Rocket Lab Shakes Up Satellite Communications

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

• Comcast spins off NBCUniversal.
• Whether NBCUniversal is an attractive takeover target.
• Rocket Lab’s $8 billion acquisition.
• Selling stocks you love to buy stocks you love more.

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 29, 2026.

Jon Quast: Breakups, buyouts and selling stocks, all this and more on today's Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. Welcome to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. I'm Jon Quast, and I'm joined today by foolish contributors Matt Frankel and Rachel Warren. Today, we're talking about a shake-up in outer space, as well as taking a listener question about selling stocks.

But first, we’ve got to talk about Comcast because it's breaking up. Now, in January, it already spun off its TV channels and some Internet properties, CNBC, golf, Rotten Tomatoes. It spun those off into Versant Media Group, Ticker symbol VSNT, but now Comcast is coming back here for Round 2, announcing it will spin off NBCUniversal, which contains a lot more than just the channel NBC. Now, as I zoom out here, Comcast stock down about 30% over the past year prior to this announcement, and one announcement here, sending the stock up 20% pre-market, up about 10% now. The market is giving it roughly $10-15 billion more in market cap just for announcing this move, and that is an absolutely massive swing. Were investors really punishing this stock so much because it was a conglomerate?

Matt Frankel: Well, yes, the new company will include all the entertainment and broadcasting assets, including the NBC Network, as you mentioned, that's still part of it, Telemundo, the Peacock service. It also includes the Universal Film and TV studios, the Universal theme parks, and the Sky European business. The remaining Comcast will really just be the broadband and wireless services, which is a pretty big business. It has 65 million subscribers. There are a few reasons why investors might be cheering the news. As you correctly said, the stock was down about 30% over the past year, going into this with the so-called conglomerate discount hurting it, but not for the reasons that you might think. NBC Universal could be a lot more valuable as an entertainment content play, especially when it comes to being an acquisition target, and that's really the environment we're in right now. Remember when Warner Brothers Discovery planned to spin off its cable, TV, and studios business announced that, and then it became the trigger for a bidding war between Netflix, Paramount, which eventually got it, and a few others.

Today's surge represents investors pricing in a similar outcome here. It remains to be seen if it actually happens, but this could really be the next big consolidation play for the industry. Amazon and Apple are two examples of companies that could be interested just to name a couple of speculative names off the top of my head, but there are definitely others.

Rachel Warren: The primary driver of any shareholder value moving forward is the creation of two pure play entities that can be valued independently on their own merits. The remaining Comcast could potentially transform into a leaner, more profitable telecom giant focused on broadband infrastructure and wireless connectivity. That's the bullish thesis there. Obviously, without the financial drag of funding expensive streaming content, and then you can see how this new Comcast could redirect free cash flow directly towards share buybacks, dividend hikes, paying down corporate debt. I'll note, this is a tax-free spin-off, so current Comcast shareholders will receive shares of the new NBC Universal company without triggering an immediate tax liability. Comcast, for their part, they're keeping a 19.9% massive stake in the new media company and they intend to monetize that over the first year. Still a notable presence where that's concerned.

Jon Quast: Matt, I want to circle back to you here because it does sound like you're saying that a bigger player might want to acquire NBC Universal once it is spun out, and you mentioned Amazon and Apple specifically. Are you being serious here, or are you just daydreaming?

Matt Frankel: Well, I think that's fair to say. There are a lot of these content providers who are leaning into live content. They would love to expand the intellectual property and their streaming services and so on and so on. Now, there are some companies that would be unable to acquire NBC Universal, most likely, Disney is an example. There's a lot of complementary parts of the business, but they would run into a theme park monopoly problem, I think. They might as well just buy Orlando if that was the case. But for a company like Amazon, it would make a lot of sense. Think of what they would be getting. They'd be getting the rights to things like NBC's Olympic coverage, NFL Sunday night football. They're clearly pushing into live content, and the fact that they already own the MGM Studios, it could be a nice, smart addition to compete with other big streaming providers. Apple has been lagging in the content wars and has the cash to acquire something like this, rather than focusing too much of their attention on building it from scratch.

Jon Quast: Matt's giving us a bull case here, wherein NBC Universal is worth more on the public auction block than it was inside of Comcast. But let’s say that Amazon never does make a bid, and this company here, NBC Universal, just has to stand alone and compete. Does this company actually have what it takes to survive the streaming wars independently, or is it going to shake up the industry in some way, Rachel?

Rachel Warren: I don't see this as a player that shakes up the industry on its own. If you look at it on a standalone operational basis, NBC Universal faces the same brutal headwinds as any traditional media giant, from cord-cutting to the expense of streaming wars. But Wall Street's not really bidding the stock up because they expect NBC Universal to suddenly grow its way out of the media crisis. I think the excitement is the idea that this newly independent NBC Universal could be an incredibly attractive acquisition asset overnight. You think about how by stripping away Comcast's massive broadband infrastructure, the Roberts family has essentially turned an unbuyable telecom giant into a neatly packaged comprehensive acquisition target. I think that’s where the mindset is, cash-rich tech giants or media platforms that want a world-class theatrical engine like Universal Pictures, other iconic IP, global theme parks, and so on. They could bid directly on this media powerhouse without having to run the legacy telecom side. We will see. These are all predictions that we're baking, but I would not be surprised if there are quite a few tech giants or media platforms that are looking at the landscape with a great deal of curiosity and acquisitive interest than there were a few days ago.

Jon Quast: It looks like NBC Universal is either going to need to learn to compete on its own or it may be an attractive takeover target. Either way, we'll be watching, but speaking of attractive takeover targets, we've got a big one to talk about in the space race after the break. You're listening to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing.

ADVERTISEMENT: Head to the beach in Abercrombie's latest summer drop. New 100% linen shirts are perfect for breezy days by the coast. They're easy to layer and go well with our new sea-faded shorts. For days spent on the water, pair the ANF resort shirt with your favorite swimsuit. Outfit your summer with Abercrombie, in the app, online, and in stores.

Jon Quast: Welcome back to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. Let's move here from the spin-offs to acquisitions. Rocket Lab announcing this morning it's acquiring Iridium for $8 billion. This was a surprising move for me this morning. Iridium is a satellite communications company, not unlike StarLink from SpaceX. I think that investors tend to view Rocket Lab as SpaceX's little brother. The company is prone to doing big acquisitions, but this is a different level of big acquisition. This is not baby brother-level acquisition at $8 billion. Does this move signal something more aggressive to become a true Pepsi to SpaceX's Coke, Rachel?

Rachel Warren: Well, in the modern space economy, a launcher can no longer survive strictly on the low margins of launching rocket ships for third parties. To become a true peer to the likes of SpaceX, a company needs to own and operate the really lucrative satellite networks those rockets carry into orbit. By taking control of Iridium's active low Earth orbit fleet, it's globally coordinated L Band spectrum, very robust base of active subscribers, Rocket Lab could bypass years of capital drag, and this can transform that business from more of a launch utility into an end-to-end global satellite service entity. I think that is probably the vision that management has. It can also give Rocket Lab highly profitable recurring subscription cash flow it needs to fuel that long term growth. This is a very capital-intensive business, and as well to aggressively fund its upcoming medium lift Neutron rocket.

Now, moving forward, maybe there's this idea that Rocket Lab could achieve complete vertical integration by deploying and replenishing Iridium's future constellations using its own launch systems, and that way, they could capture those manufacturing and launch margins internally. SpaceX's Starlink focuses on high-bandwidth direct-to-consumer broadband Internet. Iridium corners the gold standard of safety-critical global voice data and Internet of Things applications. Not necessarily fighting head-to-head for residential Internet users. But I think Rocket Lab is trying to gain a foothold in those industrial maritime and defense infrastructure applications, and this can help it very much establish a resilient counterweight to SpaceX's orbital monopoly.

Jon Quast: Matt, what is Rocket Lab exactly getting here?

Matt Frankel: They're buying a few things here, and Rachel mentioned some of these. They have a network of 66 satellites in operation right now, about 2.5 million subscribers between them. It's a network really importantly that would cost years to build and billions of dollars, and it's really the time commitment that Rocket Lab doesn't need. There's a race to get there when it comes to controlling the space economy and waiting 10 years to build out a satellite network is not attractive thing. They're also getting 9 MHz of spectrum, which is a narrower bandwidth than SpaceX has for Starlink. Starlink is broadband, and this is narrowband. But it is a very important asset, and they're also buying profitability.

Rachel mentioned that Iridium is a profitable business. But that's really important here because Rocket Lab, I think their net loss was about $180 million last year. This gets them $100 million of profitability back, so it creates a better path to profitability. But I don't really see this as Rocket Lab trying to become the next SpaceX. Maybe I have an unpopular opinion on that. Iridium's network, it's more about reliable connectivity as opposed to broadband speeds. Think satellite phones, the safety type things, things that you have to have, say if you're in the middle of nowhere. It's not a market that SpaceX is really targeting. There's some competition here, like the direct to sell connectivity that StarLink and Rocket Lab Iridium are both trying to build out that essentially use the satellites as a fallback for when you don't have self service. But that's not the primary focus of what Iridium does, and I see this as being a different business competing in the global bandwidth spectrum, I guess.

Jon Quast: Well, I can't help but think that maybe Rocket Lab is overpaying here because at an $8 billion price tag, that's about nine times sales for Iridium and Iridium is growing at just a single digit rate. I don't know. It just seems like a high price to pay, Rachel.

Rachel Warren: A 9X top-line multiple is high. I won't argue with you there. It also translates this deal to roughly 16X EBITA multiple based on their $495 million in EBITA. But I will say, Iridium, they have got 57% operational EBITA margins, very predictable recurring cash flows that have been for a long time anchored by resilient government contracts. This does provide Rocket Lab with something of a financial cushion to fund that ongoing development of the Neutron rocket without constantly diluting shareholders, as well as hopefully minimizing some of the capital drag as they're building out their low Earth orbit network. Also note, Rocket Lab secured a $3.6 billion bridge loan commitments from Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo to back this $54 a share cash and stock deal. That's a little bit of added context for the parameters of this acquisition.

Jon Quast: Well, regardless of the price tag, I think that all of us agree that this is a massive move for Rocket Lab. We'll find out within a year or two whether it was visionary or reckless. But after the break, we're going to dip into the mailbag. You're listening to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing.

ADVERTISMENT: HBO Max is now on Prime Video. So many great stories one destination. Journey back to Westeros with the third season of House of the Dragon. Draw your sword. Don't miss the intense new season of Euphoria. What we didn't realize was how far we were willing to go. Follow Dr. Robbie through a gripping real time shift in the pit. It begins. You also get access to so many timeless shows from succession to the last of us. Subscription required T&Cs apply, 18+. HBO Max is used under license.

ADVERTISMENT: So you are a professional plumber, yes. But do you have professional website? Not so much. Try AIONOS. It's turbocharged AI Power works super fast to bring your Wordpress website to life and deliver top of the draw results every time, and it's clever auto updates do all the hard work of maintaining your site so you can get on with maintaining your business. How's that? Nice. Try AIONOS, your digital partner at aionos.co.uk.

Jon Quast: Welcome back to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. One quick note, we want to make you a part of the conversation. If you have a stock or investing question for Matt, Rachel, or myself, anyone on the show, really, you can email us at podcast@fool.com, and we'll take that question if it is a good one, if it is short, and if it is Foolish, send those in to podcast@fool.com. We are indeed taking a question from the mailbag here today.

The question reads like this. I've been following foolish investment principles for about eight years. My only regret is that I didn't find Motley Fool sooner. I am fully invested and like all my stocks. Here is the question. How do I pick which investments to sell in order to invest in new Foolish recommended stocks, and when I retire in a few years, how do I pick stocks to sell for income? Not signed D Money. I like that name. I wanted to point out here before I throw this question to Matt and Rachel. I want to point out one of the things I love about The Motley Fool Investment philosophy is that it encourages investing new money regularly into the stock market. I know that that's not always a luxury that listeners have or investors have, but one of the benefits of that, especially in this context where D Money says, I like all my stocks. Sometimes that's the case. Sometimes you're invested in things that you do like and you don't want to sell.

But there are other things you'd like to buy as well. That's the beauty of investing new money regularly, if that's an option. I don't have to make that choice between, do I sell this one or keep this one? I'm just continuing to invest new money for new ideas, but that caveat out of the way with The Motley Fool Investment philosophy, not advice, but just general philosophy that we're giving there. I'm going to throw this to Matt first. Matt, what do you think about this question from D Money?

Matt Frankel: There's two separate parts there, there's how do I free up capital to buy new stocks that I'm interested in, and how do I free up capital when I'm retired? I'm not going to buy other stocks, but I just need the money to live on. Two different questions there. The first one is a difficult question, mainly because the listener has done a lot right. Being fully invested in a portfolio of stocks that you truly believe in is like the ongoing goal of long-term investing. There are a few ways you can think about it. Even though you like all your stocks, ask yourself the question about each one of these. Well, two questions. No. 1, would I buy the stock today at the current price if I didn't already own it? No. 2, do I see myself continuing to build out this position in the future? Those are the two questions I ask to determine my conviction level in all the stocks I own. From there, you can make a list of, say, your 10 highest conviction stocks. Those are off the table to sell, but you can also identify your lower conviction positions, which can become sell candidates, either in full or partially, when you want to act on a particular recommendation. There are certainly other things to consider there, such as the tax consequences if you're selling a stock that you own that has gone up in value a lot.

But as far as selling stocks for income in retirement, here's my general framework, and this is coming from someone who's probably two decades away from retirement, but I'm a certified financial planner, and I've dealt with this with clients before. First, aim to get to retirement with 2-3 years of expenses in either cash or similar assets, like money market funds, high yield savings accounts, short-term treasuries, things to that effect, that eliminates the need to sell any stocks immediately if you don't want to, which that could be worth its weight in gold if you retire and then the market crashes. You don't have to sell your stocks into a bad market. Then you have two buckets from your portfolio. You have your more conservative stocks. These are dividend stocks like your compounders. Berkshire Hathaway is one I would put in this basket. Those make the best choices to gradually tap into for cash when needed. There are stocks that are generally lower volatility. You don't have to really worry about the long-term holding period. Then you can use that other bucket of stocks, which are your long-term growth holdings for that targeted five-plus-year hold, which is really a cornerstone of foolish investing. That's how I think of gradually drawing down your portfolio in retirement, but just my opinion.

Rachel Warren: Well, to our listener, huge congratulations on building a portfolio of businesses that you love. We've talked about this. Ideally, we're buying fresh recommendations for a portfolio with new cash so that we can leave our winners compounding uninterrupted. But this isn't always realistic. Sometimes, where our investing capital is maxed out, or obviously, if you're transitioning into retirement, you have to work with the portfolio you have. I'll talk a little bit about what my mindset has been, someone that is still a bit far off for retire, so to speak, but very much is constantly evaluating my portfolio and looking at ways to grow my winners and to trim those that I don't want to keep in my portfolio anymore.

For me, looking at my biggest winners, if I think that a company has grown so much that say, now it makes up 15-20% of my total portfolio composition. In my view, that really exposes one to massive single stock risk. Sometimes shaving off just a tiny sliver of that outsized position can be a good way to fund new diversified business. That can be a really healthy way to manage your risk without abandoning the company and the position entirely. I think as well, what I'm looking at whether I want to trim a position in my portfolio, I also evaluate the underlying reasons that I bought the stock. Is the management team still executing? Is the competitive moat what it was or has it degraded? If a business has perhaps stalled, if some of those growth tail winds have turned into headwinds, that for me is usually a clear candid to trim, even if I still really like the business, and that can also yield some fresh capital that I can put back into the market and into growing my portfolio.

Jon Quast: I couldn't agree more with that. To know when to sell, you first have to know why you bought and then evaluate off of that. But thank you to Matt and Rachel. That's all the time we have for 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 myself, thank you so much for listening to our show today, and we'll see you again in the next episode.

Wells Fargo is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Jon Quast has positions in PepsiCo. Matt Frankel, CFP® has positions in Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and Walt Disney. Rachel Warren has positions in Amazon and Apple. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Netflix, Rocket Lab, Walt Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Motley Fool recommends Comcast and Versant Media Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.