In this Motley Fool Money podcast, Motley Fool analyst Karl Thiel and contributors Rick Munarriz and Jason Hall dig into four growth stocks ripe for the acquiring. There's also two sides to Tesla's changing AI story and a new kind of stock quote game.
They unpack:
- Tesla throwing in the towel on its AI supercomputer initiative.
- Four potential buyout candidates after another Rule Breaker agreed to be acquired.
- A CEO quote challenge.
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.
This podcast was recorded on August 11, 2025.
Rick Munarriz: Potential buyout candidates, a potential shift in a popular automaker's AI strategy, I guess you can say this show has a lot of potential. Will LR play on words over promise or under-deliver? Find out right now on Motley Fool. I'm Rick Munarriz, and today I'm joined by fellow analysts Karl Thiel and Jason Hall with bold predictions for what we believe could be the next rule breaker to get bought out. We'll also take a look at a whole new stock quote game. But first, Tesla taps the regenerative brakes on its generative AI supercomputer. Late last week it was reported that Tesla was scrapping his Dojo supercomputer team, which Elon Musk confirmed over the weekend, putting an end to at least this chapter of its in house AR hardware dream. Let's look at both sides of the story, dueling fool style. Jason will bring the bowler spin to the story, but Karl, let's start with you in the Bearden.
Karl Thiel: Yeah, it was almost exactly two years ago that a Morgan Stanley analyst suggested that Tesla's Dojo supercomputer could add a half trillion, that's with a T, dollars to the company's valuation. Now it's dead. As I'm sure Jason is going to discuss, the stock has been going up since that announcement. Bulls are obviously hoping that less spending means better capital management. But not so long ago, Bulls believed that this project would give Tesla critical advantages. So, look, not only was this supposed to allow the company leverage all that data coming in from cars on the highway for better training, but it was a bet on other future possibilities that they could leverage. Dojo was going to save money because it would require the company to buy fewer incremental Invidia GPUs. Moreover, it was supposed to be better. The D_1 chip that was the core of Dojo wasn't just a general purpose GPU. It had a massive parallel design, but it was application specific. It was supposed to cut training times. It was, in fact, supposed to be a triple winner for them. It was supposed to be better in performance. It was supposed to be cheaper to make and it was supposed to be much cheaper for them to own, not only because it was going to be more efficient, but also, obviously, you weren't paying Invidia and paying for their profits. A lot of this vision of the future came directly from Elon Musk and it was pretty much just accepted by the analyst community.
The company and many analysts believed that Dojo could serve as the foundation for other future network services businesses like managing the hub of a robotaxi fleet or logistics and delivery fleet. It could handle vehicle infotainment. They even thought maybe they could rent out compute, sort of AWS style to other businesses that were trying to do AI training. Of course, if you believe that a big part of Tesla's future is humanoid robots, you're probably counting on Dojo again for fast efficient training of them. But the thing that gets me, I guess, about this announcement is that, yeah, it was announced as you referred to, Rick. It was announced simultaneously with the Dojo team leaving. So specifically, leader Peter Bannon said he was leaving the company with about 20 other engineers, several of whom went and created a new start-up called Density AI. Supposedly, Density is going to be coming out of stealth mode relatively soon, so we don't know a whole lot about it, but from what little we do know, it sounds an awful lot, at least to me, like it's going to do what Dojo was supposed to do, just not under Elon Musk. That mass defection certainly isn't the only high profile departure from a Musk led company. I mean, we had, just to pick one, Milan Kovak, I guess it was earlier this year, left optimist, which is their robot effort. So who's to say the defection stop here? I would put it to you this way. You can value this company on its business which is cars and a little bit of solar, which is another troubled area. Or you can value it on all the future pixie dust, and I'm not against assigning value to future potential that is not here today. But if the pixie dust keeps getting blown away, you should probably sit up and take notice.
Rick Munarriz: Yeah, so addition by subtraction on your case, Karl, it's subtraction by addition by subtraction. Now let's turn to Jason for a more upbeat take.
Jason Hall: Alright, so let's start with the analyst note a couple of years ago. I think we have to be careful because we've seen a lot of squinty math from analysts over Tesla over the past decade about future bets. So let's just cast that aside and talk about what investors have been asking for from Tesla and Elon Musk for a while now, and that's to refocus. We're seeing that. So I think this is Tesla and Musk, making the capital discipline decision that it needs to make going forward, if it's going to achieve that vision for a company that can transcend just automaking and become as Musk has called it before, a vertically integrated energy and transportation company and now energy transportation and automation giant. If you're talking about robotics and you're talking about autonomous transportation, we have to face facts, Bowles, the auto business is tough right now. Then there's the changes to federal regulations and incentives that are compounding the business environment for selling cars to all of the incentives that generate cash flows that Tesla is about to lose.
Now, Tesla is a strong balance sheet. It's got about $30 billion of net cash, only about $6 billion of debt and that's very manageable but it has a lot of capital priorities and some serious risks, its ability to generate enough cash to pay for it all. So a smart place to pull back on cash outlays is an area where the market can actually still meet your technology needs. So, sure, Dojo and building the hardware, would be great if you can pull it off. Karl, you're right, those defections indicate that there's still an appetite from the people that were involved in it to go and do something. In a pure play business, they can raise capital and derive funding as a pure play business versus being part of the more, kind of a conglomerate Tesla, where it's going to pull resources from something else. So you look at Tesla now, and the company can focus that capital on things that are more likely to generate revenue in the near term, which is the most important thing that Tesla can do right now. The company had to reimagine how EVs are built to be a commercial success. It doesn't have to do the same thing with compute hardware to achieve those autonomous transportation, the robotics, other artificial intelligence goals. So as a result, I think Tesla did something we haven't seen it do in years. It became more focused on fewer priorities, and the ones it's focused on are more likely to drive revenue and cash flow sooner versus just being an expense line on the operating statements that might be to your point, Karl, just pixie dust in the future. Say what you want about Musk and his ability to end up with too many balls in the air, but when he's more focused, he is uniquely relentless. This move could represent his refocusing on what's most important to Tesla, and that's delivering the products already in development to the market more quickly and prioritizing the company's limited resources to do so.
Rick Munarriz: So just play your hits. I get it, Jason. I can't wait to see if Tesla will regret this move or Dojo the bullet. Coming up next, a few stocks we think could be treated to a bended knee proposal. Plan to stick around? Please say I do.
The ayes have it. Global eye care leader Alcon announced last week that it's buying Rule Breaker recommendation Staar Surgical in an all cash deal to help expand its corrective vision treatment options beyond LASIK. The $1.5 billion acquisition is a 51% premium to where its shares closed the day before the deal was announced. Buyouts are common, but a bittersweet experience for investors of disruptive growth stocks. Star Surgical joined Sketchers and Taskers as rule breakers that have agreed to be bought out in the past couple of months. The short term premium is nice, but you likely bought in hoping for a much longer runway before taking off. The next rule breaker that will be prematurely snapped out of our hands. Jason, Karl, and I have some bold predictions. Jason, let's start with you.
Jason Hall: Yeah, so I'll talk about Lululemon, and I think this is maybe a good fun thought experiment, whether or not it's that likely to happen. But I think if we look in the past, companies like Buffalo Wild Wings, Panera Bread, Skechers as just happened, different circumstances. But there are times where you can see companies that have been long term winners end up getting acquired, and in a lot of cases, private equity is involved. I think maybe that's the situation for Lululemon. What's going on right now for Lulu? In short, it's an incredibly relevant and valuable brand with millions of loyal customers and the customer cohort while stagnating a little in its mature markets in the US and Canada, more recently, it's grown to include more men, and internationally, it's still growing at a decent clip. But the company does face, if not a crossroads and some challenges to the rate of growth we've seen in the past. It's had some notable flubs here, with its tech approach, with a mirror. We like companies to take those swings and misses trying to find some optionality, but it does seem like there's just some struggles with the core business and getting to growth. Here's the thing though. Still really, really cash generative, generated about 12% in free cash flow margin over the past four quarters. But free cash flow is down about 25% from its peak a couple of years ago, even as revenue is still growing and is at all time highs. Then we haven't even talked about tariff, so it faces more profit pressure if President Donald Trump's tariff policies remain for the long term. In other words, this is a really high profile business that's going to need time to complete the turnaround to reignite growth and the profits that management is promising. That's just hard to do in the quarterly pressure of today's market. Maybe becoming part of a bigger portfolio of brands, probably under private equity might be the path forward.
Rick Munarriz: Yeah, Jason, so you see this happening private equity. So Lululemon doesn't have to post they're sticking their quarterly report card on the refrigerator door. Any thought on a potential buyer from a publicly traded Athletia apparel, fitness or lifestyle or any other kind of company?
Jason Hall: It could happen. It could happen, but I think the reality is if you look across that entire landscape and you think about the big players, I'll use Nike as just an example. They have their own problems that they're dealing with right now that buying their way out of it is not the right approach. So I don't think it would be very likely that we would see anybody that would be overlapping with customer base or already kind of in that market that would want to take on that sort of risk right now.
Rick Munarriz: I'm going to cheat a little bit and try to fit in two really quickly. One is BioMarin, and this is a company that if it got bought out it would be bought out a little bit from weakness. BioMarin is struggling with some competition, some new products and a diverse but somewhat aging portfolio. That said, they'd fit really nicely into a larger company's portfolio where some costs could be cut. One nice thing about BioMarin is just a lot of the products it make are actually very unattractive to compete with, even if patents weren't an issue, just because it's very, very small populations, and they have close relationships with those populations that would make it honestly difficult for somebody else to come in and take that much share away from them.
I think Viking Therapeutics is a really interesting one, and anybody who follows this space knows that there's been a lot of anticipation around a possible buyout of this company because it makes so much sense and because there's been so much MNA in the obesity GLP one segment, Vikings working on its own GLP one GIP drug. That's ahead of most competitors, so there's a lot of expectations there. It would certainly fit in for companies that have some spaces in their own pipelines. I'm looking at you, Pfizer, in particular. But the only problem is that it's been seen as such a likely buyout candidate that every time another acquisition in the sector is announced, Viking goes down because everybody gets disappointed that it hasn't happened already. No one really knows what's going on behind the scenes, but I think we can say that management's planning for a scenario where they can go it alone and they're undoubtedly asking for a lot in whatever private conversations they're happening behind the scenes.
Jason Hall: Karl, I'm going to put the screws to you a little bit here and tell you you've got to pick one. Which do you think happens first? Either way, we're probably talking Big Pharma here that's moving. Is it a big well heeled company that buys the, I want to say struggling, but company that would be better fit as part of somebody's portfolio, or would it be somebody that really needs to get more aggressive and goes after Viking and is willing to pay up. Which do you think is going to happen first?
Karl Thiel: I think we're at the part of the cycle where Pharma is really looking to plug holes in its pipeline. That could mean either company, but I think Viking is just a really strong play to be competitive in what's obviously becoming a huge, huge market around obesity and they get a company into the market with a strong product and some strong follow ups. So if I have to guess, I'm going to go Viking first.
Rick Munarriz: Yeah, well, I'm going to go with Roku for my prediction. There's a pretty impressive turnaround happening at the pioneer and leader in TV streaming. But to many growth investors, Roku remains a four letter word. The stock may be up nearly 60% over the past 12 months, but the shares are still more than 80% below their peak set four summers ago. Headwinds are turning into tailwinds, and if a company wanted to buy Roku at this point and inherit the pole position in the growing market for streaming video operating systems, this train is about to leave the station. Roku has turned its business around over the past two years. It has posted double digit revenue growth over the last nine quarters and trailing free cash flow in the last eight. It had a much longer streak of red ink, but it turned profitable in its latest quarter earlier than expected. Roku's reach and engagement remains unmatched despite competing against Alphabet, Amazon and Apple, Mag seven Titans with greater financial resources. Why wouldn't Microsoft, a $4 trillion company flushed with nearly $95 billion in cash, not by a company with an enterprise value of 10.5 billion that would catapult over its MAG seven peers in a new frontier that matters to many of its businesses? The clock is ticking on an administration that may not object to the deal. Why wouldn't Comcast, a media company with large but fading cash cows, not make a play? There's never been a better time for a tech, media or advertising giant to buy a ticket to the top.
Jason Hall: Yeah, Rick, when I look at that one, a question comes to my mind that a little bit has come to me about Viking Therapeutics as well, which is, it makes sense. So why hasn't it happened yet? There's certainly been activity around the margins of what Roku does. I'm thinking about Walmart buying Visio. I'm thinking about Disney and Fubo. Is regulatory oversight, the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission a major factor here?
Rick Munarriz: Yeah, so this is a giant company buying a leader in a much smaller market. It's even worse than Walmart Visio or Disney Fubo. But I don't think that DOJ FDC oversight is going to be an issue in a case like this because, again, Roku's specialist what it is, and it's competing against three other companies that would be competing directly with Microsoft or even Comcast. So I think the government will say, hey, better competitors, this is actually a combination that would create a new stronger competitor to some of these giant companies. So I think it won't have much of an issue going through.
Jason Hall: I wish somebody would buy Roku just so I could stop beating my head against it, trying to figure it out.
Rick Munarriz: Stating the obvious year for all of our bold predictions, never buy a stock solely as a bio candidate. Make sure you feel you can grow independently wealthy if your stock remains independently healthy. When we get back from the break, we'll third act this like no one's business with a different kind of stock quote game. Stick with us. We're twisting balloon animals into shape.
ADVERTISEMENT: Wish you could lock in rates without locking out liquidity? Meet LDDR, a LifeX Treasury bond ladder, ETF built to simplify your cash flow plan for the next 10 years. With LDDR, you can lock in today's interest rates for a decade. It's built to deliver predictable monthly cash flow that boosts interest income by including tax free return of principle. That means the potential for higher, more stable cash flow without worrying about rate cuts, reinvestment risk or market swings. LDDR, take the guesswork out of your cash flow plan. Learn more at lifexfunds.com. The LifeX ETFs return principal over the life of an ETF and therefore expected to have little or no assets remaining to distribute at the time of liquidation. Individual bonds carry an obligation to fully return the principal to shareholders at maturity. However, ETFs have no such obligation. The net asset value of the ETFs will decline over time as income payments are made to shareholders. Tax discussion here is general in nature. Investors should consult with their tax advisor about the effect that an investment in LifeX ETFs could have on their tax situation. Investors should consider the investment objectives, risks and charges and expenses of LGDR carefully before investing. The prospectus contains this and other information about the investment company and can be obtained by visiting www.lifexfunds.com or by calling 1-888-331-5558. The prospectus should be read carefully before investing. Investing in the LifeX ETFs involve risk. Principal loss is possible. The LifeX income ETFs are distributed by Foresight Financial Services LLC.
Rick Munarriz: Jason and Karl, I know the two of you know your stock quotes, but how well do you know your quotes about stocks? I'm going to read you a quote said by a rule breaker CEO. Take it in, there's a clue in there. I'll then give you the name of three company leaders. Let me know which one said it. Ready? Here's the quote. I work under the assumption that we have no idea how to build companies yet. That 50 years from now, people will look back at the companies of today and they will seem like the black and white footage of the first hockey games. We have no idea how to build the best companies yet. So who said this, A, Shopify CEO Tobi Lütke, B, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, or C, former Chipotle CEO and current Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol.
Jason Hall: I think I know it, but Karl, you go first.
Karl Thiel: I do not, but I'm just going to go with Tobi Lütke from Shopify.
Jason Hall: Yeah, it's the Canadian connection there.
Rick Munarriz: Yeah, the hockey was the clue in there. Yeah, he said this nine years ago. So we're now 41 years away from what he was talking about. But yeah, Karl, congratulations on the winning, the two of you. Karl and Jason, thank you for playing, slaying, and staying. As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks that 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. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. For Karl Thiel, Jason Hall, and the entire Motley Fool team, I'm Rick Munarriz, Voices Carrie.
