lot more, the pace was just less, you know, everything is a fire and urgent and needed to be responded to instantly. And so that was the biggest, biggest change from moving from one place to another. Yeah. Yeah. And the pace that you describe in the book is, certainly, it's brutal. It's hard because part of what you're talking about is access and information. And you've got this great line in the book that I love about asymmetric knowledge being asymmetric power. And so for the fun that you talk about in the book, so much of that is

knowing things ahead of the news cycle. I'm wondering, I mean, even in the past decade since your experience, it seems like maybe there's a little more, everything becomes widely known. I don't know if you think that the sort of value of that information has shifted to some extent. That's a great question because I think that, yes, in general, I'm happy about the democratization of knowledge and financial knowledge and data itself. And yeah, what I mean by that line, you know, asymmetric knowledge is asymmetric power is I think, um, certainly these massive investment funds, they have ways of getting information. And I'll say it's, you know, sometimes that, that can have a certain connotation, but I'll say there are, there are

ways to, there are interesting ways to get legal information before, um, other people. And it's all about um information advantage and edge and so like you say even though i think the line has been moving about what information is easily obtainable versus more difficult to get i i think the what many of these massive funds try to do is it doesn't matter where the line is they're going to try to just get right up to the line and get before it so it really just doesn't matter like the line will and has been moving but they will always try to be um one step ahead of it and i think it's not even just purely in terms of information but like even in like processes or ways to get information i'll give you like one tiny example and these examples i think you know

accrue in in just the ways you're able to get information but when i was when i started um work, uh, at this fund that I write about in my book, so many people there, like, uh, so I'm, I was born in China. I speak Mandarin and I got to the firm and so many people there spoke fluent Mandarin. Um, and they were not of, well, you know, just from looks, they were not of, you know, Chinese, um, ancestry or descent. And, you know, that might seem like a small thing, but if you're in these investor meetings and if you're in these, you know, if you're trying to do your due diligence on a company and meeting with management, being able to just have that rapport in a native language could be really, really, really helpful. And they were, I think,

really early to that, um, such that the people there were already more fluent than I was and, and also greeting Chinese. So, yeah. As always, people on the program may own stocks mentioned, and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell anything based solely on what you hear. I'm Dylan Lewis. Thanks for listening! We'll be back tomorrow! Thank you.