Motley Fool Money - Tariffs News & Markets in Chaos

Episode Date: February 20, 2026

President Trump’s tariffs have been overturned, throwing the market into even more chaos in 2026. We discuss our initial thoughts and go through Doordash’s results and what new technologies we think are game-changers long-term. Travis Hoium, Lou Whiteman, and Jon Quast discuss: - Trump tariffs, GLP data, and inflation - Walmart’s earnings - Doordash’s results - Real/Not Real - Stocks on our radar Companies discussed: Walmart (WMT), Tesla (TSLA), Doordash (DASH) Hims & Hers (HIMS), Lucid (LCID), Mobileye (MBLY), Alphabet (GOOG, GOOGL). Host: Travis Hoium Guests: Lou Whiteman, Jon Quast Engineer: Dan Boyd Disclosure: Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. The Motley Fool and its affiliates (collectively, “TMF”) do not endorse, recommend, or verify the accuracy or completeness of the statements made within advertisements. TMF is not involved in the offer, sale, or solicitation of any securities advertised herein and makes no representations regarding the suitability, or risks associated with any investment opportunity presented. Investors should conduct their own due diligence and consult with legal, tax, and financial advisors before making any investment decisions. TMF assumes no responsibility for any losses or damages arising from this advertisement. We’re committed to transparency: All personal opinions in advertisements from Fools are their own. The product advertised in this episode was loaned to TMF and was returned after a test period or the product advertised in this episode was purchased by TMF. Advertiser has paid for the sponsorship of this episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit ⁠⁠⁠megaphone.fm/adchoices⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Breaking news, the Supreme Court has struck down Trump's tariffs. So what's next? Motley Full Money starts now. That's why they call it money. The best thing. Cool global headquarters. This is Motley Fool Money. I'm Travis Hoyam, joined by Lou Whiteman and John Quast.

Guys, we had a show planned in about three minutes before we started. We got news that the tariffs that Trump implemented last year have been overturned by the Supreme Court. We're still trying to process all this information, but Lou, there was a lot of data that came out today. GDP came in a little bit worse than expected at 1.4% growth year over year. Inflation was a little bit hotter than expected with that core inflation number of 3% year over year. And now we get this tariff news. What in the world should we be thinking? Chaos, right? And the best form of chaos. It's more complicated than you think because there was only some of the tariffs that were struck down. They're the ones that were put in place due to kind of emergency

situations where all of a sudden everything was an emergency. Look, let's break it down real quick. The tariff case, the Supreme Court said, we don't know what to do about compensation. So that needs to play out. The administration claims they have other ways to do this. So I think that's just a big, who knows, can't really break it down. Let's talk about that compensation part because that is interesting. This isn't going to be, hey, these are overturned, and here's your $175 billion or so back. That may eventually happen, but we are kind of in limbo. So if you own a stock that has been paying tariffs, you may get a windfall in the future. You also may not. And it may just, you know, be like,

sorry about that. And who even gets it? Because if you own a stock and they passed half of that tariff cost along to a consumer, I don't think, I mean, are they going to try and do that? So yeah, it's a mess. We were kind of expecting this. I think we just kind of say, okay, this happened. we'll see from here. The inflation number, to me, that's sort of a nothing burger. We were expecting, I mean, we're basically expecting almost that. So look, the inflation, the big debate is, you know, is this a one-time thing? Can the economy deal with a one-time thing? Or will it just continue? I think that that just plays out the end of the line. The interesting thing to me was the GDP number, because that was about half of what we were expecting. It was the lowest number, I think,

at least in a few quarters. Everyone's going to say ignore this because of the government shutdown. And indeed, federal spending was down 24%. That's the biggest decline since the COVID quarter in 2020. Yes, some of that is going to be a bounce back, but let's kind of dig a little deeper. There was trade weakness, which is tied to all these tariffs, so maybe it'll turn around, but that's big. And consumer spending, Travis, the largest share of the economic activity decelerated to a 2.4% pace from 3.5% in the previous period. That, to me, is the most interesting part of this. A lot of this looks like noise. A lot of this, there's a yeah-butt.

I mean, I just gave you like 300 yeah-butts here. But that consumer spending number, that's the one to watch. My hot take, and without having time to go through all of this really big, is that, yes, there's going to be a lot of chicken littles out there. Yes, there's going to be the other side of it, people saying this is a nothing burger. There is a here here. It's probably not the chicken little here. It's not like everybody panic. But there is trends here that are not in the direction that we want to go.

I love Lou's word choice of chaos. and I don't think that we can understate just how much chaos there is potential here. I mean, we're talking about $170 billion in tariffs, and we're trying to figure out where the money goes, where it comes from, who gets it. That's chaotic. On top of that, the Supreme Court is saying the president exceeded his powers by doing this, but that does not preclude Congress from taking action. What does that mean?

And that would actually be something that would be more permanent. So it seems like it could impact the midterm elections. Definitely economic policy is going to be on the ballot. So that's very interesting. I would say, though, from an investment point of view, if you are invested in a company that was talking a lot about mitigating tariff headwinds, the immediate impact is that is no longer a headwind. Forget about the water that's already gone under the bridge.

We're talking about starting today, there is no longer that headwind blowing. I think that you think about somebody like Nike, manufacturing in China and Vietnam, Lou Lemon, for example, there's another company that is going to feel a benefit from this. Even a retailer such as Five Below, which sources its products primarily from these Asian countries, it's going to feel no longer this wind blowing against it from the tariffs and adding that incremental costs. So I would say that immediately, these companies do feel a benefit. I hope so. The one thing I'd say is that what plagued us last year was uncertainty. My fear here is that we've now prolonged the uncertainty. But one point John made it,

I think, is so good, talking about, and this is not a political podcast, nor do we want it to be, but this is a midterm election year. If you're looking for a potential tail win, I think we've already seen a shift from the White House in terms of economic stimulus or economic populism, them to try to help in the midterms, I do think that that could play into stocks if there is stimulus and actually propel things higher from here, even if it is short term. So it's just a very muddled picture right now. Lou, I wanted to get your thoughts on the market's reaction, because initially when this came out, and this came out while the market was open in the first few minutes of trading, stocks went from being down slightly to up slightly to down, to down

lately again, and now we're up a little bit about 0.3% for the NASDAQ, 0.2% for the S&P 500. It seems like there is sort of a little bit of confusion between the algorithms, the humans, whoever's making big trades. And, you know, this isn't the, if you remember back to April, when the, when the tariffs were first announced, it was just everything was down. We're not having the same bounce back effect. So it just seems like we're in this uncertainty motor, or you don't even know what this really means. Is that the right way to think about it? I think it is. I mean, look, yes, we didn't get a bounce back from Liberation Day, but we already had gotten that. So I don't think we're... The conventional wisdom was the Supreme Court would do

exactly what it did. So I think, you know, I mean, the market tends to overreact to things that didn't see coming and kind of underreact. We call it it's priced in. That's the way we sound smart there. I think, look, again, if the glass half empty here, which I think makes sense is, is that you couple all of this, you couple of this just continued uncertainty. If you give a good CEO a playbook, they will run the playbook. If you tell them the rules of the game, they will figure out how to compete. We are back to where we were in April or May of last year where just nobody knew what the rules of the game were.

That's not great for economic activity. That's not great for committing to a new project. That's not great for building a new warehouse. That's not great for hiring a consultant to plan out M&A or something like that. To the extent that the Supreme Court right or wrong has just added more uncertainty, that is a worry, especially with these GDP numbers that suggest there's already some vulnerability. And then again, just to contrast that against a government apparatus that might be focused on stimulus that might at least temporarily offset some of that lack of spending.

It's just a big mess. Speaking of economic activity, John, we did get numbers from Walmart. And the comments were really interesting in their conference call. They basically said, Lou's been talking about the K-shaped economy for months here on the show. And that was essentially what they said was, hey, people who are making over $100,000 a year are doing fine. They continue spending, but people who are making less than $50,000 or so are really pulling back. back. They're starting to feel higher costs from tariffs. What was your takeaway from Walmart earnings because this is sort of the big indicator of what real consumers are doing? This is not,

you know, GDP could be helped by that AI spend, but that AI spend isn't making it to a lot of regular people's pockets. I don't know if I'd say that people making 100,000 annually are necessarily doing well. They're doing well for Walmart because they're shopping there more. So, that's one thing. Maybe the fact that they're going to Walmart isn't the most bullish sign. Exactly. Now, the people who are lower income, 50,000 annually or less, yes, they are feeling stretched for sure, but that's not necessarily new. Dollar General has been flagging this for quite a while over the past year. So we've seen this before. Normally, I would say, watch out for your kind of lower-end discretionary spending categories, maybe such as casual

dining. But it's kind of just still a weird economy because fast food prices have gone up so much that casual dining is actually pretty competitive and doing pretty well. You can just look at chilies from Brinkers. It's got some pretty decent deals out there, and spending has been quite good. So I don't know where the cracks are necessarily in the economy, but certainly, yes, the consumer is stretched. Why do you hate on Walmart? Why shouldn't have affluent people go in there? Glass full there is that the higher income shoppers or the consumer is making adjustments as needed to continue spending. And that is positive for the economy. At the end of the day, we just want a critical number of people to keep spending. We don't

care where they spend. And so Walmart is fine. Again, I keep going back to this, but it's just we We need, the consumer is not one person. The consumer just doesn't decide to spend or not spend. We need a critical mass of consumers to feel good enough about their individual situations that they will continue to spend. It doesn't matter where they spend. It doesn't matter, you know, it does matter how many of them. But for now, it's okay, but we're watching it. And that's all we can determine, I think. Speaking of spending, when we come back, we're going to talk about people spending more and more getting their food delivered at home. You're listening to Motley Full Money.

These days, I'm all about quality over quantity, especially in my closet. If it's not well-made and versatile, it's just not worth it. That's honestly why I love Quince. The fabrics feel elevated, the cuts are thoughtful, and the pricing actually makes sense. Quince makes high-quality wardrobe staples using premium fabrics like 100% European linen, silk, and organic cotton poplin. They work directly with safe ethical factories and cut off the middlemen so you aren't paying for brand markups or fancy stores, just quality clothing. Everything they make is built to hold up season after season and is consistently rated 4.5 to 5 stars by thousands of real people like me who wear their clothes every day. The Quince, Mongolian cashmere crewneck sweater may be the most comfortable one that I

own. It's light, soft, and it was a lot more affordable than you think quality cashmere would be. Stop waiting to build the wardrobe you actually want. Right now, go to quince.com slash Motley for free shipping and 365-day returns. That's a full year to wear it and love it, and you will. Now available in Canada, too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to Q-I-N-C-E.com slash motley for free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com slash motley. Welcome back to Motley full money. One of the interesting earnings reports this week was DoorDash, and John, they announced a huge jump in their gross order volume. The theory here is that this is one of those aggregators that pulling together all the demand for, you know, order deliveries.

I use DoorDash all the time. Once you get into their kind of pass plan, it makes sense to just keep using DoorDash. But this continues a trend of companies like DoorDash, Uber, Lyft are growing double digits. And it doesn't seem like they're slowing down anytime soon. Yeah, it was a great quarter for DoorDash in particular, the order volume just increasing so much year over year. and I think this is really a testament for DoorDash, but also for Lyft and the other marketplaces out there, they're building marketplaces that people actually like. And I know we don't think about these as two-sided marketplaces, but they really are, in particular, DoorDash, because there's a whole merchant side of getting onto this platform and getting out there to customers.

It's almost like an e-commerce portal in a way if you can just kind of wrap your mind around it that way. DoorDash is building something that people like using. And I think that's really an underappreciated aspect of this business here. It's not just getting the stuff to your door. It's a platform that both merchant and customer appear to enjoy interacting with, drivers as well, or dashers as they call them. And so, yeah, it's something that continues to gain momentum, and it's something that we need to watch.

Lou, one of the things that I always think about with these companies is a lot of the conversation about autonomy focuses in companies like Tesla. but if you look at Uber and Lyft in particular, they're thinking a lot about how the autonomous future looks. DoorDash hasn't quite talked about that quite as much, but it does seem like these two-sided markets, if supply, you know, maybe these dashers become autonomous vehicles in the future,

but have they just gotten to a scale where disrupting them with some sort of new technology is just going to be really, really difficult because there's so much momentum behind being in the Uber. ecosystem or the Lyft ecosystem or the DoorDash ecosystem, as John said. Give DoorDash a little credit here. They have partnerships with server robotics and a few others, so they are exploring this too. I think for now, definitely. And we've talked about this with Apple and AI, that having access to a consumer is so important, the customer list. I do think,

though, there's a world where your question gets turned on its head. If we truly have autonomous everywhere, does the aggregator matter? If I can just, just have AI sent, in a world where either Google search or AI saying, I want a light bulb, bring me a light bulb. You know, and almost. So you're saying like the ultimate end point of agents. It's just you got an agent that goes out and it finds a retailer and it finds a delivery person. Or do we need to go through a captive portal, which is what DoorDash or Uber sort of looks like in that. If I want to ride somewhere, do I have to get on my Uber app or do I just, whether it's Google or something else saying, I need to get from point A to point B and some sort of just AI sends a car.

So I don't think that they are necessarily set up to inherit the earth, and it's just, you know, they're going to win forever. I think in this current climate where the, you know, kind of being the gatekeepers is absolutely, and having that scale, that's where things fund to, I think it works real well for them. And I think that will continue for now. But if we really get to a point where this stuff is everywhere, do we need DoorDash? Do we need that middle ground? Or do I just say, hey, Kava, I want this and Kava just find some rando robot that can get it there? I think that's possible at least. So I just, I think we have to wait and see on this. But for now, yes, I think the economics are all set up for he who has the customer can get scale, can get margins. John, do you think that's right? Are these companies, do they have a durable, most? or is AI, maybe some new piece of hardware, going to cause some disruption in these businesses? Well, I totally get what Lou's point is here, and it's well taken. I would say that competition is such an interesting thing, and even in a autonomous AI agent future,

competition and competitive advantages are still going to matter. I think that partnerships are still going to be formed. And so which company is creating the AI agent and how? those partnerships are shaking out and which restaurant is using that autonomous vehicle company versus my competitor who's using the other one. I think these things are still going to happen behind the scenes. Maybe the consumer is going to be less aware of them, but I think it's still going to happen. I think if you are an aggregator, if you are the company that has built the marketplace, it's much easier to incorporate AI agents or autonomous vehicles, even robotics. I think it's much

easier to incorporate that into your marketplace model than it is for the AV companies to build a marketplace. So maybe long term they can, but I think over the next five years or so, I think the aggregators still matter. Is this why we're seeing a lot of these companies? One of the things I've noticed, especially with Open AI, but we've seen some partnerships between companies like Zillow and Google, even the AI companies, which you would think are kind of going it alone and saying, hey, we're going to disrupt everybody, we're going to take over the world, are suddenly going, okay, you know what, we also need to have partners.

You know, Lou, that I think John's point sort of makes sense that in theory you could maybe change everything. We don't need this app infrastructure that we've spent the last 15 or 20 years building. But to get from here to there is maybe going to be a little bit bigger lift than any one company can. and also disrupting the status quo that so many of us are so used to. We should note, there's a separate land grab going on among the AI companies. And yeah, again, in the current market, if you are going from no companies and maybe a

commoditized model, I mean, no customers who are trying to have customers, then yeah, trying to partner works. I just think that beyond all this, the middleman, and John's probably right, there's a role for these companies in the back end. I don't know if that's as lucrative as investors might want to say. if you just become the plumbing. I doubt if AI and autonomous evolve the way the optimist hope it will, I doubt there's the same need to use Uber to find a ride

or for DoorDash to find food. So I just think that, you know, and again, this might be ultra long-term thinking, but I do think that it's things, pendulums are real. And things that seem like, wow, this momentum will never end, is normally those statements and age poorly. And I think in this case that if the technology develops the way we hope, I do wonder about the long-term future for these guys.

For now, it appears that DoorDash continues to be in a really good position with momentum. But we'll see if Lou is right here. The disruption is on the way. When we come back, we are going to see what technology disruptions are real, which ones are not real? You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Sitting in the morning sun, I'll be. sitting in the evening come watching the ships rolling and then I watch and roll away

What does leadership really look like on the power of advice a new podcast series from Capital Group? You'll hear from athletes, entrepreneurs, and executives who've led on the field, in the boardroom, and in their communities. It's not about titles. It's about impact. Discover what drives them and the advice they carry forward. Subscribe and start listening today. Published by Capital Client Group, Inc. Welcome back to Motley Full Money. We like to have a little bit of fun in this section, and I wanted to get Lou and John's thoughts on what sort of technology disruptions are real and what are not real. So there's a lot of talk about artificial intelligence, humanoid robots, peptides, and more. So let's start with humanoid robots. John, these have been the talk of the market,

especially companies like Tesla, Nvidia has gotten into that in a really big way over the past couple of years. But the fun thing that I didn't know until this morning is you can actually buy a Unitary G1 humanoid robot for $18,000 on Amazon today. Are we closer to this humanoid future than a lot of us think? Well, Travis, let me tell you, if the 18 grand is a little bit inaccessible for you, you can just do Buy Now, Pay Later, split that into three payments of $6,000. Oh, great, great. Listen, right there is one of the options. Joking aside, listen, I think there is something here in robotics.

It's been a couple of years since Tesla marched that guy out in the Optimist costume, right? And I thought that was the biggest joke. Boston Dynamics was a company that had been working in this extensively for many years and finally had gotten to the place of dancing robots, but still, it was struggling to create something that was truly practical for the masses. Then Tesla does this move, and lo and behold, what it's actually produced so far in the Optimus program, I think is actually pretty impressive given the time it's been doing this. You look at all these other companies, such as Unitry.

It's kind of created this sprint, this arms race amongst the robotics companies to really get a practical mass market household robot out there. I think there is something there. The competition is pushing the technology. I see these more in warehouses before apartments personally, but we'll see. I'm really glad. I mean, yeah, I think John should buy one of those. Maybe you just buy now, pay later because I'm really glad that these are coming and the optimist apparently they're going to be building them in Fremont before the end of the year, right?

Because I'm a big, we'll see here. I get the potential, but look, most technology looks better in demos than it does in in real life. It seems to me this is likely to be that on steroids. If you think, if you were let down by Siri after watching the Apple commercials, I can only imagine how you're going to feel when your dancing robot won't dance for you. So let's get it out there. This is early generation technology. My bet here is that we're going to find these underwhelming when they're actually out here. That's not to say there's not great potential. And version 2, 3, 4, 5 could do a lot better. I am still going to take the over.

And as far as warehouses, I think you're 100% right. But the thing is, there's already a ton of robots there. And for the most part, the human form is, if anything, a hindrance in a factory setting or there are better forms it to take. I don't know if robots that look like us are really the answer the way we think they are. Maybe for cleaning up after your pet, but I don't, not in the warehouse, not assembling automobiles and things like that. So we'll see.

We're definitely making progress here, but I don't know if a dancing robot is coming to my household. Okay, Lou, I think I'm kind of falling on the side that there's something real here from a humanoid robot standpoint. You know, we're seeing these robots now do, you know, kung fu or whatever karate stuff it was. It's really amazing what they're doing. But the other thing that you mentioned is there's no real sales yet,

at least in a significant amount. And there's already a ton of competition. So this would be a little bit like going back to, you know, let's say 2012 when Tesla was coming out with something like the, you know, the Model S. And instead of only being one electric vehicle where they could take all the market, they could have, you know, high profitability. Now you've got dozens of competitors. That from an investment standpoint seems like a challenge. And maybe this should be a wait and see thing. If you're, if you're, this is part of your investment thesis.

Is that fair or is this one of those, hey, it's so evergreen that everybody's going to be able to win? No, I don't think everyone's going to be willing. For one thing, I would be very surprised, even if someone has cracked this code already, that if everybody has cracked this code. So I do think it's, look, if you own these companies anyway and you want the upside, sure, that's great. If you're buying now on the idea that I think one of the CEOs said, it projected, hey, if we sell a billion units at 30,000 apiece, that's a lot of money. I would take the under on that. Kung Fu, Travis. Yeah, they're really good at Kung Fu.

All of the times in your household that you're like doing Kung Fu and you're like, man, I wish a robot could do this for me. See, there's your practical application right there. You haven't seen my kids playing. It looks a little bit like Kung Fu. They'd probably love to be hanging out with one of these robots. All right, John, let's talk a little bit about autonomous driving. A whole bunch of players here.

You have Google with Waymo. I wanted to bring Lucid into this. we don't talk a lot about Lucid, but they have a partnership with Nero. There are only three companies in the state of California who are actually licensed to commercially operate. Neuro is one of them. So that puts a company like Lucid in an interesting position. You have Moboli, more of a horizontal business model with partnerships with Volkswagen

and another unnamed U.S. manufacturer. Is this a real technology that we're going to be using in the future? And I'll get to the investment angle in just a second. how real is this, let's say, in the next five years? There's something so interesting about all of this as far as human psychology that I think is really going to limit how quickly this becomes a thing that is the cars are driving everybody everywhere. The thing is that autonomous vehicles still do make mistakes. And yes, maybe the argument is they make way fewer mistakes than a human driver. But I think that the human psychology is

is we'd like to hold someone accountable when something goes wrong. And I can hold a human driver accountable, but who do I hold accountable when the autonomous vehicle makes a mistake? And I think that is one of the things that is just from a psychology perspective, limiting widespread adoption, is going to keep it from being a thing as quickly as many people think it's going to be a thing. Yeah. I mean, look, it's already a thing. I mean, I'm in Atlanta. I see Waymo. Although Waymo had a bad week. I don't know what happened, but I was out earlier in the week. It saw three different ways. Waymo's being driven by humans. So I don't know what was going on there.

Maybe I said, but look, it's here. I think, and Waymo has surprised me at how quickly they're expanding, so maybe it's more here than we know. I don't think the steering wheel is going away from most of us for a long time. I still think edge cases are very, very scary. But look, and I don't think just, look, to some extent, maybe on dancing robots, if one company can figure out, maybe everyone can figure out something. I don't think it works that way here. I don't think just because Waymo's doing it, that means everybody's will work as well because there is

still so much into this. But it's here. You think that there's going to be a platform that they can use like a, I use Neuro and Lucid as an example. So if Neuro's technology is applicable to any vehicle, you just got to stick the right sensors on it. Is that not potentially a way that this could become more accessible for more automakers? Over time, yes. And again, I do wonder about Commodomero. and if everybody gets good at this, that's going to take time. It's both here and it's going to be limited for now. I think it is the takeaway. So from an investment perspective, I'll start with you, Lou, is this something that we should be watching, watching from the sidelines, trying to figure out who is going to be the ultimate winner? Is it really the Uber's lifts and door dashes of the world?

Who are the ultimate winners? How are you thinking about this from an investment perspective? I think for now, I don't think there's any company where I want to buy it because of their autonomous driving, period. But I do think that it is real enough that it can be part of an investment thesis and it can be like definitely the potential upside there. Again, this is not universal. It's not enough to say we are into autonomous. You have to actually demonstrate it or like you say, at least for now, the aggregators who can take advantage of those who can do it. Look, Waymo is still a very, very small part of Uber's business in Atlanta. So I do think even like on an Uber, which does seem to be a natural beneficiary,

I think that it's likely to be an overblown part of an investment thesis. But it's definitely there as potential upside. I just don't think it's core to any company right now. I couldn't agree more, Lou. That's what I'm getting at here. as far as, yes, it is here, but I think that it's not going to be, everything is autonomous as quickly as some people think. All right, let's go to an interesting one.

I called it the moon economy. We were talking about going to Mars a few years ago. Apparently, we've changed that blue from SpaceX is talking about going to the moon as opposed to going to Mars. Mars is really hard. Mars is really hard. The moon is hard, but easier. Is there going to be some sort of economy there?

going to be an investment payoff. You know, this has always been kind of an exploration. There's outputs, you know, from NASA going to Mars, or sorry, going to the moon, you know, decades ago, but it wasn't a business that they were in. So is there really a business there? I, look, there are fringe businesses there. The, the, I think the projections are overstated. And I mean, again, I'm not the first to say this, but there are a lot more mineral resources. a lot more potential for cooling AI data centers and all that by just sticking it deep in the ocean. Our seabeds have a lot of the same characteristics. We can't figure that out. And again, it's high pressure versus low pressure, but there are easier ways to do this that we've kind of given up on

because, wow, that's cost prohibitive and hard. I think that at least that backdrop should be a filter for all of this moon talk. Yes, we need to get back to the moon. Yes, we should explore what we can do there. Is the moon going to be covered with data centers and mining operations in my lifetime? I doubt it. I think we might as well actually figure out how to mine in Antarctica and Greenland and in the bottom of the ocean. If those are easier problems to solve that we haven't been able to do cost effectively. So yeah, the moon sounds neat, but we'll see. Yeah, I agree with Lou 100%. I'm not sure how self-sustaining the space economy is.

It's very reliant on government spending, which is good right now because NASA is a priority for the current administration, but political priorities can change quickly. And so that is something to keep in mind. But what a fun time for the astronaut kid and all of us, isn't it? I mean, Artemis 2 is on schedule for launch next month. They did their wet dress rehearsal today, so they tested the fuel systems. It sounds like that went good. This mission is going to take astronauts around the far side of the moon,

and it's going to be the furthest that we've had people away from Earth. So that's really, really cool. Space X's pivot. They're prepping for a IPO later this year, potentially. Their pivot from Mars to the moon does make sense because to lose point, Mars is extremely hard. it's going to be very hard to show its shareholders, hey, we're actually making progress towards something,

whereas the moon, it's going to be able to put something up there a lot quicker than it can put something on the red planet. And so it makes sense why they made the switch. Yeah, interesting little side story. When my first year of engineering school in 2000, we did a project for NASA where we were trying to figure out how mine stuff on the moon. And it was cool that they actually go to these colleges is because the 18-year-old kids don't know what's not possible.

So we'll see if any of that stuff, you know, we're now 26 years later, but if any of the things that we were talking about back then ever come to reality, let's talk a little bit about peptides. This is one of the things I'm trying to learn a lot more about. But John, GLP-1s are actually a peptide. We don't really talk about that. So they are already a huge, huge business. We know that Eli Lilly is testing Reda-Trutide,

which is so effective that people are dropping out of the trial because they have lost so much weight, is peptides a real big thing in the future, a disruption, if you will, of medicine, or is this a lot of hocus pocus? Well, I 100% believe the hype in this domain, Travis, and I'm not an expert by any means, but I do want to compare this peptide conversation to something that's related in my mind, and that is protein folding. And so apparently, proteins can fold in different ways. And when we have medical issues, they can be addressed by how proteins fold. And in the past, basically the scientists have been trying to figure out how proteins fold manually.

And they're really smart and they're working very hard. But then something out there from Google, and I'd encourage listeners to check it out, it's called Alpha Fold. Alpha fold uses AI to find new ways, new protein structures. And it's finding in hours what would have taken a researcher manually months to discover. And so I think that as AI pushes forward this medical discovery, in this case, protein structures, how they fold, this can lead to medical breakthroughs that just simply weren't possible before we had artificial intelligence. intelligence, really figuring some of this stuff out. So I think that this does trickle down to real-life applications. I would say this applies to peptides as well. Yeah, I think that's right. The question

is, as an investor, what do you do with it, though? Because, for one, these things take forever to play out. And again, I even think about with the GLP ones. There are examples of medicines that have really been revolutionary and huge markets. For the most part, they did not lead to sustained oversized profits. Look at statins. Statins are a miracle. There are people alive today because of statins that wouldn't have been alive 50 years ago. It's also been generic and competed down to the point where it's not real. I mean, Pfizer is not a quadrillion dollar company because of Lipitor. So I do think between the time it takes, the complications, and then the fact that if something's really revolutionary, it will be copied and it will be kind of just competed to death. It's

really hard for investors. There's going to be home runs. It's great for humanity. But as an investment thesis, it's really hard. Fair enough. If it's good for humanity, maybe it's good for all of us, even if we're not going to necessarily find easy ways to make money off of it. When we come back, we're going to get two stocks on our radar. You're listening to Motley Full Money. The old adage goes, it isn't what you say. It's how you say it, because to truly make an impact, you need to set an example and take the lead. You have to adapt to whatever comes your way. When you're that driven, you drive an equally determined vehicle, the Range Rover Sport.

The Range Rover Sport blends power, poise, and performance. Its design is distinctly British and free from unnecessary details, allowing its raw agility to shine through. It combines a dynamic sporting personality with elegance to deliver a truly instinctive drive. Inside, you'll find true modern luxury with the latest innovations in comfort. Use the cabin air purification system alongside active noise cancellation for all new levels of quality and quiet. Whether you prefer a choice of powerful engines or the plug-in hybrid with an estimated range of 53 miles, there's an option for you. With seven terrain modes to choose from, terrain response to fine-tuned your vehicle for the roads ahead. The Range Rover event is on now.

Explore enhance offers atrangerover.com. As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about in the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy our sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows the Molly Fool's editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. See our full advertising disclosure. Please check out our show notes. We'd like to end the show with our radar segment.

We're going to bring in Dan Boyd from behind the glass for his thoughts. John, you're up first. What's on your radar this week? Well, on my radar this week is Wingstop, ticker symbol W-I-N-G. This is a chicken wing restaurant chain, although it does sell more than just chicken wings. It has over 3,000 global locations. It opened nearly 500 in 2025 alone. There are some restaurant chains that don't even have 500 locations.

That's what it opened up just this past year. What I like about this company is that it takes most of its orders through the app, and there are mostly takeout and delivery. So it really means that Wingstop has a lot of operating leverage in the model itself. It can scale very good in 2025. It installed smart kitchens. to help it scale more efficiently as well. Here's the bad news.

Wingstop just reported the first drop in same store sales in 20 years. Stock is down about 40% from the all-time high. But the good news is it's still incredibly strong, shooting for 10,000 locations long term. It has a dividend that's growing fast, trading at its cheapest valuation almost ever at 40 times earnings. So I think there's a lot to like here. Dan, what do you think about take-out chicken wings?

Yeah, there's a wing stop down the street for me, and I've never been. Sounds like you have an assignment today. It's called research, Dan. This is your job for the weekend. Lou, what's on your radar this week? All right, Dan, since the beginning, eBay has basically been about turning trash into treasure.

Or more politely, taking something that someone else can't use, doesn't want to use, whatever, and putting it in the hands of someone who can use it or wants to use it. With that in mind, I see great logic in eBay announcing it will buy Gen Z clothing marketplace Deepop from Etsy for $1.2 billion. This is in some ways Etsy's trash. It was something that Etsy didn't use effectively. But eBay, just like all of its PEZ customers, I think eBay can find value here. Deal makes sense to both the buyer and a seller. For Etsy, they tried to diversify, but it never took off for eBay. This is their core business. They are adding a brand that

kids see is cool. Deepop is really small, only 7 million or so active buyers. eBay should be able to apply its tech, its infrastructure, and its know-how to grow the business while using this brand that kids like. And by the way, Dan, eBay's earnings came in pretty good too. This is kind of an unappreciated, forgotten company, but a really solid business, and I like this move for them. Dan, can Deepop make eBay cool again? Well, listen, don't ask me to arbitrate what is cool and what is not, because I can't do that. whatsoever. That comes from Lou. But I do actually use eBay quite a bit, and it's not just the random crap that people are trying to get rid of. You can actually find a lot of premium products

at a discount on eBay. It's a very good marketplace. All right, Dan, which stock is going on your radar? I got to go with what I know, and I'm going to go with eBay. For Lou Whiteman, John Quast and Dan Boyd behind the glass, I'm Travis Hoyum. Thanks for listening to Motley Fool Money. We'll see you here tomorrow.