Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. (NASDAQ: WBD) closed at $13.50, gaining 1.43% on heavy trading volume of approximately 125 million shares -- more than double its average of 54 million shares. The stock reached an intraday high of $13.68, marking its 52-week high, before settling near closing levels. Today's rise builds on momentum from the company's mid-June announcement to spin off its Streaming & Studios and Global Networks divisions, a strategic restructuring plan that continues to progress steadily.

Warner Bros Discovery outperformed broader market indices, with the S&P 500 gaining just 0.07% and the Nasdaq Composite rising 0.18%. Among streaming competitors, there was slight contrast: Netflix closed at $1,180.76, up a modest 0.34%, while Walt Disney declined 0.81% to $121.95, underscoring Warner's relative sector leadership for the day.

The elevated trading volume and technical positioning above key moving averages signal robust intermediate-term momentum. Warner Bros.' performance reflects sustained institutional interest in its corporate restructuring initiatives and expanding international streaming footprint, positioning the company favorably amid evolving media landscape dynamics.

Should you invest $1,000 in Warner Bros. Discovery right now?

Before you buy stock in Warner Bros. Discovery, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Warner Bros. Discovery wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $634,627!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,046,799!*

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,037% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don’t miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025

JesterAI is a Foolish AI, based on a variety of Large Language Models (LLMs) and proprietary Motley Fool systems. All articles published by JesterAI are reviewed by our editorial team, and The Motley Fool takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this article. JesterAI cannot own stocks and so it has no positions in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Netflix, Walt Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Warner Bros. Discovery (NASDAQ: WBD) shares climbed 2.07% to close at $12.84 on Thursday, outpacing broader market gains as investors continue to respond positively to developments regarding the company's linear division spin-off. Trading volume surged to approximately 110.5 million shares, nearly double the 50-day average of 66.7 million, indicating heightened interest and conviction behind the price movement.

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite both traded near all-time highs but posted more modest gains of around 0.54% and 0.74% respectively. Industry peers showed positive movement as well, with Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS) rising 1.99% to $122.21 and Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) gaining 0.87% to $34.70, though neither matched WBD's relative performance.

Technically, WBD shares are trading near their 52-week high, reinforcing a bullish breakout pattern that has attracted additional investor attention. The dramatic volume spike of approximately two times normal levels suggests possible institutional participation (hedge funds) as the company advances its strategic initiatives. Today's momentum and trading activity signal ongoing investor confidence in Warner Bros. Discovery's evolving media business strategy.

Should you invest $1,000 in Warner Bros. Discovery right now?

Before you buy stock in Warner Bros. Discovery, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Warner Bros. Discovery wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $674,281!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,050,415!*

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,058% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 179% for the S&P 500. Don’t miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of July 15, 2025

JesterAI is a Foolish AI, based on a variety of Large Language Models (LLMs) and proprietary Motley Fool systems. All articles published by JesterAI are reviewed by our editorial team, and The Motley Fool takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this article. JesterAI cannot own stocks and so it has no positions in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Walt Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Motley Fool recommends Comcast. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

In this podcast, Motley Fool host Anand Chokkavelu and contributors Jason Hall and Matt Frankel discuss:

• AI stocks in the data center space (including CoreWeave).
• Winners and losers in energy and solar from Trump's "big, beautiful bill."
• Ranking the intellectual property of Warner Bros. Discovery, Comcast, Disney, and Netflix.
• Prime Day and other made-up holidays.
• Stocks to watch.

And Dave Schaeffer, founder and CEO of Cogent Communications, talks with Motley Fool analysts Asit Sharma and Sanmeet Deo about how Cogent's deals with customers like Netflix and Meta Platforms work and what keeps him awake at night.

Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Learn More »

To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you're ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy.

A full transcript is below.

Where to invest $1,000 right now

When our analyst team has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,053%* — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500.

They just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now, available when you join Stock Advisor.

See the stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of July 14, 2025

This podcast was recorded on July 11, 2025.

Anand Chokkavelu: Yes, we're talking all kinds of stocks. This week's Motley Fool Money Radio Show starts now. It's the Motley Fool Money Radio Show. I'm Anand Chokkavelu. Joining me are two of my favorite fools, Jason Hall and Matt Frankel. Today, we'll talk about stock market winners and losers from the Big Beautiful Bill. We'll pit Superman versus the Hulk, and we'll of course debate stocks on our radar. But first, we'll discuss whether there's an AI opportunity in investing in data centers. Upstart data center company, CoreWeave, again made news this week this time for announcing the purchase of Core Scientific for $9 billion. This allows it to add infrastructure to consolidate vertically as it seeks to gain market share among AI and high performance computing customers. CoreWeave is just the tip of the data center iceberg. Matt, what categories of data center opportunities are out there?

Matt Frankel: First, you have hyper scalers. These are companies like AWS, Microsoft, Desha. They are companies that operate the large scale data centers. They offer computing and storage infrastructures to customers. As Anand put it, there's CoreWeave, which is one of the least understood recent IPOs that I know. [laughs] They rent out GPU data center infrastructures to customers. It's not always practical for companies to invest in all of NVIDIA's latest chips on their own, for example. That's really what they do. There's the REITs still, Digital Realty and Equinix are the two big ones. They own the data centers. CoreWeave is actually a big Digital Realty tenant. Then there's power generation. I know Jason's going to talk about this a little bit later in the show, but data centers consume a lot of power, and it's growing at an exponential pace. These chips that NVIDIA produces, they are power drains. Nuclear, especially, could be a big part of the solution, but solar and other renewables are also in there.

Jason Hall: We're definitely in the land grab phase of the infrastructure buildout for accelerated computing. I think accelerated computing is maybe a better description than just AI. We talk about the Cloud REIT large. As we see more of the companies involved start to monetize things like AI agents at scale. I think that's where these investments are going to pay off.

Anand Chokkavelu: Big question. Do any of these categories interest you all for investing?

Matt Frankel: Well, I'm well known as being the real estate guy at the Motley Fool, so it shouldn't be a big surprise, but Digital Realty is my second largest and my second longest running REIT investment in my portfolio. I'm an Amazon shareholder, and I know that's not their only business, but AWS is the primary reason I own it. I don't own CoreWeave yet, and I think the stock is a little bit pricey, to say the least. But the more I read about it, the more I'm intrigued by the company. As I mentioned, they're a big tenant of Digital Realty, so I have some exposure already.

Jason Hall: The things about CoreWeave that concern me is the stock is definitely expensive. But if the opportunity is even close to as large as we think, it could still work out, but they're going to need a lot of money to pay for what they're trying to do and depending on how much of that is from raising debt versus secondary offerings of shares, there's still a lot of questions there. But, Anand, you've given me a chance to talk about Brookfield here. [laughs] How do I not take that opportunity? But I do think that there's a couple of Brookfield entities that are positioned really well here. I want to talk about the providing the energy part of it. Brookfield Renewable is really in the driver seat here as a global provider of renewable energy on multi decade contracts. It is not just accelerated computing, it's the energy transition REIT large. We've already seen it strike big deals with Microsoft and others to provide renewable power on those multi decade contracts. The dividend is really attractive, too. BEP, that's the partnership, yields over 5%. The corporate shares BEPC, it yields about 4.5%. Since mid 2020, that's when Brookfield Renewable rolled the corporation part out and restructured its dividend. The payouts been increased almost 30%. There's a lot to like here. Beyond the yield, I think it's primed to be a total return dynamo over the next decade. If you don't want to own a company that's in the energy part, you want to own the infrastructure, just take a look at sister company Brookfield Infrastructure. The tickers there are BIP and BIPC.

Anand Chokkavelu: Of course, these aren't the only AI stocks out there. Hi, NVIDIA. Do any other areas of AI interest you guys?

Matt Frankel: I love that. You can't talk about AI and data centers without talking about the chipmakers. NVIDIA just hit $4 trillion today as the day we're recording this. NVIDIA is an amazing business, and it has more room to grow than people think just in the data center accelerator space, which is why they're getting so much attention for good reason. The market size is expected to roughly double over the next five years. That's not even to mention the opportunities they have in chips for autonomous vehicles, chips for gaming and more but I prefer AMD, which is often referred to as NVIDIA junior, but I don't think it should be. It's an incredibly well run company that's been a mistake to bet against in the past. As Intel found out the hard way, just having a dominant market share in an area of chip making is not always enough.

Jason Hall: An area of the market that I think could do really well some of the legacy enterprise software giants. I think there may be underappreciated winners from AI. I'll use Salesforce, ticker CRM as an example. It's really starting to get traction with things like it's data cloud and with AI agents. It's starting to sell. We're seeing really rapid uptake of those things and monetization. It has a benefit, an advantage over a lot of these AI start-ups that are just pure AI businesses. It's already a trusted integrated partner with hundreds of thousands of enterprises. It knows their business, it knows their challenges, regulations, opportunities and that credibility, I think, is an edge that we don't give enough credit to. We shouldn't underestimate switching costs, I guess, is what I'm really getting at. You look at Salesforce rates for about 21 times free cash flow and less than seven times sales. That's a really good opportunity. I think it equates to double digit returns if it can just grow revenue around 8-12% a year over the long term, which I think it can.

Anand Chokkavelu: We started to talk a bit about energy and the need for it with all this AI. Let's talk about the energy industry implications of the Big Beautiful Bill, which was signed into law last week. Jason, can you give us the summary of the energy portions?

Jason Hall: Summarizing anything's hard for me, but I'll try. I think the short version is the incentives for renewables, they're getting gutted, really. There's a 30% investment tax credit or ITC for short. The residential solar and battery systems portion of that had been in place to run through 2032 before gradually declining for a few years after that. That now expires. The systems have to be fully installed and commissioned by the end of this year. The commercial ITC for solar and wind projects was on a similar track, but now it expires at the end of 2027, but those projects must begin construction by July 4th of 2026 to qualify for that 30% tax credit. It also terminates the tax credit for new and used EVs, $7,500 for a new EV and up to 4,000 for a used EV. The purchase has to happen before September 30th of this year, so a couple of months. Lastly, it ends the US regulatory credits around vehicle emissions that automakers buy largely from Tesla. This is a significant and profitable revenue stream for EV makers that essentially is going away.

Matt Frankel: Jason, when you say renewables are being gutted, you're essentially referring to solar and wind, if I'm not mistaken. It's not gutting anything for nuclear power, correct?

Jason Hall: That's correct. These things you get are the pure renewables as we think of them.

Anand Chokkavelu: Let's put a fine point on this with specifics. Who are the relative winners and losers, Jason?

Jason Hall: This could be an hour long show, but I'll try to summarize it here. Thinking about the companies that are most directly affected, I think Canadian Solar, which is a large manufacturer of solar panels and energy storage, and they really largely target the utility market, but also residential is definitely a loser here. In the near term Sunrun, its business model is tied to these tax credits as an installer and to some degree, First Solar is also going to be affected. I don't think there's really any winners out of this when it comes to solar. But I think Enphase is probably still in a better position in the market may believe. Maybe First Solar as well. It's been through these battles before, and it has been a winner over the long term. If you look at wind, GE Vernova has been on a huge run. I love that business, but I don't love the stock right now. Tesla, I think maybe one of the bigger losers that investors haven't really considered. Last fiscal year, it earned 2.76 billion in revenue from regulatory credits. That's largely pure profit. Then there's also the loss of those EV tax credits for buyers. That might be offset from some incentives for US made autos that are part of the bill now that were part of the law, but I think this puts Tesla in a tougher spot. The tailwinds are not favorable for fossil fuels before this. This doesn't really change any of that. There's opportunities there, but not because of the law.

Matt Frankel: The reason I asked about nuclear a minute ago is because that's really what I see as the big winner here. I like some of the nuclear focused utility providers. Constellation Energy is one that comes to mind. One of their stated goals is to have the largest carbon free nuclear power fleet in the US by 2040. Jacob Solutions, they provide consulting and design services to the industry. Ticker symbol is J, so it's really easy to remember. They recently had some really big nuclear contract wins. I'm going to push back on Jason's Tesla as a big loser. One, they're American made cars. They qualify for that new auto loan interest deduction, so that could help offset what they're losing from the EV tax credits. They have a big energy storage business, and AI has not only giant power demands, but very variable power demands, and it's going to create a lot of need for large scale energy storage, and Tesla does that. I think they're worth watching.

Jason Hall: That's the one part of Tesla's business that's done extraordinarily well. Over the past few years, as the EV business has weakened, is that the battery business.

Anand Chokkavelu: Now quickly the big question, is solar still investable, Jason?

Jason Hall: I think so. We have a very US centric view, obviously, and the US is a massive important market for solar. But you look around the world and the regulatory environment is still largely favorable. I think if you're willing to write out plenty of volatility, that global opportunity is still really good. Businesses like Enphase, businesses like First Solar that have been through these battles before, and even a Canadian Solar, where it has a ton of projects that it's been funding to build on its books that the math just got changed for them in some big ways. The valuation is so cheap that I think that there's some opportunity there.

Matt Frankel: Taking a step back, the reason you have incentives for solar energy, for EVs, for all this, is because without them, they're not price competitive with the existing technologies. The gap has narrowed significantly, especially in solar over the past say 10 years as to the efficiency of the products themselves and just how much they cost. Eventually, solar is going to be able to stand on its own without incentives. But like Jason said, you have to be able to write out some volatility because that could be five years, that could be 10 years, that could be 20 years so eventually, it won't matter.

Anand Chokkavelu: After the break, we'll move from solar to something else that gets its power from the yellow sun. Stay right here. This is Motley Fool Money.

Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Anand Chokkavelu, here with Jason Hall and Matt Frankel. One of our Brothers Discovery's much anticipated latest reboot of Superman hits theaters on Friday. Hoping the Justice League can one day catch Disney's Marvel cinematic universe and hot on the heels of last week's Jurassic World Rebirth from Comcast. In honor of Summer movies, we're going to rank those three companies based on the value of their intellectual property. We'll throw in Netflix for good measure. Its headline this week was stating that half of its global audience now watches anime. Chokkavelu household certainly does with one piece. My kids have gotten me into it. For those unfamiliar, they have more episodes than the Simpsons. Matt, once again, your four choices are Warner Brothers Discovery. That includes the DC Universe, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Harry Potter, the Matrix, Looney Tunes, all our favorite HBO shows. You got Comcast with Shrek, Minions, Kung Fu Panda. You got Disney with Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar and Mickey Mouse. Finally, you got Netflix with things like Stranger Things, Bridgerton, Squid Game, newer Adam Sandler movies, and tons of niche content. Mentioned anime, you could argue whether that's niche content or not at this point. Whose intellectual property do you most value, Matt?

Matt Frankel: See, I said Disney. All four of these have excellent intellectual property, and I'll give you a more elaborate description there. In my household, you mentioned your household, how you have all these streaming things. We have a streaming service from all four of these. We have the Peacock service, which is a comcast product. We have HBO Max, which is a Warner Brothers discovery product. We have Disney Plus, and we have Netflix. Disney Plus also has Hulu attached to it. I ask myself, which is the least dispensable? I could cancel all the other ones before I'd be allowed to cancel Disney Plus for the other members of my household. Their film franchises are beyond compare. They have a much longer history of building intellectual property than all of these, especially in terms of valuables. Mickey Mouse is so old, it's not even intellectual property anymore. It's over 100-years-old, so I think it's actually in the public domain now. I have to say Disney, although it's a lot closer than I would have thought a few years ago.

Jason Hall: Yeah, if you had have asked me a few years ago, I absolutely would have said Disney, but I'm going to give the advantage to Netflix here. Let me contextualize that. I think the total value of Disney's IP is probably higher, but Netflix's ability to monetize it more effectively all over the world, I think, is even better than Disney's. I don't think any of these businesses in their studios have done a better job of making content that's relevant in more markets around the world than Netflix does. Let's be honest, I was able to watch Happy Gilmore with my eight year old son this weekend and I watched that on Netflix, that's bridging generations right there.

Anand Chokkavelu: Three things. One, Chokkavelu household is very excited for Happy Gilmore, too. Even my wife is in on it. Two, the Steamboat Willie era, Mickey Mouse is free to the world. The other ones aren't. I'm glad I'm not the only one with way too many streaming services, Matt. Let's talk about Last Place. Who are you cutting first, Matt?

Matt Frankel: Well, all those streaming services are still less than I was paying for direct TV a few years ago, so I think I'm doing all right. For me, the last place, it was between Comcast and Warner Brothers Discovery, both of which have amazing intellectual property, just to show you what a tight race this is. Comcast has universal. I was just in Orlando, and the universal theme parks are massive down there. But I have to put Comcast in last place. Just because Warner Brothers, I think the HBO Max acquisition was such a big advantage for them. They have some of the most valuable television assets of all time. More people watch the sopranos now than they did when it was originally on TV. It's a very valuable valuable asset, Game of Thrones. All these HBO shows that are among the highest rated shows of all time are part of their library. In addition to their film studio and all the other assets that we can't name because it's not that long of a show. I'd have to give Comcast last place, although, like I said, there's a good argument to be made for most of these to be in the top one or two.

Jason Hall: Yeah, I think that's fair. I agree with Matt that Comcast is the Number 4 here. But I don't think that's a flaw. It's just the nature of its business. About two thirds of its business comes from its cable subscriptions and high speed Internet. It's built differently than these other companies. I think it's fine that it's a little bit smaller.

Anand Chokkavelu: I will say, just to defend Comcast a little. I was thinking about my parents live in Florida, and it's high time we bring my two boys to Disney World or something like that. Honestly, the Universal theme park, the new one with Nintendo, Mario and the Harry Potter realm, it's close. We might we might prefer that one, but just to give a little love to Comcast and Universal. Jason Hall and Matt Frankel, we'll see you a little bit later in the show, but up next, we'll talk to the founder of one of the top five networks in the world, so stick around. This is Motley Fool Money. [MUSIC].

Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Anand Chokkavelu. Dave Schaeffer is the founder and CEO of Internet Service Provider Cogent Communications. Believe it or not, Cogent's the seventh successful company Dave Schaeffer has founded. Shaffer joined Fool analysts Asit Sharma and Sanmeet Deo to discuss how it deals with customers like Netflix and Meta platforms work and what keeps him up at night.

Asit Sharma: Well, hello, fools. I am Asit Sharma and I'm joined by fellow analyst Sanmeet Deo today, and our guest is Dave Schaeffer. Dave is CEO of Cogent Communications. He's also the founder of this company founded in 1999. Dave has grown Cogent Communications into a global tier one Internet service provider. It's ranked as one of the top five networks in the world. Dave is also a serial entrepreneur. He's founded six successful businesses prior to Cogent, and foolishly, he's also one of the longest serving founder CEOs in the public markets. We're delighted to have him with us today. Dave Schaeffer, welcome.

Dave Schaeffer: Hey, well, thanks for that great introduction.

Asit Sharma: To get started, let's jump in. Dave, for our members who might be unfamiliar with the ISP or Internet service provider industry, can you just explain what Cogent does and how it makes money?

Dave Schaeffer: Yeah, sure. Cogent provides Internet access to customers and to other service providers. I think virtually everyone uses the Internet, but rarely understands how it operates. Cogent has a network of approximately 99,000 route miles of intercity fiber that circumnavigates the globe and serves six continents. We then have an additional 34,000 route miles of fiber in 292 markets in 57 countries around the world. That network is solely built for the purpose of delivering Internet connectivity. When a customer buys Internet access, what they are really buying are interfaced routed bit miles connected to other networks. If you tried to sell a customer that they would have no idea what you're talking about. The average bit on the public Internet travels about 2,800 miles. It goes through eight and a half unique routers and 2.4 networks between origin and destination. Coaching carries approximately 25% of the world's Internet traffic on its network and has more other networks connected directly to it than any other network.

Asit Sharma: Yours is a primary network. Oftentimes, we hear of middlemen carriers in between ourselves sending that bit. Let's say I'm chatting with Sanmeet over Slack, sending him some bits as we have been exchanging through the day and him receiving that. But you are, I think we can think of Cogent as being the primary fiber that is the backbone of this information communication network, is that correct?

Dave Schaeffer: That is correct. We operate two very different customer segments, roughly 95% of our traffic, but only 37% of our revenue comes from selling to other service providers. We provide Internet connectivity to 8,200 access networks around the world and about 7,000 content generating businesses. Whether it be Bell Canada, British Telecom, China Telecom, Comcast or Cox. They could be customers of Cogent on the access side, where they aggregate literally billions of end users. Then on the other side, we sell connectivity to large content generating companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta, where they use us as their Internet provider. The second portion of Cogent's business is selling directly to end users. That represents about 63% of our revenues, but only approximately 5% of our total traffic. Cogent is an ISP, primarily in North America, where we connect to a billion square feet of office space, where we sell directly to end users. Then globally, we sell to multinational companies, oftentimes using last mile connections from third parties.

Asit Sharma: I always like to understand how exactly the companies I'm looking at make money. For example, for Netflix or Meta, or you pick a content provider, whoever it might be, when they work with you, explain that to me how they buy? Do they buy bandwidth in a package? Do they have a contract? How does that work? When they look to you to say, hey, we want to buy some bandwidth?

Dave Schaeffer: Yeah, so typically, we will provide them connections in multiple markets around the world. They will then have a minimum commitment level, and then above that, they pay on a metered basis. The way in which we bill is megabits per second at peak load over the course of the month. We bill at the 95th percentile, which means if you have a very spiky event that lasts less than 18 hours in a month, you don't pay for that incremental bandwidth but everything below that peak utilization, you pay a bill on a per megabit basis.

Dave Schaeffer: That is the way in which any service provider, whether it be an access network like Telkom South Africa, or a cable company like Rogers in Canada would buy from us. But for our corporate customers, the billing model is very different. For corporate customers, they typically buy in end user locations, not in data centers, and they are paying us a flat monthly fee for a fixed connection that is unmetered. I think of it as an all you can eat model.

Sanmeet Deo: There is a monthly recurring revenue that you get. It's just that with your network or your content customers, it could vary based on their usage. They could dial it up, dial it down, based on, like, this week, actually, they're dropping Squid Game, so they can anticipate they're going to need a lot of bandwidth versus maybe next month, their content late is a little lower, so they won't use up as much versus the corporate customers are paying more of a recurring, not based on volume. Is that accurate?

Dave Schaeffer: Is correct, Sanmeet. Virtually all of our revenue is predictable, even for those variable usage customers, there is oftentimes a very consistent pattern to their usage, and their bills do not vary by more than a couple percent month over month.

Sanmeet Deo: Dave, let's go on to looking at a review of recent performance. 2024 was a great year for Cogent. It crossed $1 billion in annual revenue. Can you just walk us through the highlights of your key business segments, wholesale, enterprise, net-centric? What drove the performance? Also did anything about the year surprise you as you went through it?

Dave Schaeffer: Two things. First of all our Internet based business represents 88% of our revenues across all three segments. We do derive about 12% of revenues from selling some adjacent services. Those being co location in our data center footprint. Optical transport or wavelength services and the leasing out of IPV4 addresses. We did generate about $1 billion in revenue in 2024 and 2024 was a year of significant transition for Cogent. Cogent had organically grown between 2005 and 2020 as a public company with no M&A at a compounded growth rate of 10.2% per year average over that period. We also were able to experience significant margin expansion during that period, where our EBITDA margins expanded at roughly 220 basis points per year over that same 15 year measurement period. When COVID hit, our corporate segment slowed materially because people were not going to offices, and as a result, Cogent's total growth rate had decreased to about 5% and our rate of margin expansion slowed to about 100 basis points. In May of '23, we acquired the former Sprint Long Distance Network, a Sprint Global Markets Group business from T-Mobile. That business was actually in decline and burning cash. In 2024, we significantly reduced that cash burn, and we were able to begin to repurpose some of the flow Sprint assets. In order to facilitate this transaction, T-Mobile paid us in cash over a 54 month period beginning in May of '23, $700 million. In 2024, a significant milestone for Cogent was our ability to take out much of that burn from that business and to actually accelerate the decline in that acquired business, as many of the products that were being sold or gross margin negative services.

Anand Chokkavelu: As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about, and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against. Don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards 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. Up next, we've got stocks on our radar. Stay right here. You're listening to Motley Fool Money.

I'm Anand Chokkavelu, joined again by Jason Hall and Matt Frankel. This week's been Prime Day week invented out of thin air in 2015 to boost sales. It's almost literally become Christmas in July for Amazon, and to a lesser extent, all the imitating retailers. Got me wondering. Is this the greatest feat of something from nothing marketing we've seen? If not, what's competing with it, Jason?

Jason Hall: I think it's not even something from nothing. I think they stole this idea. Christmas in July has been around literally since the 1900. I think they're getting maybe a little bit too much credit for just being a really big retailer, smart enough to say, hey, we're doing a sale when there was nothing else going on, and people were like, oh, it's a big sale. Well, people kept coming, so it just gets bigger every single year.

Matt Frankel: Before e-commerce, Jason's right, remember the Sunday paper that had all the flyers from all the stores. They'd have their semi annual sales. The President's Day weekend sales were the ones I remember that were the biggest deals ever that really were just meant to invigorate sales in a historically slow time of year. But really, this concept has been applied over and over. Think of how many tourist destinations create random festivals in the worst months to go, like, weather wise. I used to live in Key West, Florida, and the biggest party of the year is called Fantasy Fest. It was created to invigorate tourism during hurricane season. It's a concept that's worked over and over, and this is a big one.

Anand Chokkavelu: Dan.

Dan Boyd: I just wanted to jump in here and mention Father's Day and Mother's Day. Surprised that you guys didn't mention those. We're all fathers here on the podcast, so I know that we enjoy Father's Day, but, like, come on. They're nothing. They were just created to sell stuff.

Anand Chokkavelu: You're not going to mention Valentine's Day, Mr. Grinch.

Dan Boyd: Valentine's Day has somewhat historical significance with all the St. Valentine's stuff. I didn't want to go too far into it in my grumpiness Anand, but I guess we can throw that one on the fire.

Anand Chokkavelu: Speaking of Singles Day in China. The Alibaba took that cemented in the '90s. I think less commercy, but then it became more commercy. Two other things, Sears' catalog. Let's not forget. A lot of times Sears really is the Amazon before Amazon we forget about it because we see it at its late phases. It wasn't the first catalog, Tiffany, Montgomery Ward, they beat it to the punch. But when it was going, it was called the Consumer Bible. Then on a smaller scale, I'll give one more. Just shout out to Spotify rapped. They do a wonderful job inventing a thing to get us more engaged. Let's get to the stocks on our radar. Our man behind the glass, who we just recently, Dan Boyd, is going to hit you with a question. We're more likely, historically, an amusing comment. Jason, you're up first. What are you looking at this week?

Jason Hall: How about Church and Dwight? Ticker C-H-D. I don't know if we give some of these legacy consumer brands companies enough talk. What's Church and Dwight? You've probably heard of Arm & Hammer baking soda. But they also own a lot of other retail brands. You might be familiar with Orajel, if you've ever had a sore tooth or you have a baby that kind of thing comes up. They own Trojan, which is another brand that people might be familiar with. But here's my personal. Right now, I have a cold. I'm living and functioning off of Zicam. That's a Church and Dwight product that's really getting me through. Over the long term, it's been a great investment. Over the past 10 years, the stocks returned about 10.5% in total returns. That's underperformed the market, but it's better than the market's long term average. I think there might be something there.

Anand Chokkavelu: Dan, a question about Church and Dwight?

Dan Boyd: Not really a question, Anand, but more of a comment. Jason, you forgot to mention OxiClean in the Church and Dwight product catalog here as a parent of a three-year-old and a nine month old laundry is a very important thing on our house, and I don't think we could survive without that OxiClean.

Jason Hall: I will raise your three-year-old and nine month old with an eight and a half year old who plays soccer. My house runs on that stuff. I'm with you there.

Anand Chokkavelu: Matt, what's on your radar?

Matt Frankel: Well, now what's on my radar is the OxiClean that I have in the closet right there. But as far as the stock, I'd have to say SoFi. Ticker symbol S-O-F-I. Fantastic momentum. They've done a great job of creating capital white revenue streams in recent years. The growth is actually accelerating. They recently announced they're bringing crypto back to their platform now that the banks are allowed to do so. That's going to be a big driver. Not only crypto, they're going a step further. They're going to start bringing blockchain facilitated money transfers across border for free. They have lots of big plans. They recently started doing private equity investing for everybody. Guys like you and me can invest in companies like SpaceX and OpenAI that are pre IPO through SoFi's platform through venture funds. There's a lot going on in this business, and it's still a relatively small bank, and they aim to be a Top 10 bank within the next decade.

Anand Chokkavelu: Dan, question about SoFi.

Dan Boyd: Well, absolute F to name. SoFi, just terrible. I feel like smart people like them could have come up with something better, but private equity investing is very interesting, Matt, though a little scared to me without the reporting regulations that public companies have to do.

Matt Frankel: I do think it was a natural thing, though, now that all these companies are waiting longer than ever to go public. SpaceX is a massive business. OpenAI has a, $100 billion plus valuation. There's a lot to like there and a lot of potential.

Anand Chokkavelu: Dan, which company you're putting on your watch list, OxiClean or private equity stuff.

Dan Boyd: I'm going to go with Church and Dwight for some of that beautiful OxiClean.

Anand Chokkavelu: That's all for this week. See you next time.

John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Anand Chokkavelu, CFA has positions in Alphabet, Amazon, First Solar, Microsoft, Netflix, Salesforce, SoFi Technologies, Walt Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery. Asit Sharma has positions in Amazon, Digital Realty Trust, Microsoft, Nvidia, Salesforce, Upstart, and Walt Disney. Dan Boyd has positions in Amazon and Walt Disney. Jason Hall has positions in Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Infrastructure, Brookfield Renewable, Enphase Energy, First Solar, Nvidia, SoFi Technologies, Upstart, and Walt Disney and has the following options: short January 2026 $27 calls on SoFi Technologies, short January 2027 $32.50 puts on Upstart, and short January 2027 $40 puts on Enphase Energy. Matt Frankel has positions in Amazon, Brookfield Asset Management, Digital Realty Trust, SoFi Technologies, Upstart, and Walt Disney and has the following options: short December 2025 $95 calls on Upstart. Sanmeet Deo has positions in Alphabet, Amazon, Netflix, and Tesla. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Brookfield Asset Management, Constellation Energy, Digital Realty Trust, Equinix, First Solar, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Netflix, Nvidia, Salesforce, Tesla, Upstart, Walt Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Motley Fool recommends Alibaba Group, Brookfield Renewable, Comcast, Enphase Energy, Ge Vernova, and T-Mobile US and recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

In this podcast, Motley Fool Chief Investment Officer Andy Cross and senior analyst Jason Moser discuss:

• Jurassic World Rebirth delivers for Comcast.
• CoreWeave finally gets it done for Core Scientific.
• Oracle makes a deal with the federal government.
• Two stocks to look at if the market pulls back: Samsara and Howmet Aerospace.

To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you're ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy.

Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue »

A full transcript is below.

Should you invest $1,000 in Comcast right now?

Before you buy stock in Comcast, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Comcast wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $694,758!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $998,376!*

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,058% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500. Don’t miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of July 7, 2025

This podcast was recorded on July 07, 2025.

Andy Cross: Dinosaurs roar for Comcast while CoreWeave makes an acquisition. Motley Fool Money starts now. Welcome to Motley Fool Money. I'm Andy Cross, joined by Motley Fool's Senior Analyst and advisor Jason Moser. Jason, happy Monday.

Jason Moser: Happy Monday, AC. Good to see you.

Andy Cross: Good to see you. Thanks for being here. We got confirmation today that CoreWeave is buying another AI Data Center company, and Oracle is cutting cloud prices for Uncle Sam. We'll also talk about two companies we're keeping an eye on if the price is right. But, Jason, let's start with the summer movies, Universal's Jurassic World Rebirth reportedly brought in more than 300 million globally this weekend, giving a nice wind to Comcast, the parent owner of Universal. This continues that strong summer at the box office that included how to train your dragon also from Universal and Apple's F1. Jason, is this good news for long suffering Comcast shareholders like me?

Jason Moser: [laughs] It's not bad news. Most certainly it's not bad news. Now, Comcast content and experiences studio segment brought in $11 billion in revenue in 2024, along with about $1.4 billion in operating profits. This isn't something from the revenue side that is a tremendous needle mover, but maybe it's a needle mover to the extent that we would say the same thing for Disney. This is the content space that can be very lumpy some years are better than others. If you look at the same segment, the content and experience, the studio segment, we talked about $11 billion in revenue in 2024. That was $12.3 billion in 2022. It ebbs and flows. But this is terrific news. I'm amazed. The original Jurassic Park came out back in 1993. They have pulled a Disney to an extent and have really expanded and stretched out this IP library. I think that is a good sign for Comcast shareholders.

Andy Cross: Jason, 100%. I see this again, this Comcast stock has not done that well over the past couple of years. It now yields about 3.7%. Of course, we have the spin off, the spin out of the media properties called Versant later this year, where they're going to spin off CNBC and USA, MSNBC, the Golf Channel, and a few other properties. I think that's got a lot of investors interested in Comcast, at least for me, those of us who own it. But this is the seventh film franchise of the Jurassic franchise, and that franchise is worth about $6 billion. It is a Disney play, Jason, because they're using that in their IP. They're using the theme parks. I saw promotions all around the world, all around the cable properties for the Jurassic rebirth movie. They were showing older Jurassic movies on some of those cable properties this weekend. I think from that perspective, it does help build that franchise out, and it's going to be a very competitive summer. Disney itself has its fantastic four coming out this summer. We have the much anticipated Superman movie from Warner Brothers coming out this year, but I think it does help build out that franchise that has become more and more valuable to those universal theme parks, including the one that just opened up this year.

Jason Moser: No question. This also plays into that summer blockbuster. We always look to see what the summer blockbusters are going to be. I just think it's noteworthy these results, particularly given the tepid reviews that the movie's gotten. I haven't seen it, and I take criticisms with a grain of salt, but 51% on rotten tomatoes and a cinema score of B from the opening weekend audience. That's not lighting the world on fire from a critics perspective, but clearly the audience loved it.

Andy Cross: Also, Jason, interesting notes over the weekend that Netflix, with its 300 million subscribers, they said at the Anime Expo in Los Angeles this weekend that more than half its subscribers now watch Japanese anime. I found that interesting just because it continues to show the power of the Netflix globally as a brand, and one reason why they're along with YouTube, one of the most valuable media properties out there.

Jason Moser: We've always said they do such a good job with that data. Personally, I'm not an anime consumer, but I think this is a great example for investors, where it's not necessarily wise to extrapolate one personal taste into a potential idea, just because it's not something that you like or eat or watch, it doesn't mean there isn't an opportunity there, and that 50% number globally, really does tell us something impressive about Netflix's market position.

Andy Cross: 100%. When Motley Fool Money returns, CoreWeave goes shopping.

AI infrastructure company CoreWeave announced that it will buy Core Scientific for around $9 billion in an all stock deal. That's about $20 per share based on CoreWeave stock. Now, shares of Core Scientific Jason are down around 20% today to about 15, so the market's sensing something here.

Jason Moser: This is an arms race like we haven't seen in some time. Companies are just rushing to build out their AI capabilities, and this is just another sign of that. But I think it's really noteworthy that Core Scientific shares being down so much today. There can be a number of reasons why something like that might happen. Investors don't think that it will go through, perhaps another bidder comes in. But, AC, I wonder if this doesn't have something to do with the deal structure itself and what it's saying about the market's perspective on CoreWeave, because that nine billion number that's being bandied about, let's make sure we understand. That's just based on the July 3rd share price. Core Scientific shareholders are going to receive 0.1235 shares of CoreWeave for each share of Core Scientific that they hold. But as noted in the release, and this is important. The final value will be determined at the time of the transaction closed. That's not until later in Q4, so I don't know. Do you think this is like a glass half empty view on CoreWeave and whether they can hold their valuation? Because the stock has been on fire since it went public.

Andy Cross: It went public just this year, and the stock's done just fantastically well, and Core Scientific has done very well, although it has a little spotted history. It's one of those sparks back in 2021 that when it came public out there was about $4 billion, and it basically lost almost 100% of its value, had to declare bankruptcy, defile from the markets, came back to the public markets in January 2024. Actually, CoreWeave tried to buy them last year for about $6 per share. Now they're paying far more for that. It does give CoreWeave the vertical integration, Jason, that I think that they need to build out. They're going to add 9 or 10 AI data centers of Core Scientifics give them massive gigawatts of capacity. As CoreWeave is trying to build out its own AI data centers, it does need to continue to build out that capacity. CoreWeave is Core Scientific's largest tenet, so it makes sense from a vertical integration perspective. But I think the market is just saying with a share issuance, so soon after CoreWeave became public, there are some doubts about at what price they're going to have to get Core Scientific into the CoreWeave family.

Jason Moser: Exactly. I certainly understand the market's enthusiasm around CoreWeave. When you're selling yourself as the AI hyperscaler. There is something to that, and this is clearly a company that's playing a big role in the space. They just reported revenue growth, 420% in this most recently reported quarter. But again, and you're right, vertical integration, this is going to be something that really gives CoreWeave more power over its platform and to that power. This is a power play. Through this acquisition, CoreWeave is going to own approximately 1.3 gigawatts of gross power, along with the opportunity of one plus gigawatts of potential gross power available for expansion. A gigawatt is a lot of power, AC. That power is a medium sized city, and you think about the Hoover Dam. Hoover Dam, one of our biggest hydroelectric generators here in the country. That's responsible for about two gigawatts of capacity. You can see how this could really impact CoreWeave if it goes through.

Andy Cross: Prediction time, do you think it's going to go through? Do they have to lower the price, readjust the deal terms? You think, Jason?

Jason Moser: I think it's going to go through. I think that probably the market's enthusiasm is going to remain for Core. You think the stock will ebb and flow here a little bit. My suspicion is it'll go through. Probably not going to end up at that $9 billion valuation at the end of the day because that is pretty extreme for a company like Core Scientific. That's like 18 times full year revenue in 2024. We might see some change in the price there, but my suspicion is it'll go through.

Andy Cross: There's definitely some synergies there and some cost savings, but I think it'll go through, too, but I do think they'll have to readjust the terms.

Jason Moser: [laughs] Exactly.

Andy Cross: Next up on Motley Fool Money, Oracle gives Uncle Sam a deal. Let's move over to news that Oracle is cutting cloud service prices for the US government by as much as 75% as reported this weekend by the Wall Street Journal. Jason, who's a winner here? Is this an Oracle beneficiary, a US federal government beneficiary or a little bit of A, a little bit of B?

Jason Moser: I'm going to walk the fence here and say a little bit of A, a little bit of B. It does feel like both win somewhat here. This feels a bit like taking a page out of the book of Bezos. He was always known for driving down those prices in so many cases. He's got that quote, "Your margin is my opportunity." He's taking that Uber long-term view. AC, I think for federal agencies, they're under this mandate to modernize while also managing tighter budgets at the same time. So the old saying cash is king, I think, in this case, it seems maybe cost is king, and we're seeing other cloud providers follow the same lead, Salesforce has done the same thing in regard to Slack, Google, Adobe. This isn't anything necessarily new. But then I think for Oracle, these discounts can help lock in really multi year contracts. That offers more stability for their business model and revenue prediction. If they can extend those relationships, then you can start talking a bit about maybe exercising a little bit more pricing power down the road if they do a good job. I can see both parties benefiting from that.

Andy Cross: I thought this was a little bit more beneficiary for Oracle when I first started studying it. But then I think the GSA, the General Services Administration is starting to shake their big stick here to try to get some pricing out of some of these big players. It is interesting to me that this is for the licensees, not really for the subscription, and it goes through November. The pricing option goes through November of this year. It does give Oracle a foot in. It's really the first deal the GSA cut for government wide solutions, including lots of areas where Oracle and other cloud titans provide some of those services and compete very heavily. I think it's just more evidence of CFO Safra Catz, becoming more and more competitive, trying to push Oracle into markets. Clearly Oracle has had some nice beneficiaries here in the markets and in their business as the stock is gone really well. It's up 60% the past year or 40% year to date, Jason. It's north of a $600 billion company. Thirty five times earnings. That's almost two times its five year average. What do you think about Oracle, the stock going forward?

Jason Moser: I'm glad you brought that up. It does seem like a little bit of a richer valuation, but going back to Safra Catz, he's looking at fiscal 2026 targets here, cloud revenue growth projected to grow from 24% to over 40%. Then that IAAS, that infrastructure as a service. That growth there is projected to hit about 70%. Anytime you see valuations like that, you have to just step back and say, why is the market doing that? Where's the growth? I think that's where they're seeing some of that growth. Now they just have to deliver.

Andy Cross: I think so, too. I do, again, like this licensing play because as they continue to push more subscription, this does get into the core part of what Oracle has done for so long and done so well for so many years. I think it is a nice foothold for Oracle. I guarantee that GSA is going to be issuing lots of different pricing asks of lots more providers as they continue to manage their own footprint as they push toward to be a little bit more technological savvy at the federal government. Finally, today, Jason, stocks are down a little bit, but passed through all time highs last week. Let's end things with two stocks that we're keeping fresh on our watch list if the prices are right. What are you looking at?

Jason Moser: Everybody loves stock ideas, AC?

Andy Cross: Of course.

Jason Moser: One that I just continue to keep my eye on is a company called Samsara. Ticker is IOT. It's now a $22 billion company, and Samsara operates its Connected Operations Cloud, which is a software platform that connects all of the devices that a company has and its buildings, its equipment, its cards, and other facilities. The platform then establishes this massive network of data and information specific to that company. Now the company's still working its way to profitability. Technically, it's cash flow positive, but stock-based compensation more than eats that up, which isn't uncommon for a company at this stage of its life cycle. It's around 14 times forward sales projections today. Now, when I wrecked this company in the trend service back in the beginning of 2023, it was at 13 times. It's been a bit of a bumpy ride, and the stock has pulled back a little. But when you look at the fundamentals of this business, they just reported first quarter results that exceeded all targets that leadership set a quarter ago, revenue up 32% annualized recurring revenue up 31%. They have 2,638 customers with ARR over $100,000. That's up 35% from a year ago. It is a company that continues to grow and establish a fairly dominant position in its market is what it seems. It really does seem like this is becoming the top dog at its space. I think it's also a company that possesses a lot of those hidden gems traits.

Those principles that our CEO Tom Gardner loves, he's so fond of. You get reasonable, remarkable growth into expanding markets, check. Led and owned by true long-term believers in the company, check. This is a company that is led by co-founders Sanjit Biswas and John Bicket. They own almost 70% of the voting power in a relentless curiosity toward bold technical exploration. That is a double check for a company like this. If we ever see any material pullback in this one, I certainly would be very tempted to add it to my portfolio.

Andy Cross: Jason, do you have any thoughts on these cute ticker names, IOT? [laughs] Does that tend to scare you away from a company?

Jason Moser: Not really. I never would recommend a company on the ticker alone, but you just made me think of core scientific and its ticker cores. It's like the smoky and the bandit ticker. It's funny to see those sometimes.

Andy Cross: Jason, I'm looking at Howmet symbol HWM. It's formerly part of Alcoa. Its history is steeped into high precision metalworking, 90%. It provides 90% of all structural and rotating aero engine components for the aerospace, transportation, and energy markets. These are really super high end precision airfoils and forging, forge wheels and chassis for the commercial trucking and auto space. The stock has doubled over the past year, and it's up almost 50% since the Rule Breakers team over in Stock Advisor, we recommended it just this year. It has these really serious competitive advantages that we love to see. Its patents, manufacturing, the history behind it, its core clients. You don't really want to mess around with replacement parts for these kinds of really high precision manufactured items. It does have some opportunities in the energy space because it provides the blades for the engine turbines that power a lot of the energy that goes into supporting data centers. I do love this business.

It's just the stock has done so well, and while the Stock Advisor team, as well as our Rule Breakers team love buying into strength, I just want to see, I'm not going to criticize anybody for adding this great business to their portfolio. But for me, I'm just looking for a little bit of maybe a market breather before I start looking at Howmet symbol HWM just a wonderful business, $73 billion. It's not small, and it has a lot of room to grow in the aerospace market.

Jason Moser: Plenty of examples in my investing life where patience tends to pay off.

Andy Cross: 100%. [laughs] There you have those two high quality companies in Samsara and Howmet that we're watching. If the markets go on a little bit of a tailspin here in the dog days of summer, maybe they go added to our portfolio. That's a rap for us today here at Motley Fool Money. Jason Moser, thanks for joining me here.

Jason Moser: Thanks for having me.

Andy Cross: Here at the Motley Fool we love hearing your feedback, to be part of that feedback or to ask a question, email us at [email protected]. That's [email protected]. As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against. Don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool Editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. For all of us here at Motley Fool Money, thanks for listening, and we'll see you tomorrow.

Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool’s board of directors. Andy Cross has positions in Adobe, Alphabet, Apple, Comcast, Netflix, Salesforce, and Warner Bros. Discovery. Jason Moser has positions in Adobe and Alphabet. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Adobe, Alphabet, Apple, Netflix, Oracle, Salesforce, and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Motley Fool recommends Comcast, Howmet Aerospace, and Samsara. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

• Warner Bros. Discovery — the brainchild of media mogul David Zaslav — is splitting up.
• Wall Street had long questioned the wisdom of WBD, and Zaslav now seems to agree.
• While this spinoff was predictable, it sparks questions for other media companies.

The ill-fated marriage between Warner Bros. and Discovery is heading for divorce — and Wall Street is cheering.

Warner Bros. Discovery on Monday announced plans to split its declining TV networks from its growing streaming and studios business. This spinoff proposal comes three years after WBD's inception. If all goes well, the spinoff will happen in mid-2026.

WBD CEO David Zaslav will oversee the sexier streaming part, while CFO Gunnar Wiedenfels — known for delivering "synergies" — will be in charge of the shrinking networks. WBD isn't alone, as Comcast is also splitting from most of its cable assets.

By largely undoing the merger, Zaslav is acknowledging something Wall Street has been saying for a while: WBD's assets are better off apart.

WBD shares were up as much as 13% in early trading. (However, Comcast's stock also popped when its spinoff was announced last fall, and has since fallen more than 20%.)

"The decision to separate Warner Bros. Discovery reflects our belief that each company can now go further and faster apart than they can together," Zaslav said on a call with investors about the spinoff.

When asked for comment, a WBD spokesperson referred Business Insider to comments made by executives on the investor call.

Better late than never

Many media analysts were initially excited when Zaslav orchestrated the deal to form WBD. But they soon soured on the media conglomerate as cord-cutting accelerated and WBD's streamer — Max/HBO Max — missed lofty expectations and failed to truly challenge the likes of Netflix.

Zaslav and company took note. WBD executives telegraphed this spinoff by reorganizing the business late last year, separating the TV networks from its studios and streaming businesses.

Wall Street was pleased by this potential split, which was the key catalyst for WBD's stock's 16% rally in the past month, UBS media analyst John Hodulik told BI last week.

Others agreed.

"Investor excitement for a Warner Bros. Discovery spin-off of its Global Linear Networks is building by the day," Lightshed analysts led by Rich Greenfield wrote last week.

Bank of America's Jessica Reif Ehrlich wrote in an early-June note that a "spin of studios and streaming could be the best way to unlock the significant unrecognized value of the company."

So far, it seems like she's right.

A sign of the times?

WBD's announcement will likely spark more speculation about future reordering of the media and entertainment landscape.

It's long been the expectation among industry insiders that WBD's spun-off linear networks would combine with others, potentially Versant, the linear assets that Comcast is spinning off. Other ideas that have been floated in media circles are a combination with Paramount — assuming its Skydance deal ever gets approved — or with Fox's linear assets.

Reordering is also afoot across the advertising industry. Two giant holding companies, Omnicom Group and Interpublic Group, are in the process of combining. Their peer WPP is replacing its CEO, Mark Read.

One wild card in the mix with WBD is CNN, with President Donald Trump's general hostility to deals involving media companies.

Longtime ad industry analyst Brian Wieser remarked that the news network could be an asset and a liability, given its history and future ability to attract the ire of Trump, who has been aggressive in targeting the mainstream media.

Wieser wrote on Monday that CNN would "probably benefit" from being separated from all of WBD's other assets as it's "the one part of WBD that could tie up other parts of this transaction so long as any government approvals are required to facilitate its completion."

Another question is the fate of WBD's studio business, which has been dragged down. On a call Monday announcing the separation, Zaslav emphasized that the movie business was harder to project than TV. But he said that by leaning into well-known IP, he saw WBD's studios arm becoming a $3 billion business.

The separation also could put WBD's studios business in play, Bernstein's Lauren Yoon said.

The companies that could ingest such a business include Amazon, Disney, Netflix, and Comcast. However, most of the tech companies haven't historically been big acquirers, and the timing isn't ideal.

"No tech companies want to give the government any reason to be in their business," said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media, which specializes in digital media investments.

Also, expect Bob Iger to field new questions about what's ahead for Disney's linear and cable networks. He once floated the idea of selling them, though he then retreated from the idea.

Disney's line at the time was that it wouldn't get the price it wanted if it sold those properties and that it'd be too complex to separate them from the rest of the company. Iger and Trump have also sparred in the past, and Disney could look to avoid deals that need government approval.

In this podcast, Motley Fool analyst Asit Sharma and host Mary Long discuss:

• What to do with 2 extra minutes.
• Earnings from Starbucks.
• What's cooking at Wingstop.

Then, Motley Fool analyst Yasser el-Shimy joins Mary for a look at Warner Brothers Discovery, in the first of a two-part series about the entertainment conglomerate and its controversial CEO.

Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue »

To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you're ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy.

A full transcript is below.

Should you invest $1,000 in Starbucks right now?

Before you buy stock in Starbucks, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Starbucks wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $623,685!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $701,781!*

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 906% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 164% for the S&P 500. Don’t miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of May 5, 2025

This video was recorded on April 30, 2025

Mary Long: A dollar saved is a dollar earned, so a minute saved is what? You're listening to Motley Fool Money. I'm Mary Long joined today by Mr. Asit Sharma. Asit, good to see you. How are you doing?

Asit Sharma: I'm great, Mary. How are you doing? Good to see you.

Mary Long: I'm doing well. We got reports from Starbucks today, that's the coffee chain that most listeners are probably pretty familiar with. They're in the midst of a turnaround. They dropped earnings yesterday after the bell. I want to kick us off by focusing on Starbucks' measurement of a different currency, not dollars, but time, Asit. A big focus of Starbucks' turnaround is returning the chain to its golden age of being a neighborhood coffee house. But as a part of that, there's also a focus on efficiency. Management seems to think they're making good progress on that efficiency front. The company shaved two minutes off its in store wait times thanks to the help of a swinky ordering algorithm. If you had an extra two minutes in each of your days, what would you be doing with that time?

Asit Sharma: Well, I'm not giving it back to TikTok and YouTube shorts, I'm done with you guys. I'm grabbing the cast iron bookmark, breaking out of that house, and I'm getting two minutes extra to read Orbital by Samantha Harvey, which is my Middle Age men's book club read of the month, and I'm behind, I need it finished by Saturday.

Mary Long: It sounds like you're being very productive with those extra two minutes.

Asit Sharma: Living my best life.

Mary Long: There's a detail here that's very interesting to me because notably, this algorithm that's shaved off these two minutes of order times is not powered by artificial intelligence. Instead, it follows an if then structure. This is fascinating to me because it seems like every other company is going out of their way to highlight its AI capabilities, build themselves as an AI company, even if they don't really play in the tech space. What does it say about Starbucks that they seemingly have an opportunity to do that with the rollout of this algorithm and yet they're not?

Asit Sharma: Well, on the one hand, I think they would love to be able to float some great AI stuff to the market, but truthfully, everyone knows that it's going to take more than AI to solve Starbucks' problems, so let's get real here and go back to some very elementary type of algorithmic thinking to solve some of the throughput issues they have.

Mary Long: Again, Starbucks seems pretty proud of these shorter wait times, but that doesn't necessarily seem to be translating into great sales numbers quite yet. I'm going to call out some metrics from the report, including same store sales, which is closely watched here, and you tell me how you're interpreting these numbers. Do they spell to you, Asit Sharma, promise or peril for the coffee company? We'll kick things off with same store sales. In the US, that's down about 3% for the quarter. What do you say, Asit, promise, peril, something in between?

Asit Sharma: I think that's an easy peril. This is the trend at Starbucks. They're losing a little bit of traffic. They're trying to turn it around to get people to come back into the stores or come back to the drive throughs. They have a strategy for this, back to the good old days. We can chat about this. But this is emblematic of Starbucks larger problem, so this is a peril call, easy.

Mary Long: Two hundred and thirteen net new store openings in the second quarter, bringing the total store count to nearly 40,800 around the world. Promise, peril, something in between?

Asit Sharma: Promise. I like that. Brian Niccol, turnaround artist. Let's slow this puppy down. Why should we be expanding when we don't have the unit economics right? Why should we be expanding when CapEx, capital expenditure is one of the things dragging this company down? Most people don't realize Starbucks has a pretty big debt load because it has invested so much in its stores over the years. Why don't we try to figure out how we can solve some of our problems with operating expenses versus capital expenditure? Let's also try to renovate stores at a lower cost. All of this points to taking it very easy on that new store development, so I like that, it's promise.

Mary Long: Just to be clear, you're saying that that 213 net new store openings number sits right at the sweet spot of, Hey, you're still growing, but it's at a small enough clip that it's not distracting from the real focus, which is improving throughput at existing stores?

Asit Sharma: Yeah. It's also a signal that the new management isn't taking the easy way out. Conceivably, one way you could solve Starbucks' problems would be to take on a little bit more debt and to speed up new stores and to say, We're going to actually increase revenue, but traffic will take a bit of time to come back to the stores. We know people of our brand, so we're going to throw a bunch more stores out in places where we don't have this dense concentration and cannibalization. We're going to map this great real estate strategy out. They could have easily said that, but I don't think the market would have liked it too much, so they're doing the sensible thing, which is like, we're not really worried about adding new stores right now, that's not the problem that we have to solve today.

Mary Long: Our next quick hit metric, GAAP operating margin down about 7% compared to a year ago. How do you feel about that one?

Asit Sharma: It's a little bit of peril situation going on there, Mary. Starbucks is doing something which I think should help the business, which is to say, we've got a couple of pain points for customers. One is the time that it takes for customers to get through their order, average wait times of four minutes. You pointed out going this algorithmic route, so very old school. If a drink is very complex to make, don't make that the first thing you do, or in some cases, maybe you should if it has x number of ingredients, so that way it's ready and the stuff isn't melting on top when the customer gets it. Don't just do first come first serve. I think that is a really insightful way to start from scratch if you're a new CEO. Starbucks has these problems which they're thinking can be solved by labor. Then bring more people in so that we can satisfy customers, we can keep that throughput moving, but that increases your operating expenses, and they've got leftover depreciation from all of the investments they've made in technology.

Under the previous CEO, they were trying to solve their problems by having more components like the clover vertica which make things automatic, and they had a cool brew system, which was very expensive, so now we're seeing that work through the profit and loss statement. What we're seeing in the GAAP numbers is that net income is going to be pressured. Number 1, they still have a lot of depreciation that they have to account for, and Number 2, to keep customers happy, which should be the first order of business, they're going to have to hire more baristas, keep those shifts occupied. That is not a clear out type situation, it will take time to resolve. That's a peril.

Mary Long: Last but not least, we got GAAP earnings per share. That's down about 50% compared to a year ago. I think I know where you might land on this one. What do you say?

Asit Sharma: It's a peril. Something that was a little iffy in the earnings call is both Brian Niccol and his new CFO, who's actually a veteran of the retail business, Cathy Smith. They were like, don't worry about earnings per share too much. We really think you should focus on us taking care of the customer, us becoming that third place again, us becoming the brand that attracts people, us being the place where you can have these day parts like the afternoon where we're going to revive your desire to come into the store and maybe have a non alcoholic aperitif, mind you, I'm not sure that's what investors want to hear. Investors will give a long line to Brian Niccol because he has been successful in the past, and so has his new CFO. But I didn't like that, don't pay attention to this because we're investors, we want money. We give you money, you make money, you give us back money in terms of dividends and share price, so a little bit of peril there.

Mary Long: Another data point that I do think is relevant to the Starbucks story and just like the consumer story more broadly is GDP data, which we got out this morning. That showed a contraction of 0.3% down from 2.4% growth a quarter ago. This is the first decline since the start of 2022. Starbucks can improve wait times all they want, they can implement this back to Starbucks strategy, but if we are headed toward a recession and the company is already still struggling, how does that macro picture affect this chain that sells seven dollars drip coffees and $10 lattes to people?

Asit Sharma: Mary, the first thing I'm going to ask you is, I actually throw circumstance Kanata Starbucks once every two weeks, and I buy drip coffee and sometimes hot chocolate, and we'll buy a pastry here and there. Where are you getting these seven dollar drip coffees from? Is that some venti with adding some special milk? I don't get that. It is expensive, stop, but seven sounds excessive.

Mary Long: Okay, Asit. I was at a Marriott Hotel earlier this month for a latte.

Asit Sharma: Here we have the first qualification. Like, well, I was at the airport Starbucks. It's not the airport Starbucks, but everyone listen to Mary. It was at Marriott Hotel. Go ahead.

Mary Long: There are some asterisks attached to this example, but it fired me up, so I'm going to use this platform to share it. I'm at Marriott in Collierville Tennessee for a wedding earlier this month. There is no free coffee in the lobby at this hotel, which was my first red flag. I go down searching for coffee, and all that there is is a Starbucks Bistro, so I say, Okay, I'll go to the Starbucks Bistro, buy my coffee. It was a large, but it was a drip coffee. No fills, so easy, they turn around, pour the cup, and it cost me $7.50. I was so enraged, I was ready to throw that coffee across the lobby. I did not. I held it in, but I'm using this moment to share that. That is a real number. Though, again, perhaps that's not the price at every Starbucks.

Asit Sharma: Well, I want to extrapolate from that. Which is to say, if it's seven bucks at that Marriott, that tells us something about what's happened to the price over the last few years because in all honesty, that entry level drip coffee, a tall order with nothing on it has increased. I'm going to guess it's 30-40% more than it was just two years ago. Now, some may say that this is taking a little bit advantage of commodity inflation and inflation in general, that Starbucks took an opportunity to bump up those prices, even though it has tremendous purchasing power, and it should be one of the first places to say, Hey, we're going to hold your price steady because we're Starbucks, because we buy from I don't know how many coffee providers across the globe. It's interesting Brian Niccol is saying, We're not going to raise prices anymore this year. I think he's sensing the winds and maybe realizes that Starbucks took a little bit of advantage of its most loyal customers by bumping up these prices.

This is yet another thing that makes this very hard. But all in all, I do want to give the new team credit for leaning toward, again, OpEx people versus machines because under the previous management, Starbucks was really thinking that it could solve so many things by having automation. They could improve the rate at which people are going through the drive through lines and the wait times that you have even if you ordered in advance on your mobile order app, and it became something where they lost connection with the customer, and management, of course, is well aware of that. But it reminds me of something that Ray Kroc said years ago, the man who bought McDonald's when it was all of two restaurants, I think, and turned it into what it is today, he said, Hell, if I listened to the computers and did what they proposed with McDonald's, I'd have a store with a row of vending machines in it. Under the previous leadership, I almost felt like that's where they thought they could go, it's just a really automated format without this customer connection. Bringing that back, even though it sounds a little iffy, Mary, whoever is going to go back to Starbucks as a real third place when so many great community coffee shops have sprung up and our consumption preferences have changed? I still applaud management for getting that, that you've got to do right by your customers, price wise, ambience wise, connection wise, brand wise. Maybe there's something in there. Of course, this is a harder problem to solve than Brian Niccol had at Chipotle.

Mary Long: I want to close this out by getting another look at the fast casual business from a different company, one that really is leaning more into this digital landscape, and that's Wingstop. Not even a year ago, this chicken wing joint was flying very high, indeed. Shares have dropped significantly since then, down about 45% from their high in September 2024. We're going to get to their earnings that dropped this morning, which were more positive in just a moment, but before we get them, let's look at the past several months. Why that drop? What headwinds was this company up against?

Asit Sharma: Wingstop created its own headwinds in a way, Mary, because it had been so successful improving same store sales. The company has a really light real estate footprint, stores are incredibly small compared to some of their wing competitors, and they're meant for just going in, maybe sitting down, but mostly picking up and taking away. They really started to get a deeper concentration, some good metropolitan markets, not huge ones, but decent markets. They saw such an increase in traffic that their comparable stores went through the roof on what's called a two year stack. You compare what you sold today versus not just one year, but two years ago. When you lap great results, it becomes really hard. You can't keep increasing those results exponentially. This year, it turns out what they're doing is holding the gains over the past two years, but it's not like they're having another year where you're seeing same store sales increase by 25%. The projections were, this year we're going to grow those same store sales by mid digits to single high digits, and with this latest report, they're saying, Well, they could be flat this year. The market like the report for different reasons. But that's what happened to the stock because investors were like, Wait a minute. You're spending more on marketing. Yeah, because we're getting to the NBA. We're the official wing of the NBA. But I want those profits. Well, you're not going to get them because we're scaling, and people are just lining up to develop new franchises, and we're going to build this business out globally.

Investors were a little bit confused last quarter. We're not getting profits that we want or as much profit as we want. We're not getting the growth that we want to see. But in the grand scheme of things, those were very understandable pauses in the business model and the economic model, and I think over time, it's destined to pick up. But you had some questions about the earnings today.

Mary Long: Help us make sense of this most recent quarter because, OK, we saw a teeny tiny improvement in same-store sales. That number only ticked up by 0.5%. But there are some other numbers that seemed pretty impressive. You've got systemwide sales increasing almost 16%, hitting $1.3 billion, total revenue up almost 17.5%, net income increasing, wait for it, 221%. That's all in spite of what's obviously a very tricky, very uncertain macro environment. We've already seen that impact trickle down to other fast-casual chains. Domino's, for instance, reported a decline in same-store sales earlier this week, which is pretty rare for them. What's working and what's not in the Wingstop model, as we've just seen it reported today?

Asit Sharma: Wingstop has been a company that's invested a lot in its technology. They've moved digital orders to some, I think, 70% now of their sales. That helps them with a leaner cost structure. Also, Mary, the company has its tremendous cash on cash returns. If you're an investor, let's say, a franchisee in a Wingstop business, you can make 70% cash on cash returns, 50% if you use financing, and that's just a stellar type of return in the QSR, quick service restaurant industry. What they have is tremendous demand in their development pipeline. Their franchise groups are like, we love this, we want more, and that's propelling a really fast store growth count. With Starbucks, they're slowing down. Wingstop is trying to build out new units as fast as possible, and that's where the growth is coming from. What investors are seeing is, I can live with this equation. You have a lean operation. You don't really own your own supply chain. You work with partners, so you've got less exposure to that. You seem to be able to manage all-important bone-in chicken price really well and not pass those increases on to customers for the most part, so I want in and I want to develop more stores.

I will note that the company, one of the things that investors did like earlier this year, is the company keeps increasing its total advertising spend based on systemwide sales. It used to be 3%. Then it was 4% of systemwide sales was advertising budget for local markets. Now it's something like 5.5%. But look, with these big brand partnerships, like I mentioned with the NBA, and a lot more advertising in local markets, that's only increasing the flywheel of returns for the franchisees. This is a company that just looks destined to grow, almost like Dunkin' Donuts did in the early days. That's. A powerful equation for investors who can withstand the volatility of angst over same-store sales in any given quarter. Think of this as like, I'm going to buy this business for 10 years, and I'm going to watch it expand into Europe, into the Middle East, here in the States, and I'm going to watch you take market share from some of the bigger competitors who have larger store footprints. Of course, there's a lot that can go wrong in that. They have to keep executing and they have to make sure that they do manage those all-important bone-in chicken cost over time. But I like their chances in this environment.

Mary Long: Asit Sharma, always a pleasure to have you on the show. Thanks so much for giving us some insight into coffee and bone-in chicken wings today.

Asit Sharma: Thanks a lot, Mary. I had a lot of fun.

Mary Long: Two of the biggest movies of the year, a Minecraft movie and Sinners, both came out of Warner Brothers Studios. But there's a lot more to this company than its movie-baking business. Despite the success of those two films, the stock WBD has been far from a winner for its shareholders. Up next, I talk to Fool analyst Yasser El-Shimy about Warner Brothers Discovery. This is the first in a two-part series. Today, we talk about the business. Tomorrow, we shine the spotlight on David Zaslav; the character charged with leading this conglomerate into the future.

Warner Brothers Discovery came to be as a result of a 2022 merger between Warner Media, which is the film and television studio that was spun off from AT&T, and Discovery, another television studio. Together, today, this is a massive entertainment conglomerate, and it owns the likes of HBO, Max, CNN, Discovery Plus, the Discovery Channel; a mix of streaming services and traditional cable networks. One of the reasons, Yasser, why I find this company so interesting is because you can't really talk too much about it without hearing all these different names, all these different services, a fascinating history of mergers and acquisitions and spin-offs, etc. I want to focus today mostly on the person who has been tasked with leading this massive conglomerate into the shaky future of media. But before we get to David Zaslav, let's talk first about the company. Again, WBD is a big conglomerate. What are the most important things about this business as it exists today that investors need to know?

Yasser El-Shimy: Well, thanks, Mary. To tell the story of WBD is to almost tell the story of entertainment itself in the United States. We're talking about structural challenges that are afflicting almost all television and film studios across the board, as well as TVs on TV networks. On the one hand, you have a structural decline of linear TV viewership. That is your basic cable, basically people, paying a monthly fee for whatever provider there might be to get a whole host of channels that they flip through at home. We've heard of the phenomena of cord-cutting. It has almost become a cliche at this point. It has been going on for years, at least over a decade at this point, but recently, it seems to have accelerated even further as people migrate more and more toward streaming options, subscribing to such channels as Netflix and Disney+ and Max and others. This has created quite a dilemma for a lot of studios like Warner Brothers Discovery, where much of the profits and the free cash flow has traditionally come from those very lucrative linear TV deals that they have had with the likes of Charter Communications and others. They have had to effectively wage a war on two fronts. They are being disrupted by the likes of Netflix, they're losing subscribers on the linear TV site, but at the same time, they can't go all in on streaming, at least not just yet, because so much of their profit and so much of their sales actually come from that linear TV side that is declining.

What do you do? You try and just be everything to all people, and that has become a challenge. Warner Brothers is no different here. We're talking about a company that started off in 2022, as a result of that merger. You talked about between Discovery and Warner Brothers. Since then, they have focused on two main objectives. The first one is to pay down as much of the debt on the balance sheet as possible, and we can get to that later, and the second goal has been to try and effectively promote and develop their streaming business. Initially, it was HBO Plus, now it's called Max, and try and actively compete with the likes of Netflix and Disney. They've actually done rather OK on that front, as well.

Mary Long: Let's talk about the debt before we move on because this is a big gripe with the business as it exists today. Warner Brothers Discovery carries $34.6 billion in net debt. That's as of the end of fiscal 2024. You get to that number because there's $40 billion gross debt minus $5.5 billion of cash on hand. How did they end up with so much debt? $34.6 billion is a lot of debt. How did they end up with so much of that in the first place?

Yasser El-Shimy: That is a lot of debt. Let's just say that David Zaslav who was the head of Discovery, he was very enthusiastic about putting his hands on those assets from Warner Brothers. As a result, he actually saw that merger with the Warner Brothers assets from AT&T. AT&T took a huge loss on the price it had originally paid to acquire Time Warner, a 40% loss. However, what they did do is that they effectively put all the debt that they had from that business, as well as some of their own debt, into this new entity that was to merge with Discovery. Warner Brothers Discovery just was born with a massive debt load of $55 billion or so. That was nearly five times net debt to EBITDA, or earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, which was very high leverage for this new company. From the very beginning, Warner Brothers Discovery had to deal with paying down that huge debt load. Luckily, a lot of that debt was in long-term debt effectively that most of it will mature around 2035. Can be easily rolled over. It has an average interest rate of about 4.7%. It's not the worst in the world. Considering how much cash flow per year that Warner Brothers Discovery is able to produce around, again, the $5 billion range or more, you can see that the company has been able to effectively navigate this and pay down that debt. David Zaslav has paid down over around $12 billion since that merger took place. That leaves them with the $40 billion you're talking about. Still more to go, but at least you can see that they are able to accomplish that feat.

Mary Long: Let's also hit on the streaming service because that's an essential part WBD and where it wants to go in the future. Max, which is the streaming service that's basically HBO plus others allegedly has a clear path to hitting, this is per their most recent earnings, at least 150 million global subscribers by the end of 2026. At 150 million global subscribers, that would make it about half of Netflix's current size. What metrics and what numbers does Max have to post in order to be considered a success?

Yasser El-Shimy: I would say that Max has to, again, focus on growing that subscriber base, and they have done an excellent job at that. They've almost doubled subscribers year over year, reaching around 117 million subscribers currently. They accomplished that through a strategy that had two wings to it. The first is that they effectively bundled a lot of content into the Max service. The previous HBO Plus service, it merely had some TV and film IP that the studios produced from the namesake HBO, but also from the Warner Brothers Studios. But then they decided to expand that to include also shows and other content from the reality TV side of the Discovery side of the business. Think of your home network, HGTV, or Food Network, and so on. They accommodate a lot of that content in there. They also introduced live sports and live news into the Max. That made it a lot more appealing to be a place where you can have almost all of your viewing needs met. That has been a successful strategy for them. They have also struck a partnership with Disney to bundle Disney+, Hulu, and Max together for a reduced price, but that has definitely also helped with the increase in their subscription numbers. But I would also be remiss to say that they have successfully and actively sought to expand their presence in international markets.

They are still at less than half the markets where Netflix is, so the opportunity is still pretty vast on there. However, as you started your question with asking about the metrics that we need to be watching out for, obviously, we need to be watching out, as I said, for subscriber numbers, as well as the EBITDA operating margins that will come from the streaming side. They are targeting around 20%, which would actually very good if that turns out to be the case, long term. But also we need to look at things like average revenue per user or ARPU. How much are these subscribers contributing, both to the top and bottom line for Max? I think on this metric, there might be a little less confidence because especially when you expand internationally, you're going to get a lot of subscribers who are not paying as much as a US subscriber might, so you might be looking at a decline there. On the bright side, they've introduced advertising as part of the package, but the basic package that you get. That strategy we have seen it successfully play out with Netflix, and I think that they may be able to increase or ad revenue on Max, and that can be a big contributor for their profits as well.

Mary Long: As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. For the Motley Fool Money Team, I'm Mary Long. Thanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow.

Asit Sharma has positions in Marriott International, McDonald's, Walt Disney, and Wingstop. Mary Long has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Yasser El-Shimy has positions in Warner Bros. Discovery and Wingstop. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Netflix, Starbucks, Walt Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Motley Fool recommends Marriott International and Wingstop. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.