Tech Shakeup on the S&P 500

In this episode of Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing, Motley Fool contributors Jon Quast, Matt Frankel, and Rachel Warren explain what Marvell Technology and Flex do as well as weigh in on whether they could be hidden gems. They also talk about:

• Marvell’s trillion-dollar opportunity.
• Whether Flex is overvalued right now.
• Why Bristol Myers Squibb stock has gone nowhere for five years.
• How to think about investing when you’re young.

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 8, 2026.

Jon Quast: There's another semiconductor stock headed for the S&P 500. You're listening to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. Welcome to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. I'm Jon Quast, and I'm joined today by contributors Matt Frankel and Rachel Warren. We're going to dip into our mailbag today, not once but twice.

But first, we wanted to start with our lead story, and that is about once a quarter, the S&P 500 removes some companies from the index and adds other companies. This is a index that tracks roughly 500 of the largest, most profitable U.S.-based companies. There are some times where a company gets acquired or something like that, and then another company gets added in between the regular rebalancings, but we had this regular one, and Pool Stock and Campbell Soup Company are out. As a shareholder of Pool and a lover of Goldfish crackers, I'm disappointed with that. But we have a couple of new ones heading in and that is Marvell and also Flex. While the indexing itself isn't really something material that we Foolish investors really base an investment thesis on, sometimes it is fun to bring a new stock to our attention as they get added to the large index here, so we thought it would be fun in this episode to talk about these.

I'm going to start here with Rachel. We want to talk about Marvell going into the index, basically, my question here for Rachel is, what is Marvell? What does it do? What is so interesting about the timing here is Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says he believes that this can be a $1 trillion dollar company some day. I want you to speak to that as well, Rachel.

Rachel Warren: Yeah. I do think that this could very much qualify under the moniker of a hidden gem. Marvell Technology, for anyone who's not familiar, this is a data infrastructure powerhouse. They specialize in the high-speed optical interconnect chips and custom AI silicon. It's really essential in today's day and age for transmitting data across massive server clusters. As you noted, Jon, Jensen Huang recently declared Marvell the next trillion-dollar company. He said this because, as AI models scale, computing has to be distributed across an entire data center. This makes Marvell's high-bandwidth connectivity a key solution to the industry's biggest physical bottleneck, which is data movement. Now, you might be thinking a one trillion dollar milestone sounds outrageous for a company that's currently valued in the $200 billion market cap range. But I think that Huang's prediction is actually a reasonable long-term thesis. It's also backed by Nvidia's own two billion dollar equity stake in Marvell. That's something that's very important to note, as well.

But Marvell's path to one trillion dollars, there's a few key drivers here. There’s a massive dual-engine revenue expansion. Hyperscalers are using Marvell to design custom AI chips. That's a business that's projected to cross $10 billion in revenue by the company's fiscal 2029. The optical business is growing at a 70%+ growth rate, and that's as they're linking distributed GPU clusters at the speed of light. If Marvell sustains this very robust growth trajectory in the mid-double digits, if they're able to hit that estimated $50 billion in revenue, $25 billion in EBITDA by 2031, you could be looking at a premium of about 40 AI infrastructure multiple, but I think that you could see where there is a mathematical justification for that trillion-dollar valuation. Obviously, this addition to the S&P 500, it triggers mandatory index fund buying, and I think it also cements its role in global AI architecture. It will be interesting to see whether the company hits this one trillion dollar milestone. Whether it does or not, I think we are very much looking at a company that is playing an indispensable role in the AI infrastructure build out, and I think that's a very exciting thing to watch.

Jon Quast: Yeah, as we're using the term “hidden gems,” not necessarily a small company, but one that might not be consumer-facing very often. It's hidden in that sense most people are unaware of the company and what it does, and so Marvell would qualify under that. But we're also looking for these companies that can deliver for shareholders, and you're pointing out basically that you think it is realistic that this company could be a trillion-dollar market cap company someday. Based on these projections, the 2031 timeline, that would be if it could reach a trillion by then, the time it’s making $25 billion in EBITDA, this would be a four-bagger in five years. Let's have a little fun here. Matt, would you agree or disagree that it has a realistic path to this in the next five years?

Matt Frankel: A chance, yes, a realistic path, maybe. There’s a lot we don't know about what AI infrastructure will look like in 2031. And what I mean by that is right now, demand is soaring for this. Alphabet's AI spending is double what it was last year. Other companies, it's the same. Who knows if the demand is going to keep growing at an exponential pace for the next five years? We just don't know. Even if it does, are we going to be able to solve the energy problem that it would require to keep building out all this infrastructure? AI could get more efficient. Every new technology gets more efficient over its first few years. We could do the same amount of work with fewer AI chips by 2031. We don't know. If Jensen Huang is right and this is really the future of data movement, and we get the appropriate tailwinds, yes, a trillion dollars is possible. It's not my base case for this company.

Jon Quast: Yeah, I appreciate that little bit of pushback. It's always good to balance our perspectives on a company. But let's go ahead and turn now to Flex, the other company that is being added here to the S&P 500. Basically, I want you to talk, Matt. Explain to us what Flex is and whether or not you think it could be a hidden gem stock.

Matt Frankel: Well, if you haven't heard the company's name, it's probably because it used to be called Flextronics. It's one of the largest electronic manufacturing service businesses, also abbreviated as EMS, even though that does stand for more than one thing. One of the largest companies of that kind in the world. Think of Flex as a factory that serves electronics companies that design products but don't want to manufacture those products themselves. Customers send their designs to Flex, they make the product, they ship it. The big tail one right now is their AI data center business, like everything else here. It's a big operation. They make, they make power management products, cooling products, electrical infrastructure products for data centers. It's a big company. A lot of electronics manufacturers don't make their own products. Flex did $28 billion of revenue in its last fiscal year. It's a highly profitable business. It's grown its earnings at a double-digit rate for the past six years in a row, and management expects acceleration because of this AI data center part of their business in the current fiscal year, which their fiscal year runs through March. Eighteen percent revenue growth, 32% earnings per share growth is what's expected right now.

The most interesting development that I think could make this a hidden gem investment is that Flex is spinning off its cloud and power infrastructure business, the most exciting part of it. The other part of Flex's business is just electronics manufacturing, very low margin, very predictable single-digit revenue growth over time. The rapidly growing part is spinning out. Is it a hidden gem? Maybe; the stock has more than tripled already over the past year. The forced index buying, which Rachel correctly referred to with Marvell, could give it a nice little short-term lift, but it’s not going to be a long-term catalyst. The stock trades for about 35 times forward earnings. Like I said, historically, it’s a low-margin, modest-growth business. The spin-off is the wildcard. That AI infrastructure business could command a very high multiple as a standalone business. They're expecting that part to grow by 65, 70% this year. We've seen some much crazier valuations than 35 times earnings for businesses that go into that category. Still, as it is now, it seems a little expensive for new buyers, and I probably wouldn't buy at these levels. But if we saw the 20%, 30% pullback that we've seen in other similar businesses, I might become very interested in this.

Jon Quast: Thanks for pointing out that spin-off because one of the things that we do look for in a potential hidden gem is something that's misunderstood by the market, and certainly a spin-off can be something that is misunderstood when you're trying to calculate that value. However, you're alluding to the fact that perhaps you believe that this stock is overvalued going into it, and that may diminish some return potential here. Rachel, I want you to agree or disagree with Matt's premise here of Flex stock being slightly overvalued, overvalued. What do you think?

Rachel Warren: I think it's possible that it's overvalued, but I think what might justify that valuation as we move forward is how the business is fitting itself into the reality of where the economy is heading. It had been this kind of low-margin contract manufacturer that just built electronics for their brands. They've been really transforming and trying to rebrand themselves into this very sophisticated engineering partner for the mega tech giants and become one of those companies that is one of the more indispensable backbones of the AI boom. I think it will be very interesting to see if and how that spin-off occurs. But I think as we're really seeing that shift from customer gadgets to focusing on the complex industrial tech, manufacturing that massive power infrastructure, advanced liquid cooling systems required to keep modern generative AI data centers from overheating. I think that's where their business model has developed into the most fascinating part of where it needs to be looking ahead over the next 5-10 years. I think if they can continue to capitalize on that shift, I think we might see the valuation be justified. As it stands right now, though, I tend to agree with Matt. It is a little bit overvalued.

Jon Quast: Well, when we come back, we're going to pivot, and we're going to go into the mailbag to talk about a healthcare stock question that was submitted. You're listening to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. Welcome back to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. We certainly love taking mailbag questions whenever we can. This question I wanted to throw to Rachel here because healthcare is a little bit more circle, her area that she spends a lot of time, for sure. This question actually has two parts, so I'm just going to read the first part here, and then I'll read the second part in a bit. But this is from Drew says, love the podcast. Thank you very much. I've been highly unimpressed by Bristol Myers Squibb for years now. Stock remains in the doldrums. I had high hopes when it acquired Celgene in late 2019, which seemed brilliant for its products and pipeline and got it cheap, but they've really struggled since it seems. Thoughts? Of course, Drew here is referring to the $74 billion acquisition that happened in 2019, so we’re past the five-year mark, and Bristol Myers stock is up less than 1% since then. Why hasn't this acquisition helped the stock?

Rachel Warren: Yeah, it's a great question, and I think it's really the exact tension that's frustrated investors in this business for years. The cell gene acquisition, it delivered what was, at the time, really an incredible cash cow for the business, but it also, on the flip side of that, it saddled Bristol Myers Squibb with massive debt, as well as some structural dependencies that they're still trying to outrun. One of the biggest challenges the Bristol Myers Squibb has facing has been a really brutal front-loaded patent cliff. Now obviously, patent cliffs are part of the life cycle of every pharmaceutical business. These are expected. These are planned for many years in advance. But sometimes you see these periods of transition, and that has very much been what Bristol Myers has been going through.

A lot of the mega blockbusters that used to really anchor the business are facing really aggressive generic competition as those patents have expired. For example, their primary cancer asset Revlimid saw revenues plummet from over $12 billion down to $3 billion dollars as they are seeing loss of volume to those generic competitors. That creates a tough timing mismatch because that means that legacy sales are dropping faster than new drug launches can scale up. Again, this is not uncommon in the world of pharma, but it is very much the dynamic we've been seeing with Bristol Myers. I want to say, overall revenue has been flat, but internally, we're seeing, I think, the business is hitting a really pivotal turning point. They had a massive milestone in their recent financial report, their newer growth portfolio. Those more newly launched products led by a few of their rising stars, that actually expanded by 12% year over year in revenue to more than six billion. Their growth portfolio, of these newer assets, is out-earning their declining legacy assets for the first time. Now we're still seeing the stock trading at a very compressed multiple. We've seen a lot of skepticism from the market about their upcoming patent losses, including on major drugs like Eliquis. But I do think for long-term investors in the stock, the growth portfolio, I think, over time, is going to outmatch the drag from those legacy assets.

Jon Quast: Basically, patent issues, debt being very high, those things are weighing the stock down. The second part here of the question is, how would you compare them? Bristol Myers Squibb, how would you compare them to Pfizer and other competitors?

Rachel Warren: Yeah, these are different businesses in many ways. Obviously, they're all navigating industry-wide patent cliffs. Pfizer is a great example of that. For anyone that's watched that stock, they obviously had to really absorb the steep collapse, post-COVID demand for their COVID franchises. But I will note, and I've said this before, Pfizer used that historic windfall of cash and profits from their vaccine, from their antiviral medication, to plan for the future. They famously executed a $43 billion acquisition of the oncology powerhouse Seagen. That basically meant they absorbed a massive powerhouse and clinical pipeline in oncology focused on antibody drug conjugates. They actually recently announced a $10.5 billion cancer partnership with a company called Innovent to secure the long-term pipeline runway. Pfizer is heavily focused on oncology. They've made a range of other acquisitions outside of that space, but they have planned to have eight or more oncology blockbusters in their portfolio by the early 2030s, and they seem well on their way to compare these businesses a bit.

I mean, they both are dividend payers, so Pfizer, its current dividend is just under 7%. Bristol Myers is around 4.4%. You look at oncology giant like Merck, they have a slightly lower yield. I'll note Pfizer has a very high dividend ratio. Their payout ratio is about 131%. Bristol Myers is around 70%. Ultimately, when you're looking at these businesses, it's really important to understand how their pipelines work. It's really important to understand where their competitive advantages lie. A lot of times, when you're putting cash into pharma businesses like these, really doing it for the dividend payout. You really want to make sure that that is safe and well-supported by cash and profitability. I think that is very much the case with both Pfizer and Bristol Myers. But this is not a space for every investor, so it's important to make sure you understand it before you put your capital to work.

Jon Quast: Let me turn it to you here, Matt, because I know that you like dividends, and definitely, as Rachel brings up the dividend here, we want to get some more commentary and some thoughts here from a dividend perspective. Both Bristol Myers and Pfizer would be classified in the high-yield category. But is there one of these two that you would prefer as a dividend doc today?

Matt Frankel: I am not the most knowledgeable in the pharmaceutical industry, so that was actually a great rundown. I feel like normally, when people try to explain pharmaceuticals to me, it's like when I try to explain AI to my grandfather. I'm going to dig in a little bit more on the dividend side, because that's what I know really well.

Both of these, as Rachel said, are fairly mature pharmaceutical companies. I think it's fair to say that. And it's not just about comparing the dividend yield. If all you want is income, Pfizer all day. But look at their capital allocation preferences. Bristol Myers, they have a lower payout ratio. Their 10-year average is about 40%. I look at long-term averages. Right now, both have high payout ratios artificially because of things like one-time costs related to acquisitions and things to that effect. Their long-term average is about 40%. The dividend is well covered by their current cash flow, even right now. Pfizer not only has the highest yield right now, but they have the more steady dividend payment track record. That's one other thing that I like to compare. They have a long-term average payout ratio of 50% to 65%. Even in what I would call a normal year, they pay out more of their income than Bristol Myers does. Bristol Myers has been more acquisition-focused and opportunistic, other than that big one-time Pfizer deal. In a typical year, it retains more of its earnings for opportunities like that and to get to anticipate the patent cliff and things like that. Pfizer has slowed its dividend growth recently, roughly 2% annualized rate since 2020. It seems like it's trying to conserve capital and de-lever its balance sheet as a priority.

That's all to say I don't necessarily think one is better than the other for income investors. Pfizer obviously has a higher yield, but for predictability and steadily growing income, that would be by choice. If you want a slightly more aggressive growth approach, I think Bristol Myers would fit into that category and still a solid dividend. But like I said, I don't think one is the clear winner here. Both are great options for income investors.

Jon Quast: Well, it's interesting you highlight one as being more aggressive than the other, because after the break, we're double-dipping into the mailbag and talking to one of our youngest listeners. You’re listening to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. Welcome back to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. We do like to make you part of the conversation, so if you have a stock or investing question for anyone on this show, we have different hosts throughout the week, but you can email us at podcast@fool.com, and we'd love to read it on air. We'd love to speak to it. We do need you to keep it Foolish. If you can keep it short, that's even better. But that email, again, is podcast@fool.com.

Here's our final segment, our second question of the day. I'm going to throw this to Matt as little bit more on the financial planning side of the spectrum when it comes to our contributors. But here's the question here. My name is, and I won't read the name on air, but I'm 16. I'm from Abu Dhabi, and I'm a daily listener. That is incredible. I follow the markets and manage a small portfolio built by great companies and whole philosophy the Fools preached since before I was born. A question for the show: when you’re 16, and your edge is time rather than capital or information, how should that change what kinds of companies you study? Should a teenager's watch list look different from an adult's? Basically, here, this question, Matt, is speaking to age-related things when it comes to investing. As a 16-year-old, which is incredible that they're already taking investing seriously, how should they be thinking about what they should be putting their emphasis on?

Matt Frankel: First of all, if you're listening to this podcast, not watching a video, I hope you can hear me clapping right now that a 16-year-old is getting involved in the markets that early. One of my biggest regrets in investing, and I'm sure some of us are in that group too, is that I didn't start earlier. I wish I had the foresight to when I was working at Burger King at 16, to put some of those paychecks in the stock market. It would have been a different world today. That's a great question, and it's one that doesn't get nearly enough attention. Most of the coverage you see around the time advantage of younger investors gravitates toward put your money in stocks when you're young and gradually shift to fixed income when you're older, but not nearly enough is said about what kinds of stocks you should focus on at what age.

As a more general guideline, at the full, we classify every stock we cover as either cautious, moderate, or aggressive. As you get older and closer to retirement, it makes sense to shift a greater percentage of your stock allocation toward that cautious end of the spectrum. Now, cautious stocks don't necessarily mean things that are immune to market downturns or won't react to market volatility. But generally, they're the more established businesses with resilience and predictable cash flow. I would have to bet that Pfizer is one of those from the last segment. To be clear, at any stage of the game, it's fine to have a blend of all three types in your portfolio, even if you're 70-years-old. But the mix should skew more toward the aggressive side when you're younger and toward more cautious when you're older.

But for a little bit more color, consider that there is a wide range of investments within each of those categories, and a portfolio of aggressive stocks isn't always going to beat a portfolio of cautious stocks. In fact, some of the best performing stocks over the past few decades have been companies like Nvidia, Amazon, Apple, no big surprises. But you'd also be really surprised to find in those same return realms, boring companies and conservative companies like Public Storage, big orange storage facilities. NVR, one of the leading homebuilders, is a massive success over the past few decades. As a final thought, the best stocks for you at your age also depend a lot on your comfort level and competence. We mentioned Rachel is a healthcare investor. I like dividend stocks. My portfolio has always had more dividend stocks, especially when I was starting out. I had a lot more dividend stocks than you would expect the average 20-something to have. It really depends on what you're comfortable evaluating is how you're going to find the biggest winners.

Jon Quast: Of course, I want to clarify that Matt isn't speaking to that one listener's question specifically; he's definitely widening this out to anyone listening to the show, how to think about investing depending on your age and time horizon. Hopefully, it's a general takeaway for everyone, not seen as personalized advice. But Rachel, I want to turn here to you. Matt mentioned that one of his areas of competence is dividend stocks, and I think it is important to be investing in an area where you feel like you have a certain edge, something that you're good at and something that you know well, and I guess my question to you here is, do you have any advice for our young listener here on how to build that area of competence, how to build that own little circle of competence that Warren Buffett talked about, maybe something from your own personal investing journey.

Rachel Warren: Yeah, I think it's such an important question because I think we all have industries that we know better than others that we're really interested in. As you mentioned, healthcare has been a key area of focus for me. When I first started my investing journey, because I had so much knowledge and background in this space, that was where I really gravitated towards to start out investing and putting my capital to work. Now, of course, I invest in a wide range of companies outside of healthcare, across tech and industrials and other spaces of the broader market economy. But I do think the broader point is that it's important to invest in what you know, what excites you and to find really quality businesses within those spaces that align with your overall risk tolerance and strategic goals for your portfolio. That could be growth-driven industries. It could be robotics, advanced automated logistics, biotech. The list goes on. There are so many industries that I think are reshaping where the world is going in the decades ahead.

As a 16-year-old investor or investor at any age, you have a longer time horizon, your watch list might look radically different than if perhaps you're a bit closer to retirement, and your risk tolerance level is different. But I think having that long-term mindset, pairing it with steady emotional discipline, staying diversified, ignoring volatile trends, and putting your capital to work in both bear markets, bull markets, and everything in between. I think that that is how one builds a profitable portfolio with time, but certainly invest in what excites you, make the journey of investing fun. I think that's also really important to building a profitable portfolio.

Jon Quast: I'll give myself one word here to something that he didn't actually ask about. But I would just encourage stay curious. I have learned more about how the world works from investing than anything I've ever learned in a book. It's just so incredible to see what companies are doing out there, what they're working on, where the world is going, how everything works together. It’s very exciting, so stay curious because there is a whole lot to learn, and it feels like it never ends, and it only just evolves over time. Never get too down in your ways, always be looking for what is something I don't understand that I want to know more about.

Well, that's all we have time for on the show today. 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 Motley Fool editorial guidelines and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. Thanks to our producer, Dan Boyd, and the rest of The Motley Fool team behind the glass. For Matt, Rachel, and myself, thank you so much for listening today, and we will see you on the next episode.

Jon Quast has positions in Pool. Matt Frankel, CFP® has positions in Amazon and Public Storage. Rachel Warren has positions in Alphabet, Amazon, and Apple. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Bristol Myers Squibb, Marvell Technology, NVR, Nvidia, and Pfizer. The Motley Fool recommends Campbell's and Pool. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.