A New Chapter in AI’s Most Powerful Partnership

In this episode of Motley Fool Money, Motley Fool contributors Jon Quast, Matt Frankel, and Rachel Warren discuss:

• Financial results from Domino’s Pizza and what it tells us about the economy.
• Microsoft and OpenAI modify the terms of their partnership.
• Qualcomm gets a boost from reported plans for an AI-native phone.
• Mailbag: Why is the stock price not matching the business results?

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 27, 2026.

Jon Quast: We have a new chapter in AI's most powerful partnership. 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 Fool contributors Matt Frankel and Rachel Warren. We have some news in AI, and we don't want to bludgeon you with it, but when these companies are growing as fast as they are, we have to talk about it when there's a significant development, and there is. We're going to get to that.

But first, we wanted to kick off our show, we are in earnings season, and one of our companies just reported this morning, and that's Domino's Pizza, reporting its first-quarter 2026 results this morning, and the stock is down. We do want to look at this company because, as the largest pizza chain in the world, it can really tell us a lot about what's going on in the world and in the state of the economy. Rachel, what did the Q1 quarter results show us?

Rachel Warren: Yeah, this is one of those companies that you can look at is something of a bellwether for consumer spending, certainly within the food industry. Q1 results, they actually missed on both the top and bottom lines, although not by that much. Adjusted earnings came in at $4.13 per share against the $4.28 expected. Revenue hit about $1.2 billion or $1.15 billion to be exact. That was trailing the $1.17 billion. Wall Street was looking for. Again, very slight misses. It's worth noting total revenue actually rose about 3.5%. That was thanks to a range of factors, including new store openings. US growth was actually just 0.9%. International sales actually dipped slightly. We're seeing some of these mixed results. I do think it signals that even a business as stawart as this one, historically speaking, might be feeling a bit of a squeeze as customers are cutting back on discretionary spending.

Matt Frankel: Yeah, management is they're sending good signals to the market that they believe in what they're doing here. They allocated an extra billion dollars for share buybacks. Their management generally just gets a really big gold star from me for capital allocation. Over the past decade, the share account has been down, 38% or so. The company's produced 192% total return over that time. Buybacks were a big part of that strategy. I like this move. I don't know if it's enough to make investors happy, and judging by the stocks response, it's not. But the numbers were not great.

Jon Quast: Well, one of the interesting things here, you look at the company. Same-store sales. This tracks sales at locations that have been open for some time. Generally speaking, well, probably universally speaking, you want to see same-store sales rise. In this case, same-store sales did increase for Domino's. Marginally so, that usually translates to an increase in profitability, as well, but both the sales are up, but the profits are down, and I'm just curious what your thoughts are with that, Rachel.

Rachel Warren: Yeah, and it's an important thing to talk about. That disconnect between rising sales marginally, so is correct. That's a good way to put it. This isn't obviously a high-growth business, but still the growth was slim. We're also seeing those following profits. It's actually a bit of an accounting illusion for this particular financial report. Domino's operating income actually jumped about 10% in the quarter, that was thanks to more efficient supply chain, higher franchise fees. It was actually bolstered by nearly $8 million gain from the sale of a fully depreciated corporate aircraft. Net income was dragged down by a $30 million non-cash, so a paper loss on their investment in DPC- and that's their partner in China. Essentially, the core business is profitable, but because the market value of their investment in China fluctuated this quarter, they had to record a technical loss that masked their actual operational growth. You see that sometimes with businesses like this, and it's always important to dig beyond those, headline numbers to understand what's actually at play.

Jon Quast: Sure, it's important to do, but it doesn't seem like many investors are doing that today, just looking at that headline earnings per share number, seeing that it's down, reacting negatively today. Really, it's been ongoing trend now for a couple of years that Domino Pizza the stock topped out and just been not doing well, not beating the market anyway. For that reason, I'm curious. Is this a business Domino's Pizza, largest pizza chain in the world, down right now? Is this a stock that either of you like right now? What are things about the business that you do like?

Rachel Warren: Yeah, this is, I think, for me, an example of a company that I think is a really great business, but a great business does not always translate to a great stock. In fact, there's many examples of that. There are a few things I like about the business. In terms of their actual model, they are a massive logistics and manufacturing powerhouse. They act as the sole provider for their franchisees. Unlike most competitors who rely on, say, third-party vendors for ingredients, they actually operate their own net of regional supply chain centers that manufacture fresh dough. They procure everything from cheese to pizza boxes in bulk. Actually, that vertically integrated model, that supply chain business accounts for about 60% of Domino's total revenue. By far and away, more that they're making for pizza sales, for example.

Controlling that entire process has been something that has helped them really strip out a lot of the middleman costs that usually eat into restaurant margins. They have built, I think, a really massive moat, where their scale tends to make them cheaper and more profitable for a local owner to stay in the system of franchisee than to leave because they actually share around 50% of their supply chains pre-tax profits back with the franchisees who buy for them. All of that translates to a great business. For me, though, this hasn't been a stock that I've personally wanted to add to my portfolio.

Jon Quast: I really appreciate you bringing that out, Rachel, because Domino's management here pointing out that its top competitors are really getting into the value war with it and trying to match it on price. It's really becoming a competitive pricing environment, and Domino's management really feeling confident because of what you just pointed out, the vertical integration, its cost control, that it would be able to weather that environment better than some of its top competitors. Very prudent thing to point out here. But, Matt, what is something that you might like about Domino's?

Matt Frankel: Well, as I mentioned, I'm definitely a fan of the capital allocation. Adding $1 billion buyback shows pretty nice confidence that the stock is undervalued. That translates to about 9% of its outstanding shares right now. Domino's, they have a nice dividend yields, another part of their capital allocation strategy, and it trades for less than 17 times forward earnings, which is historically cheap for this company, especially with the operating income growth that we saw. But that's really where it ends.

I was in the restaurant business for years. It's a tough business, even when things are going well, and right now, consumers are feeling squeezed. The same-store sales growth was less than 1% in the US, and if we're looking at inflation, like in real terms, that's actually a decline. If you have 1% same-store sales growth and 3% inflation, you're actually losing sales. Consumers are feeling squeezed, and Domino's strategy really needs to go beyond, let's buy back more shares. I didn't see much that is going to turn that 0.9% same-store sales growth into 3%, 4% or more that investors would want. I have to think that that has something to do with the stock prices reaction as well.

Jon Quast: The reason that we wanted to bring Domino's Pizza to our listeners today was not just the pizza results, although you certainly might be interested in taking a look at Domino's Pizza here, but also just what it can tell us about the economy. I appreciate Matt bringing out what is going on with the consumer. Keep an eye on this because this does translate into many takeaways for the broader economic picture. After the break, we have to talk about AI's most powerful partnership in a new chapter that it just entered. You're listening to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing.

Welcome back to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. Microsoft big company, I took a stake in OpenAI pretty early on in the, I don't know what we want to call it, the AI gold rush. OpenAI really took off. Microsoft was holding that equity stake in the business, but it has seemed like the relationship between Microsoft and OpenAI has been becoming increasingly strained in the most recent years. Today, we got news. This was right before we aired. We got some news that the duo here has modified the terms of its partnership. As I'm looking at this, it seems like Microsoft is getting the better of the deal here. I don't know if that's fair, though, Matt.

Matt Frankel: I would call it somewhat of a win-win for both companies. I can see it both ways. OpenAI, they pay Microsoft 20% of revenue, which is a lot. That remains the same under the new deal, although there is an overall CAP now, which could be a big deal if you believe the exponential growth that OpenAI believes it can achieve. The company had it reached 20 billion in ARR in 2025. It's expected to reach 25 billion this. But OpenAI's management has said that they predict total revenue of more than $280 billion by 2030. That total revenue cap will be more of a big deal in the future than it is today, especially if it hits those targets. Note that Microsoft's total investment in OpenAI since 2019, has been about $13 billion. To call this a successful relationship doesn't even really tell the story. It definitely feels like a win-win. It gives OpenAI more flexibility and saves Microsoft money, which Rachel's going to discuss a little bit more depth.

Rachel Warren: Yeah, one of the things that I think is really interesting, and Matt did a good job of highlighting some of the key elements there. Microsoft is no longer going to pay a revenue share to OpenAI for the models that it uses at its own products. For example, like Copilot. This significantly boosts its own margins. Then, as Matt said, OpenAI will continue to pay a revenue share to Microsoft through 2030. Those payments are subject to a total CAP. But still, I think this is a clear win for Microsoft. Microsoft's licensed to OpenAI's technology is no longer exclusive.

For OpenAI's part, they're now free to license their models to competitor Amazon, Google Cloud, they can serve their products across any Cloud provider. That, of course, can allow them to tap into the massive compute resources needed for the next generation of AI. Microsoft also extended its license to OpenAI's models and products through the early 2030s.

But the really notable element that stuck out to me, and I think this is where there's a clear win for Microsoft, is the removal of the AGI trigger, if you will, or the artificial general intelligence trigger that previously threatened to cut off Microsoft's access to OpenAI, if OpenAI reached human-level intelligence with its models. Under this new deal, Microsoft now retains its rights even to post AGI models. They locked in their access to OpenAI's IP, essentially for the next decade. I think this is good news for both businesses, but if I had to pick a winner, I'd say it's Microsoft.

Jon Quast: The reason that I view it that way, too, Rachel, is that it seems, OpenAI still has to pay some money to Microsoft here, even if there's a CAP now, but Microsoft doesn't have to do it the other way around. When you think about a startup company, and revenue is really important. You are taking a hit on your revenue stream, and I think that the idea is, I'm willing to do that because I'm hoping to make it up by going into other Cloud providers. It's a little bit of a gamble on OpenAI's part that it's going to be able to not only replace the lost revenue from Microsoft, but also then it's going to increase because it's going to be provided on other Cloud providers. Any of you have thoughts on that?

Matt Frankel: Basically, the way I would sum it up is that Microsoft gets a lot of tangible benefits from this deal. They don't have, they don't have to pay their revenue share to OpenAI, things like that. Open AIs are all based on things that could happen in the future. Like you mentioned, we could get more revenue from AWS or Google Cloud. We could reach $300 billion of revenue by 2030 and no longer have to pay Microsoft any revenue share because we've hit the CAP. It's more hypothetical and more forward-looking than Microsoft deal, which provides immediate benefits. I definitely see the angle that Microsoft is the winner here.

Rachel Warren: I agree with that, Matt, and I think the other thing I would add is, I think for a long time now we've been seeing an interest from OpenAI. There's been a lot of reports that have come out over the last year. They really wanted to diversify the licensing agreements that they had. They felt a bit strangled, if you will. I'm by the exclusivity agreement with Microsoft. I do think to that end, management there sees a lot of benefits. But certainly, in terms of tangible achievements from this agreement, right now Microsoft is experiencing certainly a benefit to their margins, their profitability. Again, being able to access those models from OpenAI if they reach that AGI artificial general intelligence threshold is a key change. I definitely think Microsoft emerges as the stronger one from this deal, but we'll see what things look like in 1, 2, 3 years from now.

Jon Quast: Well, speaking three maybe more years from now, we didn't just get this news here about Microsoft. Just briefly, we wanted to touch on the fact that there are reports breaking that OpenAI is considering an AI native smartphone, and it's tapping Qualcomm for help there to build this AI ready a device. If you look at Qualcomm stock, it's gone nowhere for five years. It's up today, but wow. If this is a hit, Microsoft won't necessarily benefit from that, but what do you guys think of an AI native phone?

Matt Frankel: On-device AI has been a big priority of Qualcomm for some time. Tom and I interviewed Qualcomm's chief technology officer last year, and this was a big focus of the company's AI strategy. I'm not totally surprised to hear this. Essentially, if you use your smartphone today to prompt ChatGPT or Claude, the actual work takes place in a data center somewhere. It doesn't take place on your phone. The chips on your phone can't handle complex AI calculations. What Qualcomm wants to do is develop chips that integrate directly into a phone that can handle AI tasks on the device without any external help, and they're doing that already. Qualcomm has been developing chips called NPS or neural processing units as part of its Snapdragon chip family. It unveiled its local AI chips for PCs at CES this year, for example. This is a natural next step. For Qualcomm, it could be a big needle mover, especially now that we see this on-device AI strategy really starting to play out, especially if the phone is a hit when it finally comes to market.

Rachel Warren: Yeah, I do think that an AI First phone, it wouldn't be just another device with apps. It would be a shift towards a world where the AI is the operating system potentially bypassing the app store models that have really dominated Mobile for the last two decades. I think there's this idea that if OpenAI can actually deliver a device that makes apps feel obsolete. Could spark a massive hardware upgrade cycle. This is very much, I think the bullish long-term idea of what this could look like. It's definitely a gamble, building a phone from scratch, just from a technical standpoint of the teams that they would have to build and the capital intensity required. It's a notoriously hard and expensive process.

Now, OpenAI is building the team to do it, you had the $6.4 billion acquisition of Johnny I's design startup last year. Certainly, Qualcomm investors seemed happy. The stock jumped about 13% today last I checked on the news after years of stagnant growth. It's an interesting idea. I think we're seeing OpenAI, looking at where the business can go and trying to explore new frontiers, and I think it's still very unclear what are going to be really the drivers of the business in the long run.

Jon Quast: Smartphone, hardware, just run up, that would be interesting, wouldn't it? We'll have to keep our eyes on that. Well, after the break, we're talking about how stock prices work. You're listening to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. Welcome back to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. Want to make you part of the conversation. If you have a stock or an investing question for Matt, myself, or Rachel, anyone on the show, you can email us at podcast afool.com, and we'd love to have mailbag segments like this whenever possible. Send in your questions, but remember to keep them foolish. That email again, is podcast at fool.com, podcast at fool.com, and we do have a question today.

This comes from Lisa in Oregon. She writes, Hello, I'm a newer investor to individual stocks since joining the Motley Fool a few months ago. I wondered if a stock price is just a popularity contest. Heard you talk about Nike and how they have good earnings along with Disney, and yet those stocks aren't doing well. I also saw a major drop in Unity with the AI software sell-off, and it really makes me wonder if stock price is determined by popularity and not necessarily earnings. Thanks for your help. Guys, since this question does come from a newer investor, I thought it would be good just to lay a solid foundation here before we move on. I wanted to talk about a stock's price, the share account, the market valuation, and how those concepts work together, because I think that some newer investors, they come in and they see a stock trading at $100, and they think it's twice as expensive as a stock trading at $50.

Matt Frankel: Yeah, it's definitely something that we need to emphasize to newer investors. It is 100% true, and we'll get to this in a minute that stock price, at least in the short term, is determined by popularity and not earnings. But let's say if Disney and Walmart are both trading for $100 per share, that doesn't mean that the companies are worth the same amount of money. It's important for newer investors to familiarize themselves with the concept of market capitalization or market cap, as it's commonly referred to. That's the share price multiplied by the number of outstanding shares, and it's essentially how much the market is saying that the company is worth. That's an important figure to know, as well.

Rachel Warren: Yeah, I think it's important to underscore that in and of itself, not considering any other factors, a stock's price doesn't tell you that much on its own. You want to think of a company like a giant pizza, so the market valuation is the value of the entire pizza. The share count is how many slices you've cut into it, and the stock price is just the cost of a single slice. Say you have a company that's worth $1 billion, has 10 million slices, each slice costs $100. Have company B that's also worth $1 billion cut into 20 million slices, each costs $50. Both companies are worth the exact same amount. One just has smaller pieces. Popularity can drive a hype premium in the short term. That's certainly the case. But over the long haul, that total value is generally anchored to earnings. The market's essentially weighing how much cash that pizza is going to generate for over time to stick to the analogy.

Jon Quast: Let's get to the question now a little bit more directly. Basically what Lisa is saying here, her observation is that the stock price tends seems to be uncorrelated from the business results. She mentioned Nike, I would personally have a little quibble on Nike's results being good. But for the sake of argument, let's say that Nike's earnings have been good, and the stock price is down. She's noticing a disconnect, and therefore, her reasoning appears to be that, hey, if the results are good and it didn't move the stock price, then therefore, it must not be the business that actually moves the stock. It must be something else, perhaps just a popularity contest.

Matt Frankel: There are a lot of moving parts when it comes to stock prices. That's really important to know as an investor, especially after earnings. It's not just whether the results were good or not with revenue growing, solid profitability, things like that. It's whether the results beat expectations, like Rachel mentioned that Domino's missed expectations this last quarter. These expectations are more or less priced in before the earnings release. It's not enough to grow earnings revenue by 20% if the market was expecting 21%. It's about whether there are fears or concerns about future performance, which is definitely the case with unity, as you mentioned. The short version is, if a company continues to grow and meet or outperform its expectations over time, the stock is likely to produce solid returns for long term investors. But the reaction to any given earnings report is determined by a lot more than whether or not the results this quarter were solid or not.

Rachel Warren: Yeah, in the short term, Lisa is absolutely right. The stock market can behave like a popularity contest where prices fluctuate based on investor emotions, rumors, shifting expectations. That disconnect that she's observing usually boils down to a few different things. Investors might buy their rumor that can push a stock price up before a report. If good earnings are already priced in, even a solid result can lead to a sell off sometimes as you see traders lock in profits. The market cares more about the next quarter than the last one. If a company has a record-breaking quarter, but maybe warns some foggy weather ahead, so to speak, investors might flee despite the current success of the business. But generally speaking, that stock price will eventually be forced to reflect the company's actual ability to generate cash and earnings. That's why a quarter gives us a snapshot of a business, it does not tell us the whole story. Certainly, a stock price's movements in a matter of weeks or months do not tell the whole story of a business.

Jon Quast: Just in case it's unclear, I do want to just tie a bow on what your answers are here. If you're noticing a disconnect from business results and the stock price, maybe zoom out a little bit, because over a longer time period, you will see a stronger correlation between the business results and the stock price. It's why we're long-term investors because we really can't predict with a strong degree of accuracy what the popularity in the short term is going to be. But we can have a better angle on what is this business going to do over the next several years? That's why we preach, watch the business and not the stock. But, Matt, I don't know. How about you hit us here with some wisdom from the greats?

Matt Frankel: Yes, one of my favorite quotes, it's not a buffet quote, although he said it a lot. It's from his mentor Benjamin Graham said, In the short term, the market is a voting machine, but in the long term, it is a weighing machine. In other words, in the short term, stocks are driven by popularity, but over the long term, the intrinsic value of a business is the main driver. That's why, as you said, we preach taking a long term approach, not focusing on the stock price and focusing on the business.

Rachel Warren: Yeah, that's the point. If the market were a popularity contest for ever investing, would just be gambling on crowd psychology. The reason we really preach, watch the business, not the stock is because maybe popularity sets the price today, but earnings ultimately set the price and value of the business over the long run. In the short term, we see share price movements traded by emotional humans or algorithms. But in the long term, it's an investment stock in a company's future durable growth story. If that business consistently grows its profits year after year, that stock price tends to be very much tethered to that growth.

Jon Quast: That's why we'll be continuing to take a long-term view ourselves personally and also on this show, and we hope that you will join us on a future episode, but that brings us to a close 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 standards 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. For Matt, Rachel, and I, thank you so much for listening to our show today, and we'll see you next time.

Jon Quast has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Matt Frankel, CFP has positions in Amazon and Walt Disney. Rachel Warren has positions in Alphabet and Amazon. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Domino's Pizza, Microsoft, Nike, Qualcomm, Walmart, and Walt Disney. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.