Motley Fool Money - Apple Rethinks the iPhone

Episode Date: December 16, 2024

Thinner, cheaper, and possibly foldable. Apple engineers are working hard to convince you to buy a new phone. (00:14) Asit Sharma and Ricky Mulvey discuss: - Microstrategy’s entrance into the NASDAQ 100. - How Apple is trying to kickstart growth. - A burgeoning competitor to Uber and Lyft. Then, (16:56) Motley Fool Senior Analyst Anthony Schiavone joins Mary Long for a look at UPS, and its frenemy relationship with Amazon. Sign up for Breakfast News, our free daily market email newsletter: www.fool.com/breakfastnews WSJ Story on Apple: https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-thin-iphone-foldable-computer-plans-dbb4286c NYTimes story on Empower: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/16/technology/empower-ride-hailing-washington-dc.html Companies discussed: MSTR, AAPL, UBER, LYFT, UPS, AMZN Host: Ricky Mulvey Guests: Asit Sharma, Mary Long, Anthony Schiavone Engineer: Rick Engdahl Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Indeed. Stop waiting around for the perfect candidate. Instead, use Indeed sponsored jobs to find the right people with the right skills fast. It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate C. According to Indeed data, sponsor jobs have four times more applicants than non-sponsored jobs. So go build your dream team today with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsor job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply.

What's it going to take for you to buy a new iPhone? You're listening to Motley Full Money. I'm Ricky Mulvey, joined today by someone who has a salesperson texting him to purchase a brooch. Really enjoy our pre-recordings before the recordings. It's Asset Sharma. Thanks for being here, man. Ricky, it's so much fun to be here and to take my mind otherwise off of Monday morning. We got a lot to talk to, Asset.

I'm paying attention. First up, welcome to the NASDAQ 100, Tom. micro strategy, the former enterprise software company turned Bitcoin holding company, has gained mainstream acceptance by the index. This is something that a lot of investors thought this company was going to blow up, myself included, thought that there was a lot of risk in terms of putting the amount of Bitcoin this company put onto its balance sheet. And now it is in the mainstream NASDAQ. Asit, help me make sense of this news. What do you make of this holding company being added to the index. Well, you know, I look over at the S&P 500, Ricky, and they do have at least

one minor, I think still in the index, one gold miner. That's a proxy for the price and value of gold. So if you use that logic over here on the NASDAQ side, maybe it makes some sense. Now, technically, the NASDAQ 100 is supposed to focus on non-financial instruments. And micro strategy gets a little bit of a pass because it actually has a small operating business within it. But this is actually adding a financial company to the NASDAQ 100. It is a company, though, that has garnered a lot of attention as that proxy for the value of Bitcoin. So you could say, look, overall, this is about technology, how technology changes. So I have mixed feelings. So here's what I don't understand. And you analyze stocks for a living. So we're going to

lean on that expertise here. According to Bloomberg, Microstrategy owns about 45 billion worth of Bitcoin. This company's market cap is $100 billion. I know the enterprise software business is not a $55 billion company. Asset, help me make sense of that premium. What's going on there? No one's told some investors that they can actually buy Bitcoin on regulated exchanges. Okay.

Next question. I don't mean to be so sarcastic here. Let me give you a fair shot at that answer. Asset, you can be whatever you want as long as your asset. Thank you for being on today's show. You know, my second grade teacher told me that, and it was so inspiring. I really appreciate you reminding me of that. That's so great. I'll take another quick shot at this answer. So it's an easy way for some investors to buy into Bitcoin. There is the possibility that the yield that the company talks about, its Bitcoin yield could be a thing in the future. So as it builds us huge, of Bitcoin on its balance sheet and Bitcoin rises in value, that future yield of its lending out its Bitcoin for a return is going to be worth something big. And I think the ability of micro strategy in the future perhaps to sell some of its Bitcoin and invest in other things

that might be crypto-related is enticing to some people. But all in all, it's just a bet on the future value of Bitcoin. I'd be careful. Oh, I don't think Michael Saylor has any intention of ever selling Bitcoin. If you listen to him in any conversation, interview or communication, Mr. Asset, he's a great salesperson, among other things. Maybe he's a great, that's a, that is a really good qualifier. All right. You have to be as a CEO in this day and age. So that, again, sounds a little sarcastic, but it's not. Let's, you know, play the logic out. If you're running a company that's in the NASDAQ 100 index, you should be a good salesperson for your products and or services. Maybe not to the extent of micro strategy, which has really gone all in on Bitcoin,

do you expect to see more companies as we see this sort of mainstream acceptance among investors, among regulators, even among politicians, the incoming administration likes its Bitcoin. Do you expect to see more companies putting more Bitcoin onto their balance sheet in the years ahead? I do. Micro Strategy wants to be the company known as a complete treasury company for Bitcoin. that means its reserves, its balance sheet, its liquid assets as a function of its treasury, how it manages its stuff is all in Bitcoin. But other companies are going to want to hedge the financial assets on their balance sheets.

So it's one way to look at participating in both new technology and an instrument that could store some value. So we'll see more of this, not in huge measures by sensible companies that have very diversified business models, but we'll see a small trend in this direction. Let's go to this Apple story. The Wall Street Journal reporting that Apple is rethinking the iPhone and getting some details into how they're doing so. Step one, Apple is planning to introduce a thinner, cheaper phone with a simplified camera system, hoping that a cheaper price is going to draw more people to buy a new iPhone. And then step two, which is that Apple is planning two foldable devices

from the Wall Street Journal, quote, a larger device intended to serve. as a laptop would have a screen that unfolds to be nearly the size of some desktop monitors at 19 inches, and a smaller model would unfold to a display size that would be larger than an iPhone 16 Pro Max, but this would be intended to serve as a foldable iPhone. I know you're going back. You want phones to be less distracting, but are either of these interesting to you as a buyer? Do you want a foldable smartphone? I think you have to compete if you're Apple as an innovator to keep that mantle of being the Ford device company. So there's one argument that even if Apple doesn't think that a foldable phone is the best business proposition, now they almost have to come to the market

with some. I like thinner myself in form factors, and I do like cheaper. So what Apple is doing here is really expanding on its ability to entice customers to have to trade up. And trading up in the future might mean just trading into something that you're more comfortable with now that we've seemingly exhausted all that innovation excitement we've seen this petering out with every iPhone release i like this strategy and i think apple should be doing this i think they should be serving up a choice of form factors and settle on the one that the massive consumers who are going to upgrade start to really adopt and enjoy well there's there's some significant engineering challenges here and i I wouldn't want to bet against the engineers over at Apple, but there is an issue with a lot of

the foldable phones, which is that the more that you use them, the more that you have sort of like a creased screen in the middle at the folding point. And for a company like Samsung, it's seen its folding phones decline in sales as it's tried to introduce them. But when you're looking at this concept, what do you think Apple needs to figure out before presenting it to a mass market? It might be working on that line. Apple is known for, for the clarity of its output, they've always been a leader in that, the spectacular colors that we seem to get with subsequent generations of their devices. So I think for them, this is a supply chain problem, Ricky, and it's one that we used to think Apple could solve

overnight back in the day. And I do think that the company has still so much it can bring to consumers in terms of innovation. So I'd be working on this problem, and that would be fantastic if they could solve that, they'd immediately have an advantage over Samsung and rekindle the interest in this form factor. The other way that it's trying to rekindle growth is with that Vision Pro, but it's still trying to figure out an exact path forward, the Wall Street Journal reporting, that it's undecided on figuring out that exact path forward. And I think it's an interesting question because there are some, I would say, bears on the

Apple Vision Pro saying that this will be remembered in the Hall of Failures. This will be a big mistake. But maybe it can work. I think there are some interesting use cases. I got to try one on myself. If you go to an Apple store, you can sign up for a demo and they give you a little fireworks show. It's pretty cool.

But let's say Tim Cook, CEO has hired you, Asset, is a consultant to figure out this path forward. We need to find some growth. And your department is the Apple Vision Pro. Asset, what is going in your consultant's PowerPoint for what they can do with the Apple Vision Pro? So, Tim, you have two big problems. with the Vision Pro. Hello? Oh, sorry. Yes, Mr. Cook, sir. We have two big opportunities with the Vision Pro.

The first is we have a weight opportunity. The technology is dazzling, but I got tired after a very short trial. And so I think to bring this to a mass market for consumers, we need to work on the weight factor. The second opportunity is we have a compute opportunity here. I don't think I think we have really kept up with bringing AI to devices. This is an opportunity for us to leverage the AI expertise the world has yet to see, to be competitive with some models that will probably be introduced by meta, even by Alphabet, in the near future. So I think these two opportunities are ones we can capitalize on.

Thirdly, I would say we need to focus a little bit more in the business market. We should bring down the price point just a hair as we can. improve the technological quotient of the Vision Pro and start using it for business collaboration. That's been Meta's plan all along, and I think they will be soon pushing the gas on this idea within the next two years. I'll give you a free one, which is that you set up some Apple kiosks at different airports, and then you let people rent the Vision Pro for different airplane flights so they can watch a movie, play around with it while they're on a flight.

That one's free. The next one's not. Asa Sharma. This comes from Breakfast News, which is our free email that you can sign up for. We'll include a link in the description. And each day, there's a question to get the people talking. And today's question is about this story asking, what will be Apple's next big revenue generator and why? Vision Pro, smart glasses, which we haven't gotten to yet, the foldable iPhone, something else, or maybe it doesn't have one. This is a mature business. In a research meeting, in a smaller team research meeting at the Motley Fool, I brought up the idea

of Apple losing yet a little bit more of its competitiveness when Johnny Ives left the business. And I was fiercely challenged by many of my fellow analysts saying that Apple still has a lot of design power and a lot of innovation power the market has yet to see. So I'm going to go with something else because obviously my friends know something that I don't about the company. Let's go on to this future story in the New York Times. I think this is interesting because it will encourage you, hopefully, as an investor, to think about how could the companies you own get disrupted? There's a new ride hailing service that's rolling out in Washington, D.C. that is really trying to basically out Uber, Uber. The New York Times reporting that Empower,

yes, the company is called Empower. Now does 100,000 rides per week in Washington, and that is now more than the city's taxis. Here's the premise. Drivers pay a flat subscription fee to the company each month, which is around $350. Then they can set their own rates for rides and take home 100% of the fare. This is a very different model than Uber and Lyft,

which likes to take a chunk of each fare. You pay them. I think, for me, at least as a customer, ride-haling and driving is kind of a commodity game. If I'm a rider, I want the best price. and if you're a driver, you want to make the most money. But there's a lot of regulatory challenges here. Asset, when you were parsing through this story,

are you seeing a real disruptor to Uber and Lyft? I'm not sure if it's real. It is a disruptor. It is a challenger. And this is the fate of all things which aren't unique. So you may be on to something, Ricky, if this is a commodity, here's the business model challenge to say, prove to me this isn't a commodity. Now, you'd mention to me that they,

They've racked up $100 million in unpaid fines, I think just within Washington, D.C., where they began, because they're pulling an Uber and a lift that is to go into a market, not worry about the regulations, and build out the model. But whether this is real to answer your question, that depends on when they grow up if they can make enough money at $350 odd bucks per driver to cover all the costs that are associated with a business like this. They haven't had to grow up yet and worry about someone who had a bad experience in an Empower drive and having to enforce different types of behaviors with their drivers.

The regulatory piece is a big one. So we'll see. I didn't know that they've raised a bunch of money yet, a bunch of capital, the capital they would need to truly compete. But, boy, it's interesting to see how fast they've been able to grow in just one metropolitan area and I understand that some of our colleagues have started using this as well. Yeah, so Dylan's out in DC and he basically looked at what a ride from his house to our headquarters in Alexandria was lift, 47 bucks, Uber, 26 bucks, and Empower, 23 bucks.

So the average that's mentioned in the New York Times story was like a 20 to 30% discount to use Empower rather than the big two here. But I'm telling you, if I need to get to the airport, I'm looking for price pretty immediately. And I think that if Empower comes to Denver, I would be a pretty happy customer of it. You mentioned the regulatory frameworks, Osset. And yes, the startup has racked up $100 million in fines. It is trying a legal defense, which is essentially that we are not a ride hailing company. We are like a reservation app system because the drivers are the ones doing that. And basically, that framing is trying to absolve it from the registration requirements that basically guarantee that the drivers have commercial insurance.

In D.C., there's like a taxi ride-hailing agency that I think gets 6% of the money that goes through. And empower would rather not pay that. And that's why you're seeing the rack up and fines also a judge ordering the company to cease operations. The company continuing on anyway. Now, Aasit, sometimes the end of that story is a company like Uber and Lyft, which did a similar playbook. We're rolling in and we're going to kind of disregard these taxi regulations. Sometimes the company ends up being like a bird scooter where you see them everywhere and then now you don't see him so much anymore. Is this the best way to do a disruptive startup? Do you think it's better to

just sort of thumb your nose at the regulatory frameworks and whatever happens happens? I mean, I think if you have a direct line to Masayoshi-san in Japan who loves just a crazy, nutty, idea, you know, a punch you in the face, crazy idea. Yeah, this is not a bad way. If you don't have that, though the problem is getting other investors to come in after that first wave of capital. If I'm a venture capitalist and you're pitching me this idea and you've got a contingent liability on your books for $100 million, and there's a total of $19 or $20 million invested in the business so far with an uncertain outcome. If I try to help you grow, I'm not that interested. So I don't think it's the best way for most people.

But, you know, if you've got friends with deep pockets who will ride with you there, why not? Asset, who doesn't have baggage? Everyone's got some problems and you just got to work through it. I think that's a good place to end it. Appreciate you being here. Thank you for your time and your insight. Thanks so much. This was great fun, Ricky.

Up next, my colleague Mary Long continues her conversation series about shipping companies, this time catching up with Motley Full senior analyst Anthony Chavone about UP. which has a major competitor in its biggest customer. And the holidays have gotten me thinking a lot more about shipping and how gifts that I might order online get from point A to point B. I talked to Lou Whiteman about FedEx a couple of days ago, and now you're here to shine a light on a competitor of FedEx, UPS, United Parcel Service. So maybe let's start there on this competition piece.

It's tempting, especially from like a consumer side, to lump all of these logistics companies into a single bucket and say, hey, they kind of all do the same thing. are there differentiators here but does uPS will we'll focus on them first do they have a moat and if so what is it yeah so i i think uPS definitely has a moat around its business we can argue about whether that boat is is growing or shrinking but this business definitely has some competitive advantages so i think the big one is is barriers to entry in this business right i mean they think about how many billions of dollars would need to be spent just to replicate their

of trucks, planes, warehouses, even their labor force. So we're talking like hundreds of billions dollars. And that doesn't even include the brand equity that UPS is really built throughout its 100 plus year history. And I know we'll talk about Amazon in a bit, but Amazon spent more than $100 billion building out their delivery network over the last, you know, call it 15 plus years. And they're still one of UPS's largest customers. So I don't think there's many companies with $100 billion, just waiting around, waiting to be invested. So that barrier to entry is very real. And if you look at the competitive landscape today, it's essentially UPS, FedEx, and Amazon, the U.S., and then you have D.HL in Europe. So these are all really strong competitors. They're all

kind of in the same business. I kind of like UPS though, because they have their integrated ground an express network. So you have the same driver delivering both express and ground deliveries, whereas FedEx is still a little bit, their networks don't necessarily talk to each other as much anymore. I know, I listen to your podcast with Lou, and he talked about how they're kind of combining that over the past year. So that's potentially, you know, a competitive threat to watch moving forward. But yeah, I think this market is huge. And I think all these companies kind of have some form of moat. And for those who maybe have heard these words, but don't fully know what they mean in practice,

what is the difference between Express and Ground? Ground is essentially like your standard shipping. It'll arrive in three to five business days, that sort of thing. It's being delivered on a truck from a warehouse to a truck. Express is more like, I kind of need that package the next day. So it's flying on a plane, an end to your house. So it's just expressed, kind of how that sounds, it's just a quicker form of that delivery. If you're a business that's looking to strike a deal with any of these logistics companies,

are there any factors that you're looking at apart from speed and price? Or is that, is it really that simple? Yeah, I think those are two big ones. I also think that, you know, one thing a business looks at is the reliability of the service provider. And so I was at Costco last week, and I promise I'll tie this in and answer your question. But there was an employee holding up a sign advertising gold bars. And so I did a little bit of research, and it turns out that you can buy these gold bars in store or you can buy them online. And if you buy them online, guess who's shipping the gold bars?

It's UPS. So they are the trusted logistics partner to move high value goods like gold bars. And the fact that Costco, which is, you know, a company that always puts its members first, chooses UPS to deliver that product, I think that's a pretty good sign that they're the trusted partner in this space. And, you know, that's a reputation, a brand equity that, again, it's been built for, you know, 100 plus years. So I would say reliability along with, you know, price and speed is definitely what businesses are looking for. Amazon is obviously a big player in this logistics game and it has and has built that, carve that space out for themselves over the past several years. Amazon is UPS's largest customer.

They're responsible for about 12% of UPS's revenue. Is that a positive? Is that a strength for UPS or does that kind of present a potential existential risk for the company? Is it a risk? Yes. It's definitely a risk. Is it existential? I don't believe so.

Like we talked about earlier, Amazon spent out more than $100 billion. to build their delivery network, yet they're still UPS's largest customer. So while they're definitely competitors, they're still partners. One good example of that is Amazon's fulfillment centers. They're not really designed to the process returns. So they rely on UPS, and I think FedEx has getting involved with this as well, but they rely on those companies for returns. So I think that's one example.

And then like Lou said in the podcast, this market is, so big for all of these competitors. I think that's spot on. Amazon is best in class for last mile delivery, but there's other forms of delivery like cold change logistics, returns like we just mentioned, high value goods like the gold bars from Costco. And so I think Amazon has maybe less expertise in those areas and its supply chain isn't necessarily equipped to handle things like that. So yeah, Amazon's definitely a risk, but I don't think it's necessarily existential, at least at this point. UPS got a new CEO in 2020, Carol Tomey, and she's got quite an impressive track record in the business community. She labeled her strategy upon arrival at

UPS, better, not bigger. What does better not bigger look like in practice? One thing she talked a lot about is that not all packages are created equal. So you think about UPS over the past, right? Success was always predicated on increasing package volumes because if you generate more sales and you have the same fixed cost structure, you generate more cash. So you would think like the rapid growth in e-commerce in the last 15 years would be a huge tail win for this business. But that hasn't necessarily been the case because a lot of that e-commerce growth has been package volume growth from last mile delivery, small package delivery. So think of like your typical Amazon purchase, right? That's a very low margin delivery for UPS because the driver needs to drive down each driveway. They need to walk each doorstep, deliver each package.

And then on top of that, you need to build more warehouses and hire more employees to handle the higher package volumes. So over that time, UPS got bigger, but their profitability didn't necessarily increase. It actually declined. So when Carol Tomey took over, so you kind of refix the company on higher quality revenue or higher margin. package volumes. That's things like growing healthcare delivery volumes, growing package volumes to small and medium-sized businesses, consolidating warehouses, divesting underperforming businesses, all that kind of stuff aimed at increasing profitability, not necessarily increasing revenue or volume growth. So kind of the big idea was, you know, get more efficient and generate more

cash flow. Tommy's called the UPS dividend a hallmark of the company's financial strength. What is her approach to capital allocation and returning value to shareholders? And does that represent a change in direction from previous leadership? Yeah. So I think kind of building off the better or not bigger idea, I think Tomey thinks about capital allocation sort of the same way. Before she came to CEO of UPS, she was the CFO at Home Depot for about 20 years. And if you look at Home Depot's history in the early 2000s, they were a company that was

mainly focused on store growth. but around that time, she and the team there, they pretty much stopped new store openings, and they really started cranking up the cash generation machine that we know in Home Depot today. And they started returning a lot of capital shareholders through dividends and buybacks. And so I think she's kind of following the same playbook here at UPS. They're not looking to grow package volumes at any costs. They pay out a huge dividend now, which Tomay and the board increased pretty substantially. Like right after she took over, I think they increased it by,

50% within the first year after she took over. And they're repurchasing some shares here and there. So I'm not sure that the capital allocation approach has changed too much from her predecessors. But really the big change is the focus on quality growth, quality revenue growth, quality volume growth. I think that's really the big change here. If you look at a stock chart of UPS and compare it to the returns of the S&P 500, the two kind of track each other over the long term until you get to 2020. last year, and they sharply diverge. In the past 10 years, the S&P 500's returned over 250%. UPS has returned 62%. And again, a lot of that divergence kind of happened within the past year.

What's the reasoning behind that gap? Yeah, I think it's kind of been a perfect storm for UPS's business and stock of the last two to three years, call it. You've had the pandemic era, you had a package surge, volume surge, during the pandemic. I wonder what we was, buying packages. And now that's kind of flipped. And UPS is now delivering fewer packages per day than they did a few years ago. You've also had the new labor agreement that UPS signed with the Teamsters last fall. So that's increased their costs pretty substantially. You've had higher interest rates, which impacts a capital intensive business like UPS. Plus the 5% dividend yield doesn't look as attractive to income investors as it did when interest rates were, you know,

know, closer to zero. So I think that's played in effect. But I think really, like over the last year, year and a half, two years, I think the big thing from a stock performance perspective, and you mentioned 2023, that's when AI came onto the scene. And a lot of investors capital left mature dividend paying companies and, you know, found a home in big tech AI stocks. I think that, you know, might be part of the divergence there. Not sure if it's the driving force. But it's, you it's definitely been a challenging period for UPS's business, but I think there's a lot of negativity, you know, already baked into the stock price right now. Earlier this year, UPS sold Coyote Logistics, a third-party logistics provider.

They sold it to RXO. What exactly is third-party logistics, and why did UPS want to get out of that business? Yeah, so third-party logistics, it's essentially like refers to a business that outsources logistics services to another company. So that was Coyote Logistics. It's a cyclical capital-intensive, lower margin business. And that's ultimately why UPS decided to get out of that business. It's part of their larger, better, not bigger strategy.

So that was a part of that. And I got to say, as far as capital allocation goes, like, if there's one thing I would look at, I love dividends as a dividend investor, but if there's one thing I really want to look at, it's companies that divest underperforming businesses. I think that is something that creates a lot of value that really doesn't get a lot of attention,

but is very important to long-term value creation. Anthony Chabone, thanks, as always, for joining us on Motley Full Money. Really appreciate the time and the look at UPS. Thanks for having me. As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy herself anything based solely on what you hear.

financial finance content follows Motleyful editorial standards and are not approved by advertisers. The Motleyful only picks products that would personally recommend to friends like you. I'm Ricky Mulvey. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.