Time to chat about:
- Nvidia's $2 billion investment into CoreWeave and how AI infrastructure is colliding with physical constraints.
- How restaurant tech is pushing the limits on throughput.
- A rare-earth deal between private companies and the U.S. government highlighting issues of national security.
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 Jan. 27, 2026.
Emily Flippen: The edge in the stock market may be increasingly going to the companies that own the operating layer, not the brand. We're reflecting on three examples of this today on Motley Fool Money. Today is Tuesday, January 27th. Welcome to Molly Fool Money. I'm your host, Emily Flippen, and today I'm joined by Fool analysts Jason Hall and Asit Sharma to discuss the power of owning the operating system underlying our everyday lives. Today we'll be discussing how restaurants are integrating tech improvements to improve throughput, as well as a unique deal between USA are Earth and the government, and how that shows the strategic importance of resources. First we have to start with the recent, but arguably not surprising news out yesterday that CoreWeave is getting yet even more support from Nvidia via a $2 billion infrastructure investment. Now, CoreWeave shares were up more than 10% yesterday after NVIDIA bought $2 billion worth of stock at a share price of around $87, a discount of around 6.5% compared to Friday's clothing price. Now, this isn't really a big surprise. I mean, NVIDIA is already even backing CoreWeave because CoreWeave does build and rent the data centers for AI usage that obviously uses NVIDIA chips to run, and NVIDIA does have agreements with CoreWeave to buy unsold data center capacity over the course of the next six or so years. But, Jason, when you look at this deal, is NVIDIA justified by the investment? I mean, they said they're working with CoreWeave to meet extraordinary demand for Nvidia AI factories, and that the investment will help accelerate its buildout of five gigawatts of AI factories by 2030. But critics obviously were concerned. Some noted that it felt like NVIDIA was bailing out CoreWeave because the arguably running out of cash and saddled with debt. What's your read of this deal?
Jason Hall: This can be both investing in the company and propping it up. I think it probably is. I'll talk about that why, but before I get to it, I just want to point out that it's important as individual investors, we shouldn't conflate, like, our goals and incentives with NVIDIA's incentive to either invest in or prop up CoreWeave, whichever it proves to be down the road. Two things can be true. If AI expansion and proliferation does continue to happen, there's going to be a need for this infrastructure, and the buildout is going to need to continue, and companies like CoreWeave are really facing serious liquidity crises in the meantime. I've spent 15 years following big trends in energy and housing. If there's an important phrase that I think investors should just absolutely sear into their psyches, it's this secular trend, cyclical demand. A company has to survive weakening near term stuff to profit from a decade of massive growth. We're going to see ups and downs for demand across the AI cycle. It is a reality. Now, does that mean NVIDIA is putting good money after bad with CoreWeave right now? I think that almost doesn't matter to a large degree because NVIDIA is so critical. It's the hub, and there's all these spokes coming off of it on the wheel of the AI buildout that's happening right now, and it is a provider of capital in this current space. Whether it turns out to be a profitable deal has a lot less to do with CoreWeave and its execution with some really big things that are happening more broadly, and CoreWeave just has to survive, and maybe it has to stay on the NVIDIA purse strings for a little bit longer to get there.
Emily Flippen: I think it's a fair point. I don't know if I fully agree with the concept, though, that they can't invest too much in the space. I look at a business stock advisor recommendation Ferrari, the Tickers race. It's a lovely ticker. I always loved that. One of the things I always admired, despite the fact that the stock has been challenged recently is that the management team at Ferrari invested pretty heavily into electric vehicles, but recently actually pulled back on a lot of their loftier goals. It's not that they don't believe in the future of electric vehicles, but they said all these targets that we set out initially, we just don't think they're as achievable in the near term as set them out to be. We're still going to be investing, but we're not going to be investing as heavily. To your point, they don't want to throw good money after bad, so to speak. They see the future in electric vehicles, but they're not going to over invest in this space. I think the question becomes, in the case of NVIDIA, can NVIDIA over invest in AI? I think a lot of listeners probably say, No, I don't think that's possible. I actually think that it is possible for NVIDIA to over invest in AI. We've seen the cycles happen to NVIDIA in the past, whether that be cryptocurrency or gaming. The demand for chips is cyclical in nature, and I worry a little bit about NVIDIA getting a little too caught up in its own narrative. Investing so much money into something that ultimately ends up being a slower cycle than they initially maybe expected it to be. But As, I guess I want to I've been talking too much. I want to pass that question off to you. Nobody wants to hear my opinion here. What's your take on the investment? Do you think it's a proactive or maybe a reactive move?
Asit Sharma: Well, first I want to say, listening to Jason, it occurs to me the difference between Jason and myself, which I do is that Jason can do something for 15 years. I've not in my life been able to do something, anything for the course of more than a couple of years.
Jason Hall: I did it well for 15 years.
Asit Sharma: I didn't say that either, buddy. No, all jokes aside really respect Jason's long experience looking at markets and how long they can persist. I'm going to come back to your point, Emily, because I think I slightly I don't know where I sit. I think I slightly disagree with you. But let's start with NVIDIA, because I understand the NVIDIA side of it much more than the CoreWeave side. I have trouble understanding still CoreWeave as a business. I'll get to that in a moment. NVIDIA is a business that is going to soon be the biggest free cash flow generator on the planet. I think by 2029, 2030 it will be way ahead of anyone else who produces appreciable operating and free cash flow. So $100 billion, we're using very rough numbers here. This year, NVIDIA should generate in free cash flow. By 2030, it'll be close to $300 billion in free cash flow. Putting a $2 billion investment into CoreWeave in that context places me on the side of the question, Emily, that well, at least in this instance, it's not over investing. It's not even material if you take the scale of going from $100-300 billion, just add that progression up. It's several hundred billion dollars worth of free cash flow that's coming down the pike. But what is it doing here? It is, I think, investing in its ecosystem. I'm more a believer in this. Jensen Huang used this term AI factories way back when ChatGPT first exploded onto the scene. He had a very clear vision. He thought that these AI factories would have to be replenished every five years. They would have to be equipped with the latest technology, not just GPUs, but networking equipment, all types of storage. Looking over the press release, look, part of this is that CoreWeave has to adopt the Rubin platform via CPUs Bluefield memory, so NVIDIA needs proof points for other hyperscalers, for sovereign governments, for academic research institutions, that its AI factories are the one stop shop for AI, and that has to happen over the next five years. This is why it's important for NVIDIA I think that otherwise, if that wasn't in the offing, I would agree with you, Emily, that maybe they're over investing here. I do believe, though, to circle around to your question, there is a point where NVIDIA could become too diffuse in its investments. We got to keep our eye on that because a couple of billion here could turn into 10 billion to 20 billion there. Then you start getting into a true question of is this all circular? Right now, I believe that investors misunderstand the scale that NVIDIA operates on, but we should watch the numbers If they start to mushroom, yes, it could be the beginning. It could be at the beginning of a circular type of revenue demand cycle, and that won't be good for anybody.
Jason Hall: That could also disincentivize innovation down the road, too, and you end up with the intel problem. I'm extrapolating very far into the future, but it is a real.
Asit Sharma: It's Jensen's biggest fear, that they could become intel at some point.
Emily Flippen: Well, if one thing's clear to me, it's at least that NVIDIA has a lot of leniency here, given to it by its cash generation, that if it is a mistake, it can make a fair bit of mistakes here, and I'd rather make an errant investment, as opposed to find itself down the road intel like position. Up next, we're going to be turning to restaurant tech and how it is pushing the limits. Stick with us.
ADVERTISEMENT: AI is incredible. It can teach you how to fry an egg and even write a poem, pirate style. But it knows nothing about your work. Slack boot is different. It doesn't just know the facts. It knows your schedule. It can turn a brainstorm into a brief, and it doesn't need to be taught because Slack boot isn't just another AI. It's AI that knows your work as well as you do. Visit slack.com forwardslash MTSlaCbotT Learn More.
Emily Flippen: Welcome back to Motley For Money. For those of you who joined us last week on the Tuesday podcast. We spent some time digging into the downfall and potential re emergence of fast casual stocks. One of the trends we discussed was the issue of declining foot traffic and the need for restaurants to invest in order to drive a change in perception and value and their offerings. One of the ways restaurants have been doing that as traffic has dwindled and costs have risen is actually through tech integration. These are operating system improvements to make more with less. Things like tech improvement, robotics, analytics, even labor management, Asit. There are a lot of companies that are selling products and services that really seek to make that value proposition easier for restaurants. I want to pick your brain about this. Do any of these companies intrigue you or do you prefer to invest in the restaurants themselves?
Asit Sharma: I actually prefer to invest in the restaurants themselves, Emily. There are a few companies that have become very prominent in the public markets. Toast is a great example, symbol T-O-S-T In this space, they provide or TOST provides point of sale systems, so it has a front end. They take the payment. They also use that as an ordering device, but that's tied to a really good back system, which gives restaurants a lot of fills ability into the ordering and gives them a lot of other functions they can use that's optimized for the restaurant business. But outside of TOST, I don't like many other pure players in this space. Then on the automation side, many of those companies that are starting to work with restaurant chains are privately held. I don't see a lot of great options for investing. Now, Shopify symbol SHOP is interesting side door to this because they actually have a point of sale system for restaurants. It's not optimized solely for restaurants, but they have a huge app store, so there are many businesses which have been very successful on the Shopify platform. Now, just quickly getting to businesses that I like, what's the investment case? Look at CAVA symbol C-A-V-A. They have two big distribution kitchens. You can call them giant kitchens, which are full of tech. Use their own supply chain software that monitors their supply chain of ingredients coming in, and they're tied into the restaurants which have visibility and automated systems that show where the inventory is, what needs to be ordered. They've got this amazing system. I think it's pretty amazing, and it helps with CAVA's operating margins. If you compare CAVA to a Sweetgreen, you'll often hear people ask, Why does CAVA make so much money? Why does Sweetgreen lose money? The tech is better because they're more efficient on the tech side. Then finally, I would look to a company like Wingstop, symbol W-I-N-G, which is optimized for a digital age. They have very small space locations. As you know, Emily, you're very familiar with this business. We've looked at it together. They are built to absorb these third party platforms like Uber Eats and GrubHub and DoorDash and play nice with them. They don't need to give up a lot of margin because they're already very efficient. It's not a drag on their PNL to both have their own digital ordering and loyalty programs tied together with the third party platforms, and they invest a lot in their tech, so I like that business as well.
Emily Flippen: Jason, I'm curious when you think about the tech improvements that Asit is talking about, how can you tell what's vaporware versus true improvement itself? And do you think tech alone is enough to save a business even when it's going through a downturn, like we're experiencing now for fast casual?
Jason Hall: The restaurant industry is brutal. It's very low margins. The ones that do well, have great locations, great operations, and they turn their inventories super fast, and that's how they thrive. Figuring out which of these tech platforms are value versus vaporware, the obvious first place to start is trying to figure out how sticky a platform is with its existing customers. You look at the results and you talk to the people. I can use just as an example, TOST. We look through some of TOST results and we see reported locations increased 23% year every year in its most recent quarter. But annualized recurring revenue was up 30%. Gross payment volume was up 24%. That says, existing customers are using it more. That's really important. Another thing, anecdotally, I've made a point to talk to restaurant managers and staff when I see that they're using toast or other platforms to find out. What I get overwhelmingly is they're effusive of TOST. When the people are telling you that and the results that TOST is reporting backs that up, you find out what is creating value for these restaurants. Now, to answer the other question, Tech can help cut costs and do things more efficiently. But the restaurants that survive when times are bad are the ones that have a good value proposition are easy to buy from. Having technology that can help them integrate across every possible sales channel. Like, we've seen Uber Eats and GrubHub and all of these have exploded, technologies that allows them to easily integrate with those sources of revenue to maximize those sales opportunities, those are the restaurants that are figuring out how to survive when times are not great.
Emily Flippen: It seems like there's opportunities at every point in the value proposition. Up next, we're going to be wrapping up the show with some reflections on a new equity investment from the US government into rare earth minerals. Stick with us.
ADVERTISEMENT: This episode is brought to you by Vanta. Security and compliance done wrong is a headache. Done right. You build trust and grow faster. That's Vanta. For start-ups, Vanta acts as your first security hire, using AI to get you compliant fast. For Enterprises, it's your AI powered hub for compliance, risk, and automating workflows. From start-ups like Cursor to enterprises like Snowflake, top companies choose Vanta. Do security and compliance right. Get started today at vanta.com.
Emily Flippen: Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. As we wrap up the show today, we'll have to talk about one of the key aspects of any operating system, which is, unfortunately, the materials that make it up. We do have some new news out today that the US Department of Commerce has used its CHIPS program to invest a non binding 1.5 inch billion dollars into USA Rare Earth. That's a domestic mining company that has increasingly attracted attention from investors as a business that is increasingly maybe critical to national security. Clearly an investment aimed at reducing reliance upon foreign materials. Jason, I spent four years living and studying in China, and in my experience, it was really common for the Chinese government to invest in or even control private companies that they deemed were operating in critical industries whose operations were important for national security reasons. Historically, on average, although not always, the US government, I think, has been more reluctant to get involved in private enterprises, even if they are critical for national security. I'm curious, what do you think is driving this investment? As an individual investor, does investing alongside the government change your risk assessment at all?
Jason Hall: When you have a very business minded individual sitting at the top of the administration, you're going to get more of the business minded approach. We've seen that under President Donald Trump, so I think that's part of it. But I think the bigger thing for investors to think about is how you think about and trying to assess these businesses. This is materials businesses. Remember what I said at the opening, the cyclical risk and the secular trends. These companies are still going to live and die based on demand and commodity pricing. If you look at what's happened with lithium over the past three years, it is exemplary of the boom bust boom cycle. At the end of the day, one maybe some of these companies, and in this case, US Rare Earth may get a little bit higher floor on some of their production with this partnership with the US government. They still have to sell the majority of their production at a cost that makes sense into a market where they're simply a price taker. They have no competitive advantages in what they can sell for. It's all about their operating and production costs. These are industries you really have to understand and know them really well. When you invest in them, think about buying, really, when the cycle is negative and the stocks are depressed versus jumping in when every retail investor finds them attractive because you're probably the bag holder for somebody that knows the industry really well that's looking for an exit point, and it's going to take a long time to recur to turn your investment into a gain, and you're probably going to have to ride through a downturn to do it.
Emily Flippen: It's a beautiful segue for the question ahead for you, Asit, which is it's really easy when an individual investors see headlines like this with USAR that's the USA are Earth's ticker. They are skyrocketing on the news. They're up over 100% in the past month. It's easy for individual investors to feel fomo this fear of missing out whenever they see share prices increase like that. I mean, how should investors handle these policy changes or avoid trying to get swept up in the hype when they see this type of news?
Asit Sharma: Well, Emily, one of the ways is to realize that you don't necessarily want to find that company that's going to go 100% in a day. The reason is it's a much harder way to make money. In that pursuit, the chances to lose are so much, and FOMO can do this to us. It can push us to corners that are speculative in the investment world that work against our interests as long term investors. But if you want to scratch that itch, I think AI has become a great leveler FOMO used to be accompanied by a big blind spot, which is, like, everyone's buying it, but I don't understand it. I don't know what's going on, but I feel like I got to get in. Is spending some time with a good AI model to break down the question you have about a certain rare earth mineral the demand? What could go wrong if you invest in that trend is so much better than previous FOMO cycles we've had where you just couldn't understand what was going on, but you felt the compulsion to participate. It's ironic I just finished an interview with a company whose business model is based on exploiting their license for a rare earth material from the US Navy. But to Jason's point, they are doing something more than some of the parts with that. If there's a strategic bent, if the company has another way to make money rather than a binary proposition where they've got to make it on this one rare earth or not, I prefer those that the clear picture is there, the holistic picture is there. There's another reason to invest. At the end of the day, by the way, I hope we will get that interview up on Motley Fool Money soon on a Sunday. At the end of the day, what you're trying to do is to choose from among many different investment opportunities. The FOMO Geopolitical driven opportunities should just be one that you look at. In addition to restaurant, tech, some other trends, the operating layers of today's investment world.
Emily Flippen: It certainly sounds like there are some operating layers that are much more riper for investments than others. Jason and Asit I think I generally agree with you that indicates that these rare earth minerals. It's not my favorite aspect of the operating layer to invest in, but thank you both so much for your time joining me today on Motley Fool Money. I really appreciate your insights. As always, people in the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about and the Motley Fool may have full more recommendations for or against, so don't sell or buy stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards, and it's not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. If you see a full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. For Jason Hall, Asit Sharma, and the entire Motley Fool Money team I'm Emily Flippen. We'll see you tomorrow.
