Turnaround Stories and Shorting Stocks

In this episode of Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing, Motley Fool contributors Tyler Crowe, Matt Frankel, and Lou Whiteman discuss:

• Dollar General’s earnings.
• Has Dollar General turned the corner?
• Investing in turnaround stocks: What to look for?
• Citron Research’s Andrew Left found guilty of securities fraud.
• The value of short-selling research.
• The “ickiness” of the short-seller business model.
• Listener question: Are crowdfunded real estate funds worth it? What to look for?

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 June 2, 2026.

Tyler Crowe: We're talking short sellers and turnarounds today on Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. Welcome to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. I'm your host, Tyler Crowe, and today I'm joined by longtime Fool contributors, Lou Whiteman and Matt Frankel. We're going to be getting into short sellers, specifically short-selling research firms, after the court decision that came down on Citron Research earlier yesterday. We're also going to look at investor questions related to real estate on the private side, not necessarily reads that we normally talk about on a publicly traded entity show.

But first, we're going to start with Dollar General. I wanted to bring this one up specifically because it's been a turnaround story for several years. It's not the most headline-grabbing company. But during the 2010s, Dollar General was one of the best-performing stocks. It handily beat the S&P 500. Companies that we think of now like Mag 7 companies like Microsoft and Alphabet, Dollar General was beating it. That came to a crashing halt right around 2022 as trouble started to pile up for various reasons, and the company's been trying to get its act together for a while now. This morning, it just reported earnings, and the numbers said they beat expectations and raised guidance, and yet the stock is down about almost 3% as we're taping this. Matt, was this a good result, or was it just beating bad expectations for what is now a downtrodden stock?

Matt Frankel: Well, Dollar General, you're right. They beat expectations on earnings. On revenue, they missed expectations a little bit. It wasn't all good. Same-store sales, for example, grew 2% year over year. That's less than the rate of inflation, so on a real basis, they actually lost same-store sales. On the other hand, their margins look good. Gross margin rose 65 basis points, net income increased by 13%, and as you mentioned, earnings beat expectations. It missed slightly on the top line, beat on the bottom. I'm not shocked that the stock is under pressure. The company is making good progress on its plan to renovate and improve its existing stores, which is a big cornerstone of their turnaround plan. They did 1,400 of them in the first quarter alone, they're aiming for a little over 4,200 for the entire year. They continue to open stores when they see opportunities. Almost 200 new stores were opened during the first quarter. They maintained their revenue guidance for the full year, but they raised their earnings guidance. I'd say things are going OK. They're not going great, but they're going OK.

Lou Whiteman: Maybe the market debate is in the word good in good progress. Because, yes, there's definitely making progress here. This is a promising start to what figures to be a long-term turnaround. They were beaten, rightfully so, I may add, and the market right now, I don't think they want to celebrate just one quarter of a turnaround. They have an ambitious plan. There's nothing in this quarter to suggest that there's anything wrong with the plan, but competition is intense here. In retail, there is no guaranteed winner. You are not entitled to continue to exist, so there is real downside risk. Turn around, still early days. I think you give credit where credit is due, but I think the market's right to be cautious here and not to just be cheering just because of one quarter's results.

Tyler Crowe: I feel like the three of us have been in the same experience here for a while, where I've been to a few value investing conferences over the past few years, and I think I've heard so many Dollar General pitches at these value investing conferences. I feel like I could set my watch to it and almost do the whole pitch by memory now. It all had struck the exact same chords. It was former CEO Todd Vasos is now back in charge again after, that 2020, 2010 run-up, and he's the one in charge again. The stuff that's a problem, it is fixable. If you focus on the current store fixing, like you were talking about, Matt, in the most recent numbers, instead of really trying to blow out your store account, which was part of the growth’s narrative and why it was so successful, all these things happened, and boom, we're back at two times price-to-sales ratio, eight times book value. Some of these things are coming true. Sales continue to grow, margins are improving. But at the same time, that valuation standpoint, it hasn't come anywhere close to it. We're still less than one times sales. I think book value is something like 2.5 times book. The valuations way different.

This is the challenge, in my opinion, of investing in turnarounds, and I wanted to use Dollar General as a good example here, but we could have done Advance Auto Parts or the 15 other long-term turnarounds that sometimes have not quite gotten off the ground. It's not just a bet on the fundamentals of the business returning. It's also the narrative that drives that valuation of what people think about it. I know I certainly have touched the hot stove a couple of times. I don't even know if I can mention some of them because they're so small these days that I think we can move the stock, so I don't even want to mention them because they're in such bad shape. But with that in mind, one, if you want to share any turnaround bets that you made that didn't go awry or did, and what advice would you give to investors when it comes to actually investing in these turnaround ideas or fallen angels like Dollar General?

Matt Frankel: Of course, every turnaround story is different. But there are some common themes. For me, leadership is the most important variable. I typically want a CEO that's done it before, not that's run the company before, but has executed a turnaround before. Unity Software, you asked for an example, is one that I can think of off the top of my head. Their current CEO Matt Bromberg, formerly led the turnaround at Zynga, the gaming platform, so he's done it before. The balance sheet needs more than enough money to execute on the turnaround. You don't want to be raising capital while the company's down. I'll almost never invest in a turnaround from the start. I want at least some evidence, a few quarters of numbers moving in the right direction that show that it's working. I want to see things like same-store sales growth and after inflation, like in Dollar General's case, margin trends, customer accounts growing, things like that. That's what I look for.

Lou Whiteman: First off, I think it's so important to look at the competition just as a society. It’s definitely true here is that, look, a company that has fallen from grace or lost the customer’s eye, if you’re a consumer-facing company, you can execute very well, and it can be hard to get back on the radar, get back in good graces with the customer. I think that is a huge wildcard that you have to look out for here. But generally speaking, Tyler, I think you hit on it. Narrative is so important. We are surrounded by data. The market knows everything that's going on at any given time these days. The hard part is knowing when the market will care about the data. A lot of sharp moves we see, and this is a Dollar Tree thing. This is anywhere, but a lot of sharp moves, it's not because there's some new surprise. It's just we suddenly started caring about something we already knew about. Look at the SaaS apocalypse. We've known what AI wanted to do forever, but suddenly, this was cutting 50% off the price of the stocks because suddenly we actually cared about it. It was in our consciousness. In a turnaround story, the only antidote to narrative is patience. If the turnaround is working, if the data looks good, the market will catch on eventually. But that eventually can take a long time. It's really hard to know when, so patients can be needed.

Tyler Crowe: I find it funny because you said Dollar Tree instead of Dollar General, but I actually feel like this whole segment could have been done with Dollar Tree instead of Dollar General. We might have come to the same conclusions. But before I go, anybody want to touch the hot stove, like a turnaround that worked for you in your portfolio, one that flamed out, didn't quite work out?

Lou Whiteman: I'll do one of each and that bottom at the same time, which is, again, to show you that they don't all work out. I bought Garrett Motion and Simply Good Foods at the same time. One of them, I think, is a 3X now, and one of them is down 60%. I like both equally, going in.

Matt Frankel: Tyler, you're betting on Transocean's turnaround with me, so I'll just leave it at that.

Tyler Crowe: Coming up after the break, we're going to get into the muddy waters of short-selling.

ADVERTISEMENT: It's not just that companies become too big to fail, and we bail them out, although that's happening. It's not just they become too big to jail, but they become too big to care. These companies, they eliminated the competition. They and their advisors, the economists who said monopolies are good and efficient, they're today just absolved of all responsibility. Shopping really hard doesn't solve monopolies. We warned them at the time. They did it anyway. The Ishigogenic policy environment is what created this. Do you hear why the Internet keeps getting worse? Check out episode 1280 of the Jordan Harbinger show.

Tyler Crowe: Let's talk about short-selling and short-seller research firms in general. This isn't a topic we explore much here because I'm using the Royal "we" of The Motley Fool, not necessarily the three of us. We don't normally short stocks. Yes, me, I sometimes use options like put options for income or buying a stock at a set price instead of doing price limits. But I think I can speak for the three of us when we say I don't think any of us go out and say, the company's no good. I'm short of stock or short stocks in our portfolio. Matt, Lou, do either of you guys do that?

Matt Frankel: I don't want to say that I've never shorted a stock. I'm sure back in my early days, before I knew how to invest, I did. But I can't really remember the last time. On occasion, I'll set up option spreads or something like that that could profit if a stock I consider frothy were to go down. But even that's rare.

Lou Whiteman: I stopped a long time ago. It's just too much work.

Tyler Crowe: The work is key here. We’re talking about this one specifically because yesterday, Andrew Left, of the short-selling research firm Citron Research, was found guilty of securities fraud. It was actually 13 of 17 counts, and I think one of them carries a maximum prison sentence of 25 years. I don't know if he's going to get 25 years, but there is some real penalties going on here. Basically, the thesis on the court case was he was using his followership on social media and elsewhere to disseminate his research and manipulate stock prices to profit from it. Now, I wanted to bring this to the table because I have some real conflicting thoughts about this as an investor, and also what we do in financial media. For all the flak that most investors give to short sellers for a myriad of reasons, some good, maybe some not, I think there's some real value to short sellers, and short-seller reports, like the ones that Citron Research have done in the past. Do either of you agree with me here, or am I standing on an island?

Lou Whiteman: Absolutely. No, I'm 100% pro short sellers. I will say they vary in quality, just like longs, that's not exclusive to the short. I don't know, and we'll get into it, I don't know if I can be pro-Andrew Left here, but definitely short sellers need to exist.

Matt Frankel: I would agree with that. There's a solid case to be made that short sellers are a vital part of the stock market. There’s a lot of academic research out there that shows that short sellers improve price discovery, reduce the average duration of miss pricing, i.e, bubbles, and cause less impactful crashes than otherwise would happen. Short sellers have legitimately been the first to identify fraud many times. Think of Nikola, for example.

Tyler Crowe: To that point, too. Lou, like you were saying, not necessarily the biggest fans of Andrew Left, but Citron Research were some of the first ones to point out with all the accounting shenanigans that were going on at Valiant Pharmaceuticals. I think it was back in 2015. I think within days of that Citron Research report, Valiant was making drastic changes to its business, talking about dissociating itself from some of the pharmacies that it was working with because there was accusations that they were using those pharmacies for overcharging. It was a pretty clear-cut fraud case that Citron brought to everyone's attention here. It was good and important work. To your point, Matt Nikola was a great one. While this technically wasn't a short report, John Carreyrou's work on Theranos was in that same spirit. I think, had Theranos gone public without some of that work, I'm sure they would have made it even worse. We the market, we sometimes need people on the lookout for the bad stuff for the Valiants, for the Nikolas and stuff like that, or otherwise, they can perpetuate and get even worse. Now, with all of that said, and this is where it starts to get conflicting, there is something that's definitely icky about the business model for many short sellers. The verdict during this Citron Research court decision is where some of that icky business practices started to come to light, and I think that's why we're like don't really know if I want to stand up for Andrew Left here.

Matt Frankel: The big takeaway, it's not that publishing short research is inherently bad. It's not. But misleading investors is, and it's not just Citron that does it. Muddy waters, which you mentioned earlier in the episode, at least they say this, but they include a line in every short report that says, Upon the publication of each report, we intend to begin covering a substantial majority of our short positions. They go on to say, “You agree and understand that by the time you read a report on this website, we may be covering or have already covered, i.e., bought back our short position.” This is where I have a problem. They're aiming to profit at publication and don't plan to stick around to see if their short thesis was actually right. Always read short reports on stocks you own. Don't get me wrong. It's always worth listening to the bear case to every stock you own. Even reports where the seller just aims to make a quick buck, like those, they often contain real concerns that are worth investigating. Now, Citron's general process, and this came out in the trial, was to identify a target, quickly establish a short position in it, coordinate some timing, and publish an attention-grabbing claim, either a tweet or an article, watch retail investors panic and react, sending the stock lower, and then cover into the short without disclosing it in most cases.

Lou Whiteman: One real big objection to what Matt said. I don't think that there is anyone who honestly believes that every person that goes on CNBC, Bloomberg, or something, and says, I think such and such is great is committing to a timetable. If anything, Matt, like you say, at least the shorts admit this, there is nothing stopping anyone from saying on a tweet, on television or anything, I think Stock A is going to the moon, see it go up 5% and sell it right away. There are, I should say that for some of us, like some companies choose to put restrictions on what people can say and then act on. Motley Fool does that. I'm all for it because I agree that's not ethical, but to say that this is just some short thing, that they say something about a company and then sell off, that happens all of the time, and it feels like crocodile tears to get too caught up on it, just shorts do it. What I have a problem with, and again, I want to be careful because, I guess, the jury has ruled, but it is still allegedly, allegedly from the prosecution, is the idea that Left was basically marketing his reputation to sympathetic hedge funds and coordinating takedowns. That's where you sort of cross the line. There's email quotes about, all I have to do is go on, say something, and it'll be like taking candy from a baby. I do think that there should be some standard of conviction to your words that you should actually be going in with a thesis. But look, if my thesis is that this company is overvalued, and I think it's going to go down from here. I say that loudly enough, and it goes down. Whether it takes 20 minutes or two years, why shouldn't I cover there? The act that they do that just because they're on the downside, betting on things going down seems just as fair to me as betting things go up. I just don't think you should be conspiring with other people to manipulate stock prices, which is what was implied with Left here.

Tyler Crowe: I'm going to do a shameless plug here for the Motley Fool. You know what? It's our podcast. I like to do that sometimes. We get some stocks right. We get some stocks wrong. But one of the things that you were mentioning, we do have a pretty robust disclosure and no trade policy. If we know that a stock is going to be recommended weeks in advance, we're not allowed to trade it. If we talk about or write about any of the stocks that you hear us talking about on this podcast, we can't trade them for multiple days, and that's part of the process. I think at least for me, and I'm sure that you two agree on this to a certain degree, it's one of the reasons I've enjoyed working for The Motley Fool for a long time is because we get some things right. We get some things wrong. We can't say that we're perfect, but I think there's a level of transparency and disclosure when it comes to things like this that separates us to a certain degree from the Citron Research, publishing something and then immediately trading on it afterwards.

Lou Whiteman: It should be said, Tyler.

Tyler Crowe: Go ahead.

Lou Whiteman: That's more the exception than it is the rule, which is why all of the hand-waving about shorts, this happens unfortunately a lot on both sides on Wall Street. If we really care about it, we should really start looking at every tweet pumping a stock as well.

Tyler Crowe: Well, there's only so many Wall Street ethics episodes we can do here on the podcast. But every once in a while, we're going to do our standing on our soapboxes, and this is probably one of them. Coming up after the break, we'll do listener questions. That's. Hey, everyone, quick reminder, if you want to get your questions in, we love answering them. Just send them over to podcasts@fool.com. That's podcasts@fool.com. The three requests we always ask is number one, keep it Foolish. Two, keep it short enough if I can read on air, and three, we can't give personalized advice, so always ask generic questions. What would an investor do, or what do you think about a stock? We can't necessarily tell you what you should do with your portfolio. We don't want to get in trouble with the SEC, like Andrew Left did.

With that in mind, here is the question from Matt. Hi, Motley Fool team. I have questions about whether syndicated crowd-funded private equity and real estate should have a place in my portfolio. Basically, the rest of it goes, Could you share your thoughts on how to safely invest in and evaluate these funds? What specific red flags or metrics should I look out for as I compare for them? Thanks for all the great content. Lou, I want to start with you, private equity, real estate. This was a really popular thing. I think 2019, 2020, where a lot of the regulations change where instead of having to be what was called an accredited investor, where you had to have enough either money or income to invest at a certain level, they brought down those thresholds and made, what they said was democratizing private equity. It's had some mixed results, and I think that's what we're getting at here. When you're looking at this particular part of the market, what are you looking for?

Lou Whiteman: I get the appeal, and you don't have to go far to find the appeal because they market the heck out of it. Diversification, there's some tax benefits, maybe, depending on what you're doing here. But these are not going to be part of my portfolio, and I'll tell you real simple why. One thing, you're signing over a lot of control to whoever's managing this. Do they have a good track record? Have they navigated downturns? If it's real estate, are the underwriting assumptions realistic? There's just a lot that you were putting in someone's hands, so you better know them. But the big thing is, this all matters because you're typically locked in, and your capital is locked there for years on end. You are in, you were part of this, heck or highwater however it goes. If you do want to do this, spend a lot of time on due diligence. The reason this is for accredited or supposedly sophisticated investors is that there aren't a lot of safety nets here. There's a lot of homework that is asked of you. Do that homework. Spend the time breaking down the manager. Look at the plan. Look closely at the fees because a lot of these are designed to get the manager rich, not you. Shop around, just do your homework.

Tyler Crowe: Matt, I'll let you do the final words here. But in a previous life for me at Motley Fool, I did some work on some scoring and rating of crowdfunded real estate funds. In my assessment, the better ones were, at best, you get a percentage point or slightly more on a net basis after fees than publicly traded rates, and you had to lock up your capital in these illiquid securities. At worst, they were launderers of fees that basically they could pitch massive yields and huge growth to the investors, but they just bought and sold a bunch of stuff within the portfolio to rack up transaction costs and management fees, and to your point, Lou, just enriching the management. That was the worst examples of it. In some ways, even just buying questionable real estate just for the sake of buying stuff, again, for the fees. I greatly appreciated the concept of bringing a lot of these funds, both on the accredited and unaccredited version. It was trying to make assets that were typically reserved for higher-net-worth individuals more accessible to all of us. I can understand the appeal, and I do sympathize with that. But the regulations on this part has just been like the Wild West, and really, you're throwing individual investors to the wolves here. The reason that this has been reserved for the rich is because they could hire an army of analysts and lawyers to look over this stuff, and, us weekend hobbyists don't really have the assets to really do that.

Matt Frankel: I'd stay away, and this comes from someone who invested in several of these private crowdfunded real estate deals over the past five or six years. The numbers are not in your favor. This was an analysis, over 50% of deals listed on the CrowdStreet platform, for example, failed to meet their targets. More than 10% went to zero. Several platforms have failed completely in the past five years, and total documented investor losses across the sector were more than $400 million across just the major platforms since 2020. Now, I'm not saying real estate crowdfunding is a scam, it's not. But the marketing really oversells the expected returns in almost all cases.

Tyler Crowe: Apologies to Matt, looking for advice on this, but I think the best advice we can give for a lot of these things is maybe it's best to stay away and stick to the publicly traded stuff. Like I said, maybe it's one or two percentage points lower for publicly traded bricks, but you get a lot of the advantages of liquidity and transparency.

As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about, and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for our guest, so don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards, and it's not approved by advertisers. Advertisements for sponsored content are provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising and disclosure, please check out our shows. Thanks for producer Dan Boyd, and the rest of The Motley Fool team. For Lou, Matt, and myself, thanks for listening, and we'll chat again soon.

Lou Whiteman has positions in Garrett Motion and Simply Good Foods. Matt Frankel, CFP has positions in Unity Software. Tyler Crowe has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Microsoft, and Unity Software. The Motley Fool recommends Garrett Motion, Simply Good Foods, and Transocean. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.