2 Stocks That Could Be the Biggest AI Winners After Nvidia

The Nasdaq turned positive [music] during Fed chair Warsh's press conference and then completely reversed as bond yields spiked. It was [music] chaos. So, we brought back a special guest to help us make sense of it all. Welcome back to Navellier Market Buzz. Joining us today is Rob [music] Spivey, director of research at Altimetry. Welcome back, Rob. It is so good to have you. >> Thanks to both of you. Always a pleasure to be on the show. >> Just glad Rob's here to save everybody. >> Hopefully to, you know, to pour some, you know, some cold cold water over everybody's panic. I think is the the right moment to have this conversation right now after after how things played out on Wednesday. >> Yeah, you know, obviously Wednesday was a capitulation day and hopefully we don't have to retest that low, but do you think leveraged ETFs are causing a lot of that? >> Yeah, you know, there's certainly, I mean, for sorry to all of the unfortunate South Koreans who certainly are experiencing the joy of leveraged ETFs, but I think that, I mean, trying to attribute to leveraged ETFs versus anything else, the bigger thing is is, you know, you're always going to find a reason for the why, but the broader reason why was, I mean, this is a this is quite frankly a natural pullback, a test in sentiment that happens in any bull market. Um, you know, we always come back to this. You know, people have their eyes pop out of their head when they see these massive moves in semis. I just think back, I mean, Lou, I'm sure you you remember in the 1990s, we looked back a little while ago and did analysis um, you know, kind of how these moves happen. And, you know, when you look at the 1990s in terms of dot com boom, right? '94 to 2000, right? Nasdaq up 600%. In that 600% there were 10 10% plus pullbacks. But, if you look at semiconductors alone, cuz semiconductors were one of leadership then just like they're leadership now, right? And if you look at it, semis in what? In early 1996, they had something like a 25% pullback and then in late '96, early '97, they had like a 30 plus percent pullback. And by the way, if you think the NASDAQ did really well in the second half of the 1990s, semis did way better than the NASDAQ as a whole did. And so, this thing that I mean, you get these natural sentiment tests where, you know, the market will always inflict the maximum pain on everybody who's invested to make sure that everybody has, you know, the willingness to actually understand whether or not they believe in the theme or not. I think that it's just, you know, it's depending on the what, who knows, but the fact of the matter is, we had extended sentiment, you had to have a washout, and you know, you had people who didn't have high convictions who, you know, are having them tested. >> Yeah. Well, I'm obviously very encouraged by the rebound, and I think some of our people are shocked like, "Wow, we told them good socks bounce." Crystal has a tennis ball analogy on all the time, and so, let's just hope we don't have to retest, and we'll see. >> I mean, I wouldn't be surprised, to be honest, if we I mean, at some point I I don't think it's, you know, necessarily right now, but I mean, look, again, we're going to have these kind of corrections, but exactly your point, Louis, it was very unsurprising to us on right on Thursday when we saw this bounce that we're seeing because it all really made sense, quite frankly. I mean, you had a true, as you said, capitulatory moment. And I think that, you know, everybody, you know, you're going to people are going to point to the Fed and what Warsh said and everything else and saying, "Oh, you know, it's be everybody's panicked because of inflation and what he's saying." If it wasn't going to be Warsh, it was going to be something else that was the narrative cuz literally, when you get to I feels like I mean, it feels like every other quarter during earnings for the Mag 7, when they say what they say every single time, which is, "We're raising CapEx guidance." And everybody panics that we're over investing, and then what happens the next quarter? You turn around, and they're showing massive data center and massive cloud computing revenues that justify all their investment, and everybody goes, "Okay, it's okay. It's fine." And the And we're going to continue to have the investment because, right, I thought that was I thought, you know, I thought that it was really telling last night with Microsoft. Um, because Microsoft, right, but Microsoft was basically offset. They did They had this whole entire journey a quarter before where everybody panicked. And you know, there's a really good research that was out earlier this month last month that Microsoft had added a ton of Azure capacity, way more than they have any quarter before in the last few quarters. And it was like if you saw that you said, well, if you listen to what Satya says every single earnings call it if we had more capacity, we'd have even more Azure revenue. And they got capacity and then lo and behold they blew out numbers for Azure revenue and everybody's happy and that was kind of that light pole I think that SharePoint Louis gave you that that ability to everybody say, uh-huh. Okay, yeah, maybe actually the economics do make sense and this isn't the 1990s where it was a true field of dreams if you build it, they will come. It's no, they're already here and you're scrambling to build the stadium while everybody's waiting to go in. >> You know, that's incredible insight. You know, Chris has been talking a lot about AI tokens and how you have to start buying them cuz you can only get so many, but we did have in a previous issue of Market Buzz, we did feature some guys at Stanford who were guest lecturers that said that they've hit a wall for data that the Open AIs and the Anthropics and the the Groks just can't throttle up until they get more processing power. And I've really been sending that article out. It's actually it's a YouTube video and it's 50 plus minutes, but those guys know what they're doing and it just shows that we're going to have this incredible exponential growth and everybody that's watched that video, the Stanford lecturer, are all excited. >> Yeah, I mean, if you look, I thought it was, you know, it was so telling what happened on the SpaceX IPO in terms of the two announcement the deals that were announced right beforehand in terms of both Anthropic and Alphabet. Cuz what that was telling you was exactly that, right? I mean, it's it's effectively saying, we can't get enough capacity so we will pay out the nose for it. And yes, we don't need to talk about those deals being, you know, the Anthropic deal being $15 billion a year for the next three years because it's voidable at any moment and same with Google, but the but the fact of the matter is when you do the math, they're paying what I mean, the going rate in theory for GPU hour is like I don't know like two and a half dollars. When you did the math, I mean effectively Anthropic was paying what was it better than four and a half or five dollars I think was actually closer to six and Google was effectively paying eight and a half plus dollars GPU hour. Those are really really high numbers cuz they're basically saying exactly what you're saying. We can't get enough and I mean I think that I was surprised that Zuck didn't turn around you know in the meta earnings call. I know he's he's he's he's said we might do it and be like he knew people are going to be unhappy about the spend in terms of capex. Why he did not try to just get one of those deals locked down and make people realize well cuz you have the capacity you could actually monetize it this way too was really just surprising to me in terms of just I mean that was why that stock was down cuz everybody knew the everybody knew the capex bump was happening but everybody was hopeful you're going to actually not just pay lip service to doing what Elon is doing cuz Elon understands that not everybody's using Grok just like not everybody's using Lama right for for meta. Hey, utilize the capacity you have when it's in high demand because of the fact that we're struggling to be able to build out these data centers in time. >> Well, the other thing is what you just said just validates that that rumor that China's taking over AI you know they had the chip stock go public but they were spreading rumors that China's going to win the AI wars and all our companies are going to bow to them. That was a false narrative. That was like the deep seek narrative that was fake sometime ago. So yeah, we've been fighting the fake news here and but the no the build out is real the order backlogs are bigger and bigger. >> So Rob with all these huge intraday swings are the bond vigilantes back in charge? >> Yeah, I mean it's funny you know every chair Fed chair gets their you know crucible moment to figure out whether or not they're going to be able to survive the heat of the bond market. They always test every single Fed chair. You can go back I mean literally all the way back to Volcker and in terms of always getting that that baptism by fire, if you will. And mean, I think, right? I mean, Warsh is getting that right now. And I think that the the bigger issue though is I don't I actually do not think that a lot of this reaction is as much is as much the narrative that people want to push a concern about inflation. It's, you know, we always say whenever we talk about investing that sunlight is, right, the greatest disinfectant, which is why more information, more data generally is always better to make decisions. And the market is really struggling because of the fact that Warsh is basically saying, "No, right? We are not going to give you more information. In fact, we're going to be pulling back on the information we give you." And I think that that's going to cause a lot more volatility in the short term in the bond market because of the fact that people are just struggling to say, "Okay, what are the data points that I look at?" Now, in fairness to Warsh, I get it because of the fact that his view, which we have too, we have talked for a while about the idea that, you know, the whole entire narrative of inflation spiral and everything else, when you actually look at the data, it's not actually there outside of the factor of oil. I mean, so much of, you know, if you look at CPI or PCE, is homeowners equivalent rent, which I love this as a person who, you know, has rented in my life. I mean, right, Chris? We were just talking before this started about, right, living in Brooklyn, got to live through that joy. And in terms of what rents are there, the funny thing is is, right, owners equivalent rent is about how much the people who own buildings think they should be able to rent their their properties for, which has nothing to do often with what the actual market can bear. And if you look at other data points, you know, Truflation others track what actual changes are in terms of market rents, and you get way, way, way lower numbers, which actually is part of the reason why data points at Truflation is one, and we could name a few, are basically saying that inflation, even with what's going on with with the conflict with Iran, the war with Iran, is basically floating around 2%. And so, I think part of the reason why Warsh is pulling back on a lot of this information is we're gauging our decisions on the wrong data because we feel like we have to. And so we need to reset before we can have any conversation. But in the meantime, that's definitely going to create continued volatility in the bond market and continued volatility overall on the fringes. But that volatility is a buying opportunity because the macro backdrop that we are with this AI boom investment that we've got going on. >> how Warsh encouraged his fellow FOMC members to have an argument with him and they had it. And so they had their little family tips. So at least they got that out of the way. And you know, listen, the guy is trying to remake the Fed. He's got five task forces to make sure the economic data is good instead of way too old. So I like what he's doing. It's he's trying to change the Fed from the bottom up and change it culturally. So I think that's a good development. >> Exactly. >> All right, let's talk about Apple. It's been showing some serious real strength, you know, past Nvidia in market cap. So obviously it's we're recording this before they announce, but I don't think this quarter is the big news. I think the big news is they're going to have a folding phone announced in September. Do you have any idea? >> know about a folding phone. But I'd assume that they're probably going to announce something. I think the the big narrative with Apple that's so important is, you know, Apple has made an insanely successful business model by always being intentionally late to every party, right? They don't want to be early. They don't want to be the person who's trying to figure out, you know, who's the click and who's going to they they wait and they say, which click is the one we want to hang out with and we'll go hang out with them because we got reports ahead of time. And I think that what we're seeing right now in terms of that that move in Apple and that's happened is really an understanding of three simple things. One, they finally made their decision, right? Which is we're going to go with Google's infrastructure and Gemini is a good enough solution here. And so we're going to basically deploy that as a large backdrop of kind of what we're going to do to power what we're doing for AI. And they we've been able to do that without having to spend any of the investment everybody else has had because they basically spent paying, you know, Google effectively what, a billion dollars on a regular basis to deal with which is nothing compared to what everybody else has to invest. But I think that the two things that are coming with that is one, the first one is for Google and anybody else who works with Apple, you need to think at the end of the day when you partner with Apple as Google experience with search, what you are getting is access to the most valuable consumers in the world cuz you are getting access to a the high net worth consumer that really there's no other place to easily get access to it but with an iPhone, you literally don't just have access to it, you are their life. And so one, there is a situation that everybody understands it now, Alphabet that now Apple is bringing that to bear, they are going to be able to monetize that in some way, shape or form. And that's why I think if you look at that billion dollars that they're paying Google, if you think that that new management that Tim Cook as he's on his way out and new management within a year isn't going to figure out a way to turn that from a cost center into a profit center just like they did with search, you're totally missing how Apple plays this game and uses the leverage it has because it is the portal for all of these companies get access to that high value consumer that they want to to monetize. And so look, we don't think Apple is cheap right now. On a uniform accounting basis, you basically need return on assets to expand by like a quarter with some success successful launches and everything else. But we look at it and we say, that's the backdrop if you're going to think about Apple and certainly obviously to your point, Louie, rolling out new tech is part of that but it's really about that idea we think about how they unlock that value that they have that they've always done a phenomenal job of doing. >> I'd love to talk about energy since it's kind of been all over the place recently. Where do you see oil and energy stocks from here? >> Yeah, I mean for us, this is actually a really topical thing for us because we have been focused in on this idea that we actually do see something of a sector rotation happening. Uh so, when you think about what um the the things that we talked about for semiconductors earlier, we still think semiconductors are going to be part of leadership because of the fact that they are essential part of this ecosystem build-out when you think about kind of the AI blast zone, if you will, as we as we like to talk about it at Altimetry in terms of the where the investment is going. and but if you think about it, what's gone on is last year communication services was actually the top sector in the market for leadership. This year so far what what what that's right, Alphabet and Meta, that's Comcast and T-Mobile, that's Warner Brothers and all of media right media, telecom and also communication services in terms of social media. They were leadership last year and there's a lot of reasons why right that didn't make sense because of the fact that they are struggling with significant competitive pressures. And we're seeing that them them basically lagging this year. And what has been leadership has been energy, right? And and right Chris, a lot of the ideas, you know, it's been a little bit because of oil earlier in the year because of what happened with Venezuela and then Iran. But when you talk about the actual backdrop and what's really going on, we think there's a lot of reasons why it can last in terms of leadership and we would expect the back half of the year be quite good because it's not just oil, it's a natural gas story too. And if you think it was interesting that, you know, tech hardware has been market leadership which is semiconductors, which is traditional tech hardware, think communication equipment and everything else, has been leadership for basically two of the last three years. Industrials became leadership last year. And now we're saying energy is going to join them because if you just think again that idea that blast zone, I'm sorry for I'm being a little long-winded here, but just something that we think is really interesting. Right, the center of the blast zone where you talk about the ecosystem build out for the AI data center build out, you got to start with communication equipment and semiconductors. Then after you start to build that out, all of a sudden you look around and go, "Wait, we actually have a real issue in terms of power and in terms of HVAC and everything else. We need those two cuz we've soaked up all the capacity that we had from excess capacity for those." That's why you started to see industrial show up. And now what you're seeing is you go, "Wait, if we're going to build all these power plants and a whole lot of them are going to be natural gas, be it Bloom Energy with fuel cells at at Starship Stargate Jupiter or be it, you know, you building Caterpillar or GE Vernova or or or Generac or somebody else's generators. A lot of it's going to be natural gas and natural gas adjacent natural gas liquids. You're going to need a lot more of that. And so we're seeing that that actually show up along with the oil side. And look, structurally oil is going to be higher than it was before even if we open everything back up and we rebuild all of the infrastructure, which is going to take a while, but even if all that happened, oil is going to be higher than it was before these two conflicts broke out because you've now got a geopolitical premium, but that's going to end up being the side show relative to what's really going on, which is the natural gas story. >> Rob, that's great insight. Let's talk about Nvidia. They've been criticized for their circular deals. You're an accounting expert. Isn't that just a way for them to extend their monopoly? >> Yeah, I mean, when you look at it at the end of the day, this is not this is not Cisco in the 1990s when Cisco was basically trying to do this type of stuff with companies you've never heard of that also didn't have a real product or anything out yet. You're talking about Nvidia exactly to your point basically saying, "Hey, we understand now that we've got competition from GPUs. We understand that, you know, yeah, maybe Amazon might have something. We understand that Cerebras is eventually going to have a viable product that's going to come on the scene and people are going to start to think back to how we did things in 1970s with mainframes effectively doing the stuff in one setting that's totally specialized. So we're saying, "How can I basically make sure that I guarantee that revenue continues to come for me?" And also, not for nothing, when you look at Nvidia, Nvidia always talks about these these deals, but actually look at where that Nvidia only Nvidia only actually invest when it makes cash flow sense for them to invest. They haven't been, you know, taking on billions and billions of dollars of debt. They haven't been blowing through all their free cash flow. They are very selective and choosy in terms of making sure that when the deal makes sense for them, they do it, but it's not this profligate way for them to drive massive revenue. It is exactly to your point, Louie, this way for them to make sure that their monopoly is stronger and it really is not a risk like people are trying to play it off for. I'd argue, Louie, that this is the classic example of, you know, when you have you saw this happen just like you saw happen a year and a half two years ago, this is people looking for a reason to justify why the market is selling off and finding an interesting story and pointing to it as opposed to that actually being a catalyst. This is not some accounting chicanery that we would be really spooked by. >> I I have to ask you one more accounting question because it comes up a lot. I'm old, but when I learned accounting and I my a college was an accounting factory, we learned that if you have a high return equity, often you sell debt because you earn more than the interest. On the other hand, if you have a low return equity and low multiples, you might issue more stock because you're not sure if you're going to be able to monetize it properly. So, you know, a lot of our big tech companies have been criticized for borrowing to expand their AI. And to me, that's perfectly logical. So, let's use your accounting insight into this. I mean, if you have a return equity 20%, shouldn't you just borrow instead of sell stock? >> Yeah, I mean, right effectively what you're going to do is you're going to basically expand your your by shrinking the amount of equity that you have for the investment, you expand your return on equity and as long as your return on equity is exceeding your cost of debt, absolutely. But there's a bigger thing here in terms that and why you're exactly right that it makes sense for these companies to be borrowing. And the reason why it makes perfect sense for Alphabet, Microsoft, and we actually just really quickly as an aside from this, we were just recently showing our our subscribers in a conversation about Alphabet. We analyze as part of uniform accounting, we analyze credit along with equity. It's something that we deeply respect on an on an aggregate basis and on an individual company basis. And if you look at Alphabet, Alphabet next year is probably going to throw off to the tune of like 200 250 million dollars of uniform free cash flow, right? That's above maintenance CapEx. That might be how much Alphabet spends in terms of investing in their data centers. But if you are an investor, exactly to your point Louie, you don't want them to deploy to spend all of their own money to build hard assets that they can get a very low interest rate on on a cash flow stream that they can get a very low interest rate on. You'd rather have them borrow so some of that cash flow can go to buying back shares for you, can go to back to any number of other things that they can do that's a more efficient deployment of capital. And this is, you know, people talk about this for the US government all the time and we think that people totally miss the equation here that the US government they shouldn't be borrowing $10 trillion a year, but the US government should borrow $2 trillion a year to invest in growth cuz they have one of the most stable cash flow trends in the world that's a steady growth rate in terms of taxable income. Same thing for Alphabet, for Meta, for Microsoft, for Amazon. These companies have incredibly stable and growing high return cash flows. You want those companies if they're going to invest in hard assets to use leverage to get to an optimal capital structure. It is not a bad thing. It is a logical, rational thing that's good for investors. So, I totally agree, Louie. >> Now, Rob, from the last time you were on we got quite a few requests when you come back on to talk about private credit. Can you mention to our viewers what is the current state of private credit right now? >> When people talk about private credit, right, a lot of what you're talking about is the BDCs, right? The public companies that were the that were this latest phase of private credit kind of where everybody sees it. This is the Blue Owl, the Blue Owl Capital of the world. This is FSK, BlackRock, everything else. Well, you've got them and then you've got kind of the rest of private credit. And so, let's talk about them first. They were a source of credit when banks were not lending cuz in 2023 and 2024 banks were effectively rebuilding their balance sheets because they had a serious issue where all of the loans that they had made were performing but on an economic basis were underwater cuz they had made those loans at very low interest rates. And so, they basically needed to rebuild their capital base cuz the value of those loans on their books had fallen and they were concerned if they had a fire sale, which is exactly what happened with Silicon Valley Bank, etc., they'd be upside down. So, you saw basically banks really stop lending. We saw a serious tightening of bank standards. And so, because of that, private credit basically was stepping in to solve that solution. Well, all those the the idea now is, "No, are those loans going to be non-performing or whatever else?" And also, could that be the 2008 mortgage crisis catalyst for an for a collapse in the market? The first thing to understand in terms of that conversation is to look at the private credit, the BDCs themselves. When you look at the banks in 2008, the banks were running at like 3% 4% capital buffers. Meaning for every $100 of loans that they were making, they effectively had, you know, somewhere between three and to be generous $6 of equity and capital before their their creditors, depositors, and other creditors were starting to take a bath. Well, so that was part of the reason why you take any markdown at all on your loans, you're upside down immediately. That was what caused that crisis. When you look at the BDCs, it's important to realize to look at the numbers, BDCs have 40% capital buffers. For every $100 of loans that a that those BDCs have made, they have $40 of equity buffers. So, you could have, if you're going to talk about are those loans going to be bad, which I'll talk about in a second why they aren't, but if all those loans are going to go bad, you still have the capital in place to mean that the debtor, the creditors, which are the real place that you see a cascading effect happen, aren't going to have a problem. Also, the gating that has everybody gnashing their teeth is a feature and not a bug of how BDCs work. Because the issue that you have, well, you had with Silicon Valley Bank, was you had demand deposits, right? Cash that could easily be pulled out from the people who were giving you money very rapidly, but you couldn't make your loans liquid quick enough. Well, by having the gating, the gating is there so they don't have to worry about everybody pulling their money out at once and them having to be forced sellers of loans at way lower values than their performance would say that they should be able to have. So, by having that at 5% All these loans have interest rates that are well in excess of 8 to 9%. That's why I forget who it was, but one of I think it was the guy over at BlackRock, basically, or Blackstone, basically, said, "If if you cannot manage a 5% redemption rate, literally, based on what you're making, you deserve to go under because the fact that that should be very easy for you to hit as well again just on your interest rate alone." So, first off, capital buffers would say, "If all the loans go bad, not a problem." The gating is intentional to make sure that they don't have to be a for seller. Also, in terms of the loan performance, you look at the performance of these loans. These loans are not defaulting en masse. Even if you adjust for selective defaults, which is things like taking pick paying high and interest and everything else, you're currently at 6%. In the midst of the great recession and basically any really catastrophic loss event, maximum level that you generally get for default rates in in leveraged loans, right, in terms of in in structured products, tends to be to the tune of like 12%. So, even you double that, you're still well below these buffers. So, I just want to point that out cuz everybody who's gnashing their teeth about this, it's not a real story here. However, they are not access They are not a source of capital anymore like they used to be. They used to be a really important source of credit early on in the cycle. Fortunately, one, banks have started to lend again. One of the really big things that's happened is basically as as private credit, which is call it a $2 trillion industry or $3 trillion industry, has stepped back, I don't know, the $12 to $13 trillion banking industry is actually finally starting to deploy its capital again. We saw C&I, commercial industrial loan growth from banks accelerate in the last 6 months in a massive and real and tangible way, and that is hugely powerful in terms of what that means in terms of the flywheel of credit continuing to go on. And by the way, the flywheel of credit at lower interest rates than companies were borrowing from private credit. And on top of that, it's really telling that as soon as you saw all those issues crop up with Blue Owl and everybody else, I promise I'll I'll finish this point in a moment, but as soon as you saw those issues crop up, what did you immediately see happen? Goldman and Morgan Stanley both launched new private credit funds. And they didn't launch those because the fact that they think it's a bad business, they launched those because they say, "This is actually still a great business, because there's heavy demand for credit, spreads are tight, meaning availability of credit is healthy. Just the people who are making the loans, because of the structure of the vehicles they were using, now probably have their hands tied. We can use as an opportunity to take advantage of it." So, really, it's an overblown concern, and there are a whole lot of other ways that credit is actively accelerating in terms of availability that really gives us reason to continue to think that credit can continue to fuel this market to go higher. >> And Rob, there hasn't been uh private credit default to the retail investors, to my knowledge. If there is a a loss, the company just eat them, you know, in the the case of Tricolor or First Brands or something like that. Is that correct? >> Exactly right, and that's the whole entire point of that massive capital buffer that they have. Is that capital buffer in terms of that 40% is built there so that you never have to have that, right, that forced back. And all of the loans that are performing are performing at such healthy rates with high interest rates that that basically that is built into the expectation that you're going to have some defaults that are going to happen, but it's meant to be in the short term of that vehicle. It's structured so you can handle that. You're exactly right. >> Yeah. Yeah. Great insight. >> Rob, I'd love to end on asking, with everything that's going on in the market right now, are there any stocks that you're currently looking at? >> Yeah, absolutely. And I think when you think about what we talked about earlier one look semiconductor leadership, I'm going to just say that first to get this aside, cuz we really we started talking about this at the very beginning. In bull markets like this, tech adoption, investment cycle-driven bull markets, we often see as leadership before a pullback becomes leadership after a pullback again. So, don't be afraid of the semis. If you have high-quality businesses with strong moats that have strong demand, they're going to bounce back. But what I want to talk about in terms of where we're looking right now that we're interested is about that idea of that sector rotation and the rest of that buildout. And there's two stocks that I'll just highlight really quickly that we think are really interesting right now. One, Baker Hughes, BKR. Baker Hughes is an oil field major, right? They basically, if you want to punch holes in the ground, you want to manage your uh current producing production wells, any of that stuff, you're coming to Baker Hughes. Since we think we're going to see more investment in the oil and natural gas spot space, they're going to be a big beneficiary of that. On top of that, Baker Hughes has done really thoughtful things in terms of one, they are one of the leaders in terms of LNG equipment. So, if you're going to build liquid natural gas, right, uh compression right liquefaction and then regasification, you need to buy their equipment. We are seeing a surge in demand for LNG from the United States to the rest of the world. That means you're going to build more infrastructure, and Cutter needs to rebuild its facilities also. So, that's the second thing. And the third thing for Baker Hughes is, you know, when you look at everybody in the oil patch, the the equipment and services companies, their real job, when you get down to it, is to have a really deep understanding of how to basically make power happen in random places, so they can power things that need to be powered, and then move that power somewhere else. Sounds like there's another industry that needs power that's somewhat mobile right now, and that's data centers. And Baker Hughes has been leveraging their skills in terms of building generators and turbines to be able to do that, and being able to do that infrastructure to be basically be a winner there and sell that to data centers, too. So, from the oil patch and natural gas patch to LNG to data centers, they've got a whole lot of exposure, and the interesting thing is, the market isn't realizing how profitable Baker Hughes is cuz as reported metrics understate by about half how profitable this business is. And we think as people have to pay more and more attention to this, our uniform accounting numbers are going to shine through. So, we think Baker Hughes is really interesting. And the other one that we like, which is related to the the real broader buildout in terms of just infrastructure investment that we're seeing in the United States, is United Rentals. United Rentals rents the equipment that you need to be able to build basically anything. And if you think that we're going to have a boom, which we are having a boom and in the midst of that's not going away anytime soon, you know that you're going to need more of United Rentals equipment to be able to fuel it. And URI's equipment, that's the ticker URI, they are the market leader and they have like 50% market share, they're great strategic acquirer, but more importantly, as our port metrics again understate how profitable this business is by half, and so the market is totally mispricing how strong the tailwinds of this business are going to be in the next few years as we see a buildout. We think that's another really interesting stock to look at. >> Thank you so much, Rob, for answering all of our questions. And thank you so much for joining us today. >> It was great, pleasure as always, Louie. Appreciate it. >> Well, as always, Rob's links will be in the description below, but thank you all so much for joining us today. If you enjoyed this video, please give it a like and subscribe to our channel if you haven't already. But we'll see you this Wednesday for a midweek update.