When the Government Becomes Your Co-Investor

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

• Forgent Power Solutions earnings and outlook.
• The administration's active role in business deals.
• Mailbag: How to deal with volatility.

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 Sept. 15, 2026.

Tyler Crowe: The government as an investing partner? Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing starts now. Welcome to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. I'm your host, Tyler Crowe, and today I'm joined by longtime Fool contributors Matt Frankel and Lou Whiteman. We are going to do our best to talk about investing with the government getting involved more in companies recently, without touching too many political rails here. We're trying to do this as much as an A political. We are investors, we are trying to invest. The reality is the government is getting more involved in companies. We're also going to hit the mailbag.

But first, we're going to start with some off-calendar earnings. I guess you could say, Forgent Power Solutions. They're actually a frequent recommendation in several Hidden Gem services here at The Motley Fool. Shares are up about 10% after they reported their fiscal fourth quarter and full 2026 results. Company exceeded both Wall Street and its own expectations, actually, and swung into profitability and, frankly, put up numbers that aren't really commensurate with what most people would say is an electrical equipment manufacturer making things like switch gears and circuit breakers and stuff like that. I mean, there were a lot of numbers that stood out to me, and we can get into those. But guys, what stood out to you the most?

Lou Whiteman: Well, take it just the simple ones, the top and bottom line beat with a guidance boost, and that's what's been missing in a lot of earnings reports this season. You're right. We're done this season. But the theme for now was, things are fine, but we don't know about the future. Forgent seems really, really confident about the future. The guidance part stands out because for all these picks and shovel companies, capacity, how much you grow from here, is a real issue. Well, they can grow from here. They're forecasting 75% year-over-year growth in fiscal ‘27, which has started. That's just at the midpoint. Tyler, I also like to see that the EPS guidance was boosted because they did a secondary back in June. Some of it was just selling existing shares, the private equity owners, but some of it was new shares they were adding to the denominator. If they can earn more per share than expected at a time when they are growing the number of shares, that's a real good sign that the company is really, dare I say it, firing on all cylinders.

Matt Frankel: I mean, the beaten raise was definitely the headline, but to me, that isn't the biggest story. To me, it is the $1.5 billion in bookings Forgent added in the second quarter. That is up 375% year over year. I feel like with some of these AI trades, those numbers just get so big that, how do you put them in context? But it represents a book-to-bill ratio of 3.3, meaning that Forgents bookings are 3.3 times its revenue that it's reporting. The company's backlog is now over $3 billion. That's up 53% sequentially. The margin improvement was impressive. Most switchgear and transformer companies that are comparable to Forgent report adjusted EBITDA margins in the upper teens. Forgent reported a little over 24%, and they’re spending money to add capacity; it seems like it’s for good reason.

Tyler Crowe: Yeah, one of the things that stuck out to me is we have a company that was relatively unprofitable. It's been growing at rather impressive rates. Based on their forecast for the upcoming fiscal year, which will be basically from now until mid-September next year, they're expecting like 1.25-1.4 or $1.40, excuse me, in earnings per share for fiscal 2027, which just doing a quick back of the math in my head, it's somewhere around 25/26 times forward earnings, a company growing this fast that seems relatively reasonable and it gets almost, to me, is almost like a little bit of a huh. That's relatively cheap, if it might be some sort of cyclical aspect to it. I think there's a lot of questions that come from these earnings presentations, too, especially when it comes to these picks and shovels play because we try to dig into, what does it mean? How far has the AI trade gone, I guess, if you will, the picks and shovels trade? Guys, what were some of the unanswered questions that you had coming out of this, or what are you going to be looking for more specifically?

Lou Whiteman: Well, they still need to execute. The good news is that they do see room for growth, but can that capacity expand fast enough to convert that massive backlog into revenue? They still have the same supply chain risks as everyone else. They have a lot of subcontractors that they need to make sure stay in shape. Look, the backlog is great, but delivering on that backlog is not a given, so I think that's the biggest thing for investors to watch.

Matt Frankel: Most of the unanswered questions to me have to do with the backlog. In addition to what Lou just said, where did that $1.5 billion in added backlog come from? We don't know. If it's just one or two hyperscalers, it's a completely different risk factor than if it was spread amongst a dozen different customers. That's a big unanswered question to me is: How much of this backlog? How much of it is really creating a customer concentration risk?

Tyler Crowe: Customer concentration has obviously been something we've been talking a lot about with a lot of these companies because, I mean, there are when it comes to building out AI infrastructure, and I don't know, maybe we need a gong or some sort of sound effect every single time we say that these days. There's just this assumption. It's like, Well, yeah, you've got the four or five hyper scalars, and there's some private developers as well, but it's all going to come down to just a small handful of customers here. Like you said, if there's any change in those plans, it could be a big thing.

For me, here, it was something I found a little bit perplexing, and it’s taking a step back and looking not just at Forgent specifically, but the talk we’ve been having about AI. It's guidance for the year’s success. Suggesting growth that's accelerating at a time when we're hearing all these calls at the same time for slower AI development and political resistance to data center development, and we're starting to see, I wouldn't say moratoriums, but certainly projects are getting delayed as a result. How do we square that circle of a business that seems to be saying, No, all good, all full steam ahead, I guess, if you will, versus what we're seeing play out in the media or in the news cycle when it comes to these developments.

Lou Whiteman: Well, for one, I haven't seen anyone suggest that they don't want to continue building. I think the orders are still coming in. We'll see maybe that affects fulfillment. But the other side here, too, is that we had a massive need for grid modernization, even before everyone was talking about data centers all the time. Yes, data centers need a lot of transformers, a lot of switch gears, but utilities, builders, they need this stuff too. There was a real lack of supply coming out of the pandemic that was the reason Fortune was created, not because of data centers, but because all of this demand was out there. This is a company definitely benefited from the AI push, but I don't think they're reliant on it. I think the big investor takeaway here is this company is more than just a data center pick and shovel play. They are fulfilling a need that is out there in the broader economy as well.

Matt Frankel: Yeah, I mean, and let's unpack what's going on with their AI business just a little bit. The orders that they added to their backlog, the second quarter were likely projects that were greenlit or had capital allocated to 6-18 months ago, for the most part. These were capex decisions that were made for the most part in 2025. Even Forgent’s guidance is based on its current backlog for the most part. It's not really a live indicator of sentiment among the industry. Again, I'm just talking AI, absolutely right that grid modernization is a big need. Forgent, it's in a very strong position in the AI trade. Is that the parts that it supplies are currently the big constraint in the industry? When you are the constraint, not the demand, you're getting your customers ordering earlier and kind of more often than they would just to hold slots. Plus, as Lou said, Forgent sells to utilities, other industrials. It's not just an AI trade. I will be watching that book-to-bill ratio I mentioned over the coming quarters. It can't stay at 3.3 forever. That's just not practical. That exponential growth of a backlog will get out of control real quick. But as long as it's well above one, the growth story is still in really good shape.

Tyler Crowe: To Lou's point, I think I remember it was like an odd lots episode, maybe, like 3.5 years ago, maybe further back than that now, where they interviewed, I think it was actually a developer and an electrician talking about, like, we can't get switch gears. They were just building, I think, like, Chipotles and other, like, fast casual restaurants. It is a story of just a raw shortage of these things overall, and not necessarily just an AI data center story. Coming up after the break, we're going to delve into the theme, that is the government being an investor alongside you.

ADVERTISEMENT: You just found out that your sales team is at risk of missing quota. Don't panic. Just ask Rippling AI. Since it's built on your real time people and business data, Rippling AI can pull metrics from rippling and Salesforce into a meeting ready dashboard showing quota attainment, headcount plan, and monthly revenue to quota by region. In seconds, you'll see exactly what's behind your quota risk and fix it before it's missed. Question answered, action taken, crisis averted. You have critical business questions that need answers, don't just file a ticket and wait weeks for an outdated report. Describe what you need and have Rippling AI build it instantly from your live people and business data, whether it's a dashboard with detailed charts or automated workflows with the right triggers, conditions, and approvals. Ready to rule your business, head to rippling.ai/fool to get the only AI built to give you full visibility and take complex actions across your entire organization. That's rippling.ai/fool. Sign up for exclusive access today, rippling.ai/fool.

ADVERTISEMENT: The season's officially changing, and Abercrombie’s autumn drop has everything you'll need. Their heritage heavyweight collection is a staple, especially in their archive-quality fabrics. Pair it with the baggy trousers, and your fit is set, and you can't forget their iconic denim. It's made for everyday plans. Find your autumn capsule at Abercrombie, shop in the app, online, and in stores.

Tyler Crowe: Shares of Elmet Group, a small specialty materials company that does aerospace and defense components manufacturing as well. The stock rose 32% yesterday after the company announced it planned to deploy a $450 million investment from the U.S. Department of War to build, in the company's words, a more secure, vertically integrated supply chain. Now, even after this move, this is a company with a $650 million market cap, so this is a monumental amount of money. This is a recurring theme we're seeing here is investing becoming more and more involved with the government. Before we get into the broader topics here, but Lou, you wanted to bring this one up because you are actually an investor in Elmet Group. We have some recommendations in the Motley Fool related to this company. Before we step back here, when you look at ELMET Group, is this a thesis changer, or is this what was expected?

Lou Whiteman: Yeah, this is funny to me because we normally talk about you buy the rumor, sell the news, and it feels like it worked the other way this time. The reason that Motley Fool members are benefiting from that 32% jump. The reason we were interested in this company was is that this is exactly what we thought Elmet was going to do. Elmet went public earlier this year with this in mind, maybe not this exact deal, but this is a company that's been around for decades and pretty well run that kind of read the geopolitical tea leaves and said, Well, we want a currency to take advantage of opportunities, so let's go public. Yes, it's a needle mover. Yes, this is very important for this company, but I'm surprised that the market is surprised. To me, again, the whole reason they went public, the whole reason that this was an interesting investment was that that was the start of a journey that was going to end up at some growing relationship with the DOD. We just finally saw what that looks like yesterday and the market.

Tyler Crowe: Feel like this is one of those topics where if we come at the end and everyone's angry at us, I think we've probably done our job because we're trying to stay as apolitical as possible, but this is a little bit of a third rail one where we have seen government participation in companies and in companies investment plans too. In ways I can't remember seeing in recent history. I think it would be a little disingenuous to say that this is just purely a Trump administration phenomenon, though the Biden administration used several major funding mechanisms we had, like the CHIPS Act, the Inflation Reduction Act. These were all things that were deliberate in like giving money to corporations to push certain government interests, whether it be in the Biden administration's case, we could say green energy and domestic manufacturing. In this case, we’ve seen an emphasis on, we’ll call it, defense supply chains and critical minerals, critical materials, critical manufacturing that, from a national security perspective, has been a little bit more of the flavor of the month here with the Trump administration.

There's been a difference in the way that it's financed too, where Biden administration was mostly form of grants or favorable financing rates in the form of debt, where this time around, we've seen the Trump administration taking an active stake in equity as well. We haven't really seen this specific type of involvement before in the government. My question to you two is whether this is just likely to go away? Is this just, like I said, a Trump administration phenomenon specifically on taking equity in this specific way they're doing it? Or have we perhaps crossed some Rubicon here and that we can expect this type of co-investment from future administrations on both sides of the aisles? Like, how might a permanent change in the investment thesis for companies be with we could almost call it permanent government involvement.

Matt Frankel: Yeah, to put some numbers behind it, the Intel deal is the one that got the big headlines, but we've seen about 30 different equity or what I would call equity transactions, preferred stock or something like that, since the middle of last year. There's Intel, MP Materials, and a bunch of other rare Earth companies, and several others. There's a whole long list. You're right, the differences are mostly in the structure of the deals rather than the government participating at all. But there are reasons to believe that this is a permanent shift and there are some reasons to believe that this might slow down or at least narrow. On one hand, there's the national security angle. That's the Trump administration's reason for getting into the rare Earth business, for getting an intel stake. China's getting ahead in the AI race as a threat. China and other countries controlling parts of the chipmaking supply chain, for example, those are legitimate national security concerns, and there's a solid argument to be made that equity deals like the ones we're seeing are more fair to taxpayers than providing grants to companies and things to that effect, and it's also worth noting that we're not the first to do this.

Other countries, including several of our European allies have taken equity stakes in businesses in their countries for decades. There's some political opposition, mainly when it comes to potential conflicts of interest. It's not necessarily that the government's taking a stake. The government is negotiating contracts with companies that it owns a part of. There are some legitimate concerns there as well. Like you said, we're not trying to be political here. We're telling both sides. Long term, my feeling is that this will narrow into a very specific national security and defense focus, but not really spread any further. For the investments, it depends on the specific deal and the terms of those deals, but it's important not to assume that a business will be a winner just because the government took a stake. In other countries that hasn't always been the case, and it's not likely to always be the case here.

Lou Whiteman: See, I don't think this is political third rail at all, because I think there's actually a lot more consensus and a lot more willingness on both sides of the aisle to do this. I think there always has been. What has changed, if anything, has changed, is the appetite of companies, and some of that is the new ways we're designing these. But look, you go back to 1970s, early 1970s, maybe it's late ‘60s. The government, I think took a stake in Lockheed or provided funding to Lockheed. You go through Conrail, you go through the 2008 GM bankruptcies. This has always been something that the government only did in times of distress, and mostly because that was the only time the companies wanted to play ball. It wasn't the governments that was tepid about it. Yes, we have this new dynamic with national securities and excuse, and we have more openness from the government to be more creative with equity and preferred and all of this. I think it continues. I don't think it goes as far, I think there are natural limits to it, but I definitely don't think this is a one administration thing. I think that there is more of a willingness from both government and corporations to find ways to work together to advance common goods. I do think there's been a shift here, but I don't think it's a dramatic political shift. I think it's just a shift in the way I think companies view government assistance or government partnerships.

Tyler Crowe: I want to leave it at this, and you guys are more than welcome to respond to this. If not, we can move. But to mass point of European countries have been doing this. I lived in France for a while, so I'm just going to use France as an example, the Cues de Pago which is basically the investment vehicle that you're talking about where they take stakes in companies. This is like, similar to the Social Security Administration that we have where instead of just owning treasuries, they are able to take out stakes in corporations and some of them are publicly graded.

One of the things I do find fascinating about this, though, is that companies that tend to be owned have significant ownership stake from the pension systems and these national interest is from an invest like us thinking about investments, there aren't necessarily what we consider killer investments. They tend to pay high dividends. There's not a heck of a lot of growth because if your largest stakeholder is a pension, they're looking for reliable income and maybe a little bit more upside than just bonds. It would be something I think worth watching is that when government entities take significant stakes in businesses, they aren't necessarily looking to maximize the return on this investment.

They're doing it for slightly different reasons. In a lot of these cases, they're looking to build out supply chains for critical minerals or critical manufacturing. The government may not necessarily be as adamant that those investments meet certain investing hurdles. They'll be like, well, we need it anyways, and if it's not a high rate of return, we're going to vote that you do it anyways. There is part of me that says, Yeah, this is a thing But if I'm an investor, I may be excited about it now because it's like, yeah, great injection of cash, government's a good partner, they pay a lot of money. But if they start having a stake and a say in what the businesses do in terms of capital allocation, it could change the investing profile of these businesses.

Lou Whiteman: Yes, it could. I mean, there's all dangers. The other danger too is, and if you look at Airbus in the 70s where they couldn't streamline because streamline, they were owned by four different governments and if you close a plant in any one of them, unless you're going to close a plant in all four, it just doesn't work. But here's the thing again, not all deals are the same, and I do think there is a more this is why I like companies actually being proactive and getting involved. Let's look at one real quick, the L3 Harris deal with government. Basically, what was going on there is L3 Harris is involved in a lot of things. One of them is making the engines that go into munitions. The government needs them to ramp up munitions. L3 Harris was looking at that, like, that's great, but that's also the lowest margin part of my business. Why do I want to invest my capital in adding capacity there?

The deal was, well, spin that out, we'll provide capital. But we, the government will provide capital to build that, to build the capacity, and that frees up your capital to invest elsewhere. That was a win win way to go about it. I think you do need to judge these on an individual basis, but I don't think it's as simple as to say it's a one size all approach like the 70s. I think that I'm glad to see it happening in one off ways where companies are negotiating and trying to figure out what the government needs and how they can make it work for them. I'm being a little Pollyannaish, Tyler, but I do think there's a way to make this work, at least in on paper.

Matt Frankel: Well, in the case of Intel, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, the government didn't take voting rights. The real concern is negotiating contracts and things like that. But Tyler brought up an interesting point when he mentioned Social Security because there's been it's common knowledge Social Security is going to run out of money within ten years if nothing's done. There are like 50 different things that could be done, but one of them especially in the current political environment they're pushing for is investing the Social Security's reserves a little bit more efficiently than just buying treasuries, which is essentially what it's in right now and generating 3.5% returns.

Instead, invest in the entire S&P, give up voting rights, things like that. But put money in the S&P 500, you'd really need a big investment vehicle. There's about $2 trillion in reserves in Social Security. Taking a $10 billion stake in Intel wouldn't even move the needle. But there's a lot of ways they could go with that that it would be more of a passive and like you said, just not a swing for the fences investment. But a goal of delivering seven or 8% annualized returns on that money instead of 3-4% and that would make a very big difference. There are a lot of ways that this could go, and I'm not saying that that wouldn't happen, but in terms of the government taking direct stakes in businesses that it does business with, I think it's going to remain narrow.

Tyler Crowe: Well, one of the themes we have had on some shows we've seen here is what the long swing of the pendulum. We've been talking about reconsolidation after everything's spinning off from the 80s on. Now we're talking about getting government involved again, much like in the 1970s versus basically spending the 80s, 90s, 2000s of privatization. As always, everything that is old is new again. Coming up after the break, we'll hit the mailbag.

ADVERTISEMENT: The season's officially changing, and Abercrombie's autumn drop has everything you'll need. Their heritage heavyweight collection is a staple, especially in their archive quality fabrics. Pair it with the baggy trouser and your fit is set, and you can't forget their iconic denim. It's made for everyday plans. Find your autumn capsule at Abercrombie, shop in the app online and in stores. Innovation has always kept the world moving forward, but it also comes with risk. In a world that needs new energy solutions, AXA Excel is facing into risk. As a leading global insurer, we partner with businesses, breaking down barriers to accelerate the energy transition.

ADVERTISEMENT: AXA Excel, facing into risk for a future to be imagined. This advertisement doesn't constitute an offer or solicitation nor a description of any products or services of AX or Excel.

Tyler Crowe: Hey, a quick reminder if you want to get an email into us to ask a question on air, email us at podcast at fool.com. That's podcast with an S. I've also left the email in the show description so you can have it there. Today's question comes from Helen C. Question is, it seems more and more stocks have larger daily movements up or down 10% or more. How do you as an investor state, disciplined and focused on the longer term versus the short term swing trade? To Helen's point, yes, we have seen a lot more of this. It is for those who have been we've gotten a lot of questions about this and for those of you who feel like, Man, it does seem like it's a lot more. It has been a lot more. This past quarter has been much more volatile in terms of single-day movements. For those of you who are feeling the anxiety of this, you're not alone here. Guys, as investors, how do you stay disciplined on this sort of stuff?

Lou Whiteman: I might be the weird one here, but the larger the swings, it makes it easier for me to ignore. It almost becomes comic or hard to get too focused on. That tends to calm my paranoia. It's those real downturns. It's when things just slowly trickle down every day for month after month. That's harder for me to manage. I actually think this creates opportunities, too, both opportunities maybe to sell lower conviction holdings if they spike up or also maybe buying opportunities when Wall Street is not focused. We just talked about Elmet earlier. The stock's only been public since early spring. It has traded in a range $12-$25 in a matter of months with no change to the thesis. There's got to be opportunities and swings like that.

Matt Frankel: Lou makes some really good points there, and it used to be that a 5% swing up or down in a stock I own was really a major cause for further investigation. Now, sometimes I don't even notice when they're happening, especially in the AI adjacent stocks like some of the ones we talked about. There are several potential explanations for why moves have been larger these days. The general idea, the big theme, is that more of the market's value right now is based on future growth than in years past. When you think of the Nvidias when you think of the hyperscalers, when you think of all the AI trades, so small changes to those growth assumptions can have very big impacts on stocks prices, even though the general thesis stays the same.

Just keep in mind, a 10% move up or down in a day or two doesn't usually mean that the business is 10% more or less valuable unless there is thesis-changing news accompanying it. If a 10% position makes you want to head for the exits, it's a good time to reevaluate your position sizing. Always know your investment thesis going into a stock purchase, especially two or three specific things that would make you throw in the towel, not whether or not the stock price moved. To be fair, it's probably a good thing that I look at my portfolio movers a lot less than I used to, and same with Lou, I mean, there's a lot of research out there that suggests that the more often you check your stocks, the worse your decision-making is going to be.

Tyler Crowe: I have a feeling that this level of volatility will eventually go down, and I think for all of us that have gone through it, are going to come back and almost be a little bit bored, where it's like, Oh, man, this thing only moved 2% in a day. But we'll see. All these things kind of come and go with time.

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 advertisements. Advertisements or sponsored content provide for informational purposes only. See our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show nots. Thanks to our producer Dan Boyd and the rest of The Motley Fool team. For Matt, Lou, and myself, thanks for listening, and we'll chat again soon.

Lou Whiteman has positions in Elmet Group, L3Harris Technologies, and Lockheed Martin. Matt Frankel, CFP® has positions in Forgent Power Solutions and General Motors. Tyler Crowe has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Chipotle Mexican Grill, Elmet Group, Forgent Power Solutions, Intel, L3Harris Technologies, Lockheed Martin, MP Materials, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends General Motors and recommends the following options: short September 2026 $35 calls on Chipotle Mexican Grill. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.