Apple's CEOs, Intel & AI, and Another SaaSpocalype

In this episode of Motley Fool Money, Motley Fool contributors Travis Hoium and Lou Whiteman, and Motley Fool analyst Jason Moser discuss:

• The Jobs/Cook era at Apple.
• Intel & AI.
• SaaSpocalype 3.0.
• Value or falling knife stocks.

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 April 24, 2026.

Travis Hoium: Did Intel become the big AI winner of 2026? Motley Fool Money starts now. Welcome to Motley Fool Money. I am Travis Hoium joined today by Jason Moser, and Lou Whiteman. Guys, we are going to get to Intel and some of the implications for artificial intelligence, why this is the hottest stock seemingly in the market right now.

But I want to start with Apple, and Tim Cook. He announced that he's going to retire as CEO or step down as CEO later this year. There's been a lot of discussion about Cook's legacy, including on one of the Motley Fool Money shows earlier this week. But I wanted to go back almost 30 years to the Jobs/Cook era of Apple. This is one of the most successful stock runs of all time. Not only did Cook have a phenomenal run as CEO, but obviously Steve Jobs came back, saved the company, came out with things like the iPod, eventually, the iPhone, and the iPad, the Mac has gone from being this forgotten product in the ‘90s when I was in high school to now it's the go-to PC for most people at home. Lou, when you think back on that history and the end of this era, what do you think about as an investor?

Lou Whiteman: I want to be careful here because I think Cook was a great CEO, and regardless of circumstances, and I don't want to apply otherwise. But it does, the lesson for me here is a lot of being a great CEO is being the right person at the right time. When Steve Jobs was the CEO, especially when he came out, it was about experimentation. It was about taking big bets. It was about defining products and introducing them. The famous one more thing, where, like, this was a company that was not just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks, but it was one that we have got to try new things.

By the time Cook got into the role, it was about stability. It was about maintaining. We've seen that. How many years have we talked about, there's going to be an Apple car, there's going to be an Apple TV because as investors, we were conditioned for jobs in the one big thing. I think I'm glad those things didn't come, and I think it's funny because I think investors still are waiting for that, like what's next from Apple. But really, Jobs built something amazing by taking huge risks, Cook sustained, and built off of what Jobs did by not taking these big risks, and not saying, what the heck? Let's do a car. I think that there's a lot of takeaways there when we assess management at a lot of different companies. You want someone really smart, but you also just want someone who is the right person for the task at hand.

Travis Hoium: Jason, we often talk about founders as these visionary people, I think, as Motley Fool investors, we tend to over-index to founders. They tend to be the people that can generate those massive returns. Think about the founders of Google; they are still around. Meta, Amazon is a perfect example with Jeff Bezos. Jobs has a different story. He obviously founded Apple, but then he was gone for about a dozen years, came back, and then was, Lou, I think, put it in a really interesting way, the right person at the right time, but he was also the founder of the company. That just seems like this interesting maturation process that inevitably, if you start a company when you're 20 years old, you're just not the person that you are when you're 35 or 40 or 45. But he still had that founder mentality, and that ability to walk into a room at Apple, and say, this is where we're going, and you're going to follow me. Everybody just hopped on board. I don't think that was true in the John Scully era.

Jason Moser: I think you said it well there. You're not the same person at 20 that you are at 35, 45 years old. Typically, most people through life, they get some perspective, often build families, and have just new life events that give them a different point of view. It is something to keep in mind. We do love seeing these founder-led businesses, but there are also situations where a founder hits his or her limits, they can't quite get to that next level. They get to a point where, maybe you need to bring someone in that can take this business to the next level. I think about Chipotle, for example. I think Steve Ells ran into that situation where he just didn't have what was required to be able to take that business to the next level. Obviously, Brian Niccol did. Steve Jobs, he was one of one. I think unique and a larger-than-life leader. I think that's just it. He was a good leader, and it doesn't sound like he was that easy to work with. But I think typically that's the case. I think we've heard the same thing about Jeff Bezos. They demand a lot, but you can tell that what they're doing is the right thing. They take the business in the direction it needs to go, and Steve Jobs was one of one. Like I said, I think Apple did a wonderful job with that transition.

Tim Cook, I think, has just done a tremendous job. We were very, I don't want to say skeptical, but the questions were out there. We were asking those questions when that transition happened, we're like, man, what's this going to be like? But Tim Cook, I think, was the right person at the right time. Apple was well established, and they needed an operator to be able to take that business in the direction that it's gone. Something Tim Cook has always said that sticks out with me. He's always said, "Inventory is the enemy." He just knew. He's like, man, we’ve got to be moving products. I think it's going to be interesting to watch Ternus takeover because he has such a reputation in the hardware side of the business. He's been with the company forever; he's an Apple loyalist. Tremendous hardware reputation, and that really is what Apple does, even as we watch services take up more, and more of the business. This is going to be an interesting time for us as analysts, and certainly for, I think, Apple enthusiasts.

Lou Whiteman: I'm glad you went there, because that's what fascinates me. For all we just said about the right person for the right job, Ternus looks more than qualified, but he is a product guy. Jason, I don't know about you, but I don't see them going back. I'm sure if there is a new category that they're looking at it, but I have to think that if Ternus had some great idea over the last five years or something, Tim Cook didn't stop him. I don't think there's just something they're waiting to bust out at the lab. I wonder, though, having a product guy back in charge, should we expect a shift away from the minding the ship? I don't know if I'd be for that again obviously, it depends. Hindsight is the key here. If it's a great product, but I'm really fascinated. What from here, just with the choice they made.

Travis Hoium: Well, the interesting timing here is that we do have this artificial intelligence moment, too. Apple just leans into what they have and what they do right now, and say, you know what? We're probably still going to have phones in our pockets in 10 and 20 years. We're just going to continue doing that better than anybody else. Or is this one of those disruptive moments where a new hardware paradigm typically comes around when you have some major technology shift. You have the PC, you have the mobile phone, is artificial intelligence bad? That's a huge question, and this now falls on Ternus, which you could argue that Cook was not the visionary person, so he maybe wasn't the person to lead Apple into that AI age. But lots of questions about, is this going to be a Ballmer era for Microsoft, or is this going to be Satya Nadella coming in, and going, hey, this is the direction that we're going.

Jason Moser: I think it requires a lot of imagination, too. It's like, what is that next big hardware lightning-in-a-bottle moment? I just don't know. These phones that we have today are magic, it gives you access to the entire world, and it's quite convenient. You can just put it in your pocket and get on with life. I don't know what the next thing. Vision Pro, I know that they were like, this is the next big thing. I test-drove one of those Vision Pros, and I will say the technology is amazing. Again, it's like magic. I can also tell you I would never consider buying one because there's just simply not enough use cases. I don't want to walk around wearing one of those things all day. After about 30 minutes, anyway, the novelty wears off, and your eyes start burning. It's hard to figure what is the next step. We've seen OpenAI talk about their working on some AI-driven device. But I don't know what that is, what is it beyond the phone? It requires some imagination. I think, once we start to see some of those ideas flesh out, Apple does a very good job of capitalizing on that. That whole philosophy of we're not trying to be first. We just want to be best. It'll be interesting to see if Ternus continues on that philosophy.

Travis Hoium: The other thing to just point out here from an investment standpoint is Apple is not the cheapest stock in the world today, and that can be a headwind as CEOs take over 34 price-to-earnings multiple. Cook took over a smaller company. I remember buying Apple stock in 2009 at less than 10 times earnings after you pulled out cash. There are tailwinds on that valuation side, too, that can be headwinds for a CEO that ultimately does impact their legacy like it or not. When we come back, we are going to get to what's happening with Intel, and the SaaSpocalypse. You're listening to Motley Fool Money.

AI has been the talk of the market for the last three-plus years now, but we're having some really interesting impacts in 2026. You saw the memory shortage has just absolutely exploded memory stocks. This week, Intel reported earnings, and the stock for all of its trouble, Jason, over the past few years, just hit an all time high. One of the things that I thought is so crazy is that the company can't meet demand for CPUs. I thought GPUs were going to be the problem, then we thought memory was going to be the problem. Now it's also CPUs are in a shortage, but they also sold chips that they had actually written off. They reported basically prior profit. Nvidia actually went through the same phase a couple of years ago, where they had written off some chips, and then they ultimately saw demand pull forward from AI. How do you wrap your head around all this? Because it seems like there's just so much money flooding in that anything that any of these hyperscalars or companies building out AI infrastructure can get their hands on, whether it's energy, GPUs, CPUs, memory, they're going to buy all of it.

Jason Moser: Travis, all you have to do is just say AI, man. Remember, Allbirds, look at what they did. All of a sudden, they go from being a shoe company to becoming a GPUaaS, GPU-as-a-Service. I'm saying that correctly, and I'm not trying to say a bad word here on the show, but GPUaaS. Intel certainly has had its troubles, and it's honestly refreshing to see that they're being received a little bit more positively in the market today, it was a very respectable quarter. They are capitalizing, I think, on this move. It's been all about GPUs to this point, and now it's becoming more about CPUs, and that gives Intel the opportunity to capitalize there. I thought the foundry business growing 16%, that was eye-catching. It's a hard one for me to get behind. It's not like it's a business that's making a ton of money, but it is good to see that they're able to capitalize on this AI opportunity.

Lou Whiteman: I just want to tap the brakes, and make sure we realize what Travis is saying, cause Intel is old school, right guys? I have no hair. I remember Intel from the first dotcom crash. They are now above where they were in 1999, 2000. The thing is, though, it's not the same company as it was there. I love what they're doing. I would point out that it's over 100 times forward sales now, almost like 120 times forward sales now.

Travis Hoium: Earnings or sales?

Lou Whiteman: Earnings. I'm sorry, 120 times earnings, which is a lot.

Travis Hoium: [OVERLAPPING] They are trading for eight times sales, which is still pretty expensive.

Lou Whiteman: No, sir, good catch. But just so, I don't know what to think now, but cheers to Intel. Maybe we all have second acts like this.

Travis Hoium: The other thing that we saw this week is the SaaSpocalypse. I don't know if we're on SaaSpocalypse 2.0, 3.0, 4.0.

Lou Whiteman: [OVERLAPPING] We're up to electric boogaloo now. [LAUGHTER].

Travis Hoium: This one was driven by ServiceNow. Were things really that bad from ServiceNow that we need to sell off? It seemed like everything even related to software was down 5-10% I think that was Wednesday. Some of these stocks are getting to the point where you look at them and you go, wait a priced earnings multiple of 10, 11, 12, for companies that we seemingly use every day? It seems like it's getting a little bit out of whack.

Jason Moser: That was a big reaction to what I thought was actually a pretty good quarter. We saw plenty of good things from ServiceNow. They obviously beat raising guidance, I'm sitting here trying to figure out a way to be critical of what the company did. To me, I start thinking about, are you familiar with Jensen Huang's five-layer cake analogy?

Lou Whiteman: I believe I've heard it, but remind me.

Jason Moser: He basically looks at AI as this five-layer cake, and it's like, the five layers are energy, then chips, then computing infrastructure, cloud data centers, AI models, and then ultimately this application layer. To me, ServiceNow strikes me as a business that plays a role in that five-layer cake. It's not a company that's necessarily going to be disrupted by AI, but rather one that continues to benefit from it. That's why the reaction I thought was a little bit overdone. It didn't seem like it matched up with the results of the quarter. But, again, it's just such a volatile stretch here with AI, and we're trying to understand exactly the impacts of what it's going to have on all of these different businesses. Some will be disrupted, but I think some are going to take advantage of it, and I think ServiceNow is probably one of them.

Lou Whiteman: It's funny because if you really want to squint, Jason, so maybe gross margins looking out aren't as good as they were. But, again, if that is the SaaSpocalypse, I think we can ride that storm. It's funny, guess I spoke to a CEO this week at a decent-sized company, and I was asked about this, and they said, flat out, nothing has changed in their software purchasing habits due to AI. They hope it will. They're reading these headlines, too, and they'd love to save money, but for now, nothing has happened. I get the thesis here, and I don't think I want to be dismissive of the thesis, but I do think that instead of just throwing it all out each quarter, I do think we should wait to see real, concrete evidence, which I think is what Jason is saying. I will say if I'm going to pick a bone with this quarter, and maybe guys out of just don't know the business this well. But I feel like, is the Middle East a new weather? Because they did blame what's going on in the Middle East for part of the dava. I think maybe they took a punt with that just a bit, and we probably ought to, I don't know, find them, and kangaroo court for that. But overall, if this is the onslaught, I think a lot of these companies can survive that.

Travis Hoium: I do want to point out that there are questions about how the business model could potentially change in a world of artificial intelligence. I want to use Adobe as an example. They made a shift to software as a service. Remember, we used to buy Adobe products on disks, and then you would own the software forever. Maybe you get some minor updates, but you would just own that software forever. They made that shift in 2011, 2012, to the Cloud product, the software as a service model that has become so popular in Silicon Valley. I just wanted to put some numbers to this. In 2012, their revenue was up 4%. In 2013, it dropped 7.9%. You're going from selling this piece of software for hundreds of dollars to, I'll charge you X amount per month. That actually had a negative impact on revenue short term. Also had a negative impact on margins. Their operating profit dropped to $422 million that year. But since 2013, revenue has compounded 16% operating profit is compounded 28%. We may be entering a world where the business model shifts from paying per seat to paying for how many tokens you're using, what your productivity is. I don't know whether that leads to a more profitable business, but I think that's something that investors are thinking about and don't know the full answer to.

Jason Moser: Absolutely. Usage-based, that I think is where the puck is headed. You're right. It's hard to ascertain exactly how that impacts the economics of the business, because what was before in a reliable, steady stream predictable, now it becomes a little bit more nebulous, but I guess we will see when we get there.

Travis Hoium: When we come back, we're going to see if these stocks are falling knives or values, you're listening to Motley Fool Money. In this segment, we like to have a little bit of fun with investing, and I wanted to get an idea with some of these stocks that have dropped recently, especially year to date. Are these stocks values that investors should be looking at today, and scooping up as many of these as possible, or are they falling knives, where it's over, and for some reason, the business has completely changed or the market's dynamics has completely changed, and these stocks are not going to recover?

Let's start out, Lou with Adobe. We all know Adobe. They've got all these professional tools that people smarter, and more creative than I am know how to use. I'm still using Canva, so I'm the other side of the ledger. But it does seem like a very sticky product, and yet, the stock has done absolutely horribly. In the past five years, the drawdown is currently at 65%. That's from its high late in 2021. But the valuation, you're looking at on a forward-basis, price to earnings multiple is just 10. Enterprise value to sales is four. You look at their financials. It doesn't look like they're being disrupted. When you continue to grow revenue at double digits, it doesn't seem like you're seeing pricing pressure. Is this a value stock or a falling knife?

Lou Whiteman: Full disclosure, I bought this one earlier this year, and so I guess I have to say value. Now, look, again, I get the thesis, and I get the idea that AI is doing a lot of the things. I love making funny pictures that I didn't know how to do on Adobe two years ago, and now I can just have Gemini do it for me. I don't think the professional crowd is going to be satisfied with what I find funny. I think that the old bull case for Adobe was people like me would eventually buy their watered-down products, and that's how they'd grow their market. I think that bull case is dead. I think that people like me will just use AI as long as it's free. But I think that Adobe is such a trusted name with its core audience, these professionals. Adobe is using AI to improve its products. I don't see the professional crowd just saying, You know what? Free AI is good enough, or even AI I'm paying for that isn't customized to what I want for a long time. I think Adobe outruns the AI here, and I do think it's a value.

Travis Hoium: Jason?

Jason Moser: I tend to agree. I am full disclosure. I own some Adobe stock as well, and have recommended it in one of our services, and it's absolutely been a challenging time, but I think Lou’s right. It's one thing for me to be able to go into Cloud or Gemini and just put together some goofy little cartoon or graphic or whatever. I don't think the professional content creators necessarily see that the same way. I understand the trepidation there and the questions in regard to disruption, but I think that Adobe is doing a good job of leaning into the AI opportunity, partnering with the right companies. There was Nvidia partnership that was announced recently, as well. I think that's going to be something that they are able to overcome. You got to remember, too, man. This is a company that makes a ton of cash. It is just free cash flow out the yin yang and just announced a $25 billion share repurchase authorization, too. That matters.

Travis Hoium: But the market didn't have a lot of response.

Jason Moser: It's an authorization. [OVERLAPPING] But I think it's also worth mentioning. You look over the last five years, the company's brought the share account down 14%. They are doing a good job. At least, when they make those authorizations, and they repurchase those shares, it is having the intended effect in bringing that share account down. I think looking forward, the valuation right now. I hope that they start to execute this repurchase plan sooner rather than later, because it does seem to me this is more of a value play as opposed to a falling knife.

Travis Hoium: I had to ask about potential business model shifts because I mentioned that in the last segment that this is a company that has gone through these business model shifts from selling one-time sales to the SaaS business model. If we do go to a world where maybe there's a SaaS light. You pay for a seat to pay for access, but then you're also paying for tokens on top of that, and whatever your usage is, Lou, can they have an equally profitable? They got a 37% operating margin. Could they have an equally profitable, maybe even higher-revenue business in that world of selling more tokens for productivity than just selling for seats.

Lou Whiteman: Maybe. It's funny thing you hear is that we are so focused on the downside. There are a lot of different ways this goes. If nothing else, let's just not. This back to the conversation about Service Now, let's just not assume the default is the worst-case scenario, and I feel like the market has in some of these. There's a lot of ways this could go out. Some of them, as you say, could be positive.

Travis Hoium: Going back to that 2012 number that I talked about earlier, investors would have done extremely well owning Adobe stock. Some of these business model shifts maybe don't work out as poorly as the market thinks. Let's talk about Salesforce, Jason. Salesforce's drawdown currently is at 52%. Price earnings multiple on a forward basis is 13. This is a business a few years ago, you would have being crazy not to be buying sales for us at 13 times earnings. Now here we are, and there's probably more questions about the company's future than ever. But again, it's possible that this is a value, but is it a value or a falling knife?

Jason Moser: It seems to me more like a value than a falling knife. Love it or hate it. Customer relationship management, CRM that Salesforce does so well. That is just such a large and important market, and they are so ingrained and enmeshed in it at this point. It's hard to imagine it not helping lead the way there. I'm torn on this one, because I think Mark Benioff is a good leader. I love his enthusiasm for the business, but it's almost overly enthusiastic. He's almost car salesman-like at times. That concerns me a little bit if he's not really just trying what they say, throw you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle. Benioff sells the sizzle, that's for sure.

Travis Hoium: [inaudible] go back to his interviews from a few years ago and say, Look at what he says the world is going to look like and then it to reality, it's not a lot lines up.

Jason Moser: Exactly. You got to take everything with a little bit of a grain of salt there. The other thing that concerns me, Salesforce, a lot of the growth that this company has witnessed over the last several years, it's all been inorganic. It's been a lot of acquisitions. That's okay. I get it. You got to buy some stuff to pull into your universe and build out the business. But a lot of that growth really has been through acquisitions, and that's where I get a little bit concerned. I'm not sure how seamless this is all going. It does start to feel like it's a little bit of a clunky business, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Another company that can generate a ton of cash, and he seems to really know where he wants to take this thing. I think for now, I'm going to go ahead and say, there going to be another company that benefits from AI as opposed to getting disrupted by it, and maybe today's price looks like it could be a pretty good one.

Lou Whiteman: I know we're supposed to argue, but I'm basically right there, less enthusiastic, but if the sky is falling, I actually want to see the sky fall. What I see is revenue EPS, free cash flow trends heading in the right direction, a wonderful balance sheet. Net debt, I think just maybe less than 0.3 times EBITA. I get the case. I get the high scalers, like cybersecurity, AI. All of this can be bundled into one thing and bypass maybe that'll happen, but until we actually see that hitting the business, I refuse to believe that the market is on to something here.

Travis Hoium: Let's go to one that may get on the falling knife side. Maybe not from an operational perspective, Palantir is not the low double-digit price-to-earnings multiple. It is now just into double digits, just under 100 forward price-to-earnings multiple. The stock is in a 32% drawdown as we're recording. Still extremely expensive, but still really good operations, Lou. Is this the thing that can fall further, or is this the value that investors should be looking for? Value in air quotes with that Palantir terms.

Lou Whiteman: I think I said on this show last year that I have never in my investing life, come across a company valued like Palantir. That includes Tesla cause I just don't get it. I know the government side of this business very well, and I know the growth rates and potential there. Man, commercial really has to do some heavy lifting to justify this. Valuation is always like, can they grow into it. Government is still more than half the business, too, which scares me. I didn't get it then. I still don't get it now. I respect the company, I respect the product. I wouldn't mind being an owner at some point. But I don't think this is gloom and doom the way it is with some of the others, but also I can't get behind this as value right now. Still over 100 times expected earnings.

Jason Moser: I always as an investor, I embrace the idea of just knowing what you don't know. I don't really know still fully how Palantir does what it does or what it really does. I understand the big-picture idea of the business, but it is a very difficult business to understand. I guess, is my point. For that reason alone, that gives me pause. When I see the valuation the way it is. It makes zero sense.

Travis Hoium: It seems like the way that all these AI labs are hooking themselves further and further in the companies, that was always what Palantir seemed to be better at than anybody else. Now I'm not saying that that's going to be commoditized, but it seems like competition used to be zero, and now it is at least something.

Jason Moser: It's not zero anymore, and Alex Karp, I think he’s just done a tremendous job with this business. I'm going to give him all the credit in the world. He's another leader that can be polarizing, and I think people have strong opinions on him, and he certainly gets out there and speaks his mind, and that can be good and that can be bad. But It's hard for me to understand exactly what the value is and what they provide that can't be replicated. I'm not saying it can be. I'm just saying I don't know. When I have all of this uncertainty as to understanding what the business, what's their secret source and what keeps them going and separates them from everyone else, it becomes too many question marks for me, and the valuation where it is today just seems to be astronomical, so I would take a pass.

Travis Hoium: I want to get to one other stock that seems like it's got to be a value at some point, as we end here, The Trade Desk. Jason, this is one that down 83% now from its high. Basically, at the beginning of 2025. This is just over a year. It's dropped that far. Forward price earnings multiple is 11. Is this a value here? Where in the world? Is it a value or is this just a falling knife that is going to go into oblivion

Jason Moser: I think this one is way overdone, personally. I'm a Trade Desk shareholder, and I've owned shares for a long time. This drawdown hurts, but it's still thankfully a position. It's in the green for me, I can't complain too much, I guess. I think Jeff Green's massive share purchase recently is something to keep in mind there. He is very clearly confident in the future of this business. He obviously knows the space very well, programmatic advertising, and I think they have a tremendous opportunity in connected TV. I think there are some question marks in regard to competition there when we're seeing Amazon, for example, coming into the fray there, it's this walled garden versus open Internet. Battle. Jeff Green is very clearly on the open Internet side of things. I think there's something to be said for that. I think the objectivity that he talks about exists. I think that matters. I don't know how long this is going to last. It feels to me that this is one where it's been overdone. The company's still growing at healthy double-digit rates, makes a ton of cash. Granted their share-based compensation as well. I'd like to see that be reined in a little bit. But it's one I'm going to continue to hang on to. I think at today's price, it does seem like it's at least an opportunity for a company that plays in a very big market.

Lou Whiteman: It's funny, and again, I just went back and looked. I bought in March of 2020, and it's down 80%. But those shared from that point, it's still up about 60. What a crazy ride it's been on.

Travis Hoium: The size of the business has basically tripled since then or more than tripled.

Lou Whiteman: I will say, my thesis going in there was wrong or was naive because I do think the world has changed. This is a massive market, and I underappreciated the potential for the Amazons of the world to come in and take some of it, but I don't think. But there is still a big market. Customers are still sticking with them. I have not been tempted to buy more. At some point trading at 10 times earnings. Maybe it's time to think about that. I think the world has changed for them. I don't think it'll ever be just the market destroyer that it looked like for a few years there, but it certainly, from here, looks like a market beater. Guys, you want a bold prediction. I keep thinking with where they are today, who's that big tech company that just seems to buy random unrelated things and make it work, and it looks genius in hindsight. LinkedIn, all of those, Microsoft, Trade Desk would be such a great partner.

Jason Moser: That's a good point, too. I also think about this opportunity that we just don't even really know about yet is, recently we heard OpenAI was in toss with the trade desk in possible partnership as OpenAI tries to figure out ways to monetize with ChatGPT. I think we're going to see a lot of these LLMs. They're going to have to figure out a way to monetize beyond just charging people and enterprises. I think we're going to see advertising become a big part of that. There is a distinct possibility that the trade desk will be partnering up with one or some of these companies, and that could be just a phenomenal opportunity.

Travis Hoium: We'll see where this goes. There's definitely some values out there. When we come back, we are going to get to the stocks on our radar. You're listening to The Motley Fool.

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 The Motley Fool's editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. See our full advertising is closure, please check out our show notes. As a heads up, The Motley Fool Money podcast is getting a refresh with some new music and a new name. Motley Fool Hidden Gems investing will still show up in your feed in the same way we always do. We'll keep talking about stocks. The logo will just be a little bit different on Monday morning. Let's get to the stock on our radar. Jason, you're up first. What do you got?

Jason Moser: Alphabet. Ticker is G-O-O-G or G-O-O-G-L, whichever you prefer, but shares are up for about 120% of the last 12 months. As the company is doing a very good job leading on the AI front. If you just look at last quarter, management noted that the company had sold 8 million paid seats for the Gemini Enterprise app, and that Gemini now boasts over 750 million users. They're doing a very good job leaning into that AI opportunity. Now I know some may still question the massive capital outlays that they're committing to 175- $185 billion this year alone, it is apparent where most of that money is going. It's going to AI, and given the market's enthusiasm for AI and all of its potential, I think these investments will continue to pay off. We've got earnings coming out on April 29, and I will be looking for that.

Travis Hoium: Dan, are you a Google AI bull?

Dan Boyd: Listen, this might be a retread here, gang, but the company name change to Alphabet is dumb, and they should change it back to Google.

Travis Hoium: That's absolutely true.

Jason Moser: I totally agree there.

Dan Boyd: All of those name changes should be undone. Lou, what have you got?

Lou Whiteman: Dan, I want to do a flyover on Southwest Airlines, Ticker, LUV. It's a tough time for airlines, as we've discussed, jet fuel prices spiking, concerns about the consumer. But Southwest in particular is interesting right now because they are changing the way they do business. They're adopting policies like charging for bags, assigned seating. A lot of questions about what consumers think about. They had earnings. The good news is those changes are generating more revenue. 60% of ticket buyers upgraded from the base fare in the first quarter, up from 20% a year ago. Cash flow, profitability both improved. Dan, right now, there's a lot of talk about M&A all over the industry. United, JetBlue, American, Alaska all seem to be caught up in rumors. I think that works well for Southwest right now because they're in a period of chaos, overhauling their business. Let's see chaos everywhere. Stock has lost a third of its value over the past five years, underperforming the industry. I think there's smoother air on the hip.

Travis Hoium: Dan, what's going on your watch list? We got a dumb name and a dumb ticker. LUV? No good. I don't want either one. That's all the time we have today. We'll be back tomorrow. Thanks for listening to Motley Fool Money.

Jason Moser has positions in Adobe, Alphabet, Amazon, Chipotle Mexican Grill, and The Trade Desk. Lou Whiteman has positions in Adobe and The Trade Desk. Travis Hoium has positions in Alphabet and Intel and has the following options: long December 2027 $50 puts on Palantir Technologies. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Adobe, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Intel, Meta Platforms, Nvidia, Palantir Technologies, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Tesla, and The Trade Desk. The Motley Fool recommends Alaska Air Group and Southwest Airlines and recommends the following options: long January 2028 $330 calls on Adobe, short January 2028 $340 calls on Adobe, and short June 2026 $36 calls on Chipotle Mexican Grill. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.