在2026年9月16日的“莫特利傻瓜隐藏宝石投资”（Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing）节目中，主持人泰勒·克劳（Tyler Crowe）与撰稿人马特·弗兰克尔（Matt Frankel）和卢·怀特曼（Lou Whiteman）一同讨论了近期公司财报、政府作为投资伙伴日益深入的参与以及市场波动性。
播客首先分析了福根特电力解决方案（Forgent Power Solutions）的2026财年第四季度和全年业绩。这家以开关设备和断路器闻名的电气设备制造商，在业绩超出华尔街和自身预期并扭亏为盈后，股价上涨了10%。卢·怀特曼强调了其营收和利润均超预期，并上调了业绩指引，指出福根特对未来充满信心，预计2027财年将实现75%的同比增长。他还指出，尽管6月份进行了二次发行增加了股本数量，但每股收益指引仍得到上调。马特·弗兰克尔强调了该公司第二季度新增的15亿美元惊人订单额，同比增长375%，使得订单出货比达到3.3，积压订单超过30亿美元（环比增长53%）。该公司还报告了超过24%的强劲调整后息税折旧摊销前利润率。克劳指出，预计2027财年每股收益为1.25至1.40美元，这意味着远期市盈率为25-26倍，他认为这对于一家快速增长的公司来说“相对合理”。
主持人随后讨论了关于福根特的一些未解答问题。卢质疑该公司是否有能力足够快地执行并扩大产能，以消化其庞大的积压订单，并提到了供应链风险。马特则关注客户集中度，询问这15亿美元的积压订单是来自一两个超大规模数据中心运营商，还是分散在众多客户之间。克劳感到困惑的是，福根特加速增长的指引与呼吁放缓人工智能发展和对数据中心项目的政治阻力形成了对比。卢澄清说，虽然人工智能对福根特有利，但该公司也满足了更广泛的电网现代化需求，使其不仅仅是一个人工智能淘金铲策略。马特补充说，当前的订单可能反映了6-18个月前的资本支出决策，而福根特在供应受限部件方面的作用意味着客户正在提前下单。
主要部分深入探讨了政府作为投资伙伴的角色，这始于埃尔梅特集团（Elmet Group）在宣布获得美国战争部（U.S. Department of War）4.5亿美元投资后，股价飙升32%。埃尔梅特的投资者卢·怀特曼评论说，市场的惊讶是没有根据的，因为埃尔梅特今年早些时候的公开发行就预料到了这种政府合作。克劳观察到政府对公司投资是一个 recurring 主题，并指出拜登政府（通过《芯片法案》和IRA提供赠款、优惠债务融资）与特朗普政府（强调国防供应链和关键矿产，通常涉及直接股权投资）的方法有所不同。
讨论探讨了这一趋势是特朗普政府的暂时现象，还是永久性转变。马特·弗兰克尔引用了自2025年中期以来约30笔股权类交易，包括英特尔（Intel）和MP材料（MP Materials）。他认为这是一个永久性转变，原因包括国家安全考量（例如，中国的人工智能进展、芯片供应链的控制）以及股权交易对纳税人比赠款更公平的论点。他还指出，欧洲盟友长期以来一直持有国内企业的股权。然而，他承认由于潜在的利益冲突存在政治反对意见。弗兰克尔预测这一趋势将缩小到国家安全和国防领域，但也警告说，政府的参与并不能保证是一项成功的投资。卢·怀特曼不同意这是一种“政治禁区”的说法，认为其两党共识比人们想象的要多。他认为公司的胃口已经改变，并引用了历史上政府在困境时期的干预（洛克希德、联合铁路、通用汽车），暗示政府和企业都有了新的合作意愿。
泰勒·克劳提出，政府实体，如法国的Caisse des Pagnes，通常优先考虑战略目标（例如，建立供应链），而非最大化投资回报，这可能导致企业股息高但增长有限。卢以L3哈里斯（L3 Harris）的交易为例反驳，称其为双赢，政府为低利润的弹药生产能力提供了资金，从而使L3哈里斯能够投资其他领域。马特补充说，在英特尔的案例中，政府没有获得表决权，并讨论了社会保障储备金可以更有效地投资于更广泛的市场以获得更好回报的潜力，而不是仅仅投资于国债。
最后，邮件环节回答了海伦·C（Helen C.）关于股票波动性增加（每日波动10%以上）以及投资者如何保持纪律的问题。卢·怀特曼发现更大的波动更容易被忽视，甚至有些滑稽，并将其视为出售低信心持股或逢低买入的机会。马特·弗兰克尔将波动性增加归因于市场价值更多地基于未来增长，这意味着增长假设的微小变化会产生巨大影响。他建议，除非有改变投资论点的消息，否则10%的波动不一定意味着商业价值发生10%的变化。他建议，如果波动性引起焦虑，应重新评估头寸规模，始终了解自己的投资论点，并避免频繁检查投资组合，因为研究表明这会恶化决策。
On the September 16, 2026, episode of Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing, host Tyler Crowe, joined by contributors Matt Frankel and Lou Whiteman, discussed recent company earnings, the increasing involvement of government as an investing partner, and market volatility.
The podcast began with an analysis of Forgent Power Solutions' fiscal fourth-quarter and full 2026 results. The electrical equipment manufacturer, known for switchgears and circuit breakers, saw its shares rise 10% after exceeding Wall Street and its own expectations, swinging into profitability. Lou Whiteman highlighted the top and bottom-line beat combined with a guidance boost, noting Forgent's confidence in the future, forecasting 75% year-over-year growth in fiscal 2027. He also pointed out the boosted EPS guidance despite a secondary offering in June that increased share count. Matt Frankel emphasized the impressive $1.5 billion in bookings added in the second quarter, a 375% year-over-year increase, resulting in a 3.3 book-to-bill ratio and a backlog exceeding $3 billion (up 53% sequentially). The company also reported strong adjusted EBITDA margins of over 24%. Crowe noted the projected fiscal 2027 EPS of $1.25 to $1.40, suggesting a forward P/E of 25-26, which he considered "relatively reasonable" for a fast-growing company.
The hosts then discussed unanswered questions regarding Forgent. Lou questioned the company's ability to execute and expand capacity fast enough to convert its massive backlog, citing supply chain risks. Matt focused on customer concentration, asking whether the $1.5 billion backlog came from one or two hyperscalers or was spread among many customers. Crowe found it perplexing that Forgent's accelerating growth guidance contrasted with calls for slower AI development and political resistance to data center projects. Lou clarified that while AI benefits Forgent, the company also addresses a broader need for grid modernization, positioning it beyond just an AI pick-and-shovel play. Matt added that current orders likely reflect CapEx decisions made 6-18 months prior, and Forgent's role in supplying constrained parts means customers are ordering earlier.
The main segment delved into the government's role as an investing partner, sparked by Elmet Group's 32% stock surge after announcing a $450 million investment from the U.S. Department of War. Lou Whiteman, an investor in Elmet, remarked that the market's surprise was unwarranted, as Elmet's public offering earlier in the year was driven by an anticipation of such government partnerships. Crowe observed a recurring theme of government investment in companies, noting differences between the Biden administration's approach (grants, favorable debt financing via CHIPS Act, IRA) and the Trump administration's emphasis on defense supply chains and critical minerals, often involving direct equity stakes.
The discussion explored whether this trend is a temporary Trump administration phenomenon or a permanent shift. Matt Frankel cited around 30 equity-like transactions since mid-2025, including Intel and MP Materials. He argued for a permanent shift due to national security concerns (e.g., China's AI progress, control of chip supply chains) and the argument that equity deals are fairer to taxpayers than grants. He also noted that European allies have long taken equity stakes in domestic businesses. However, he acknowledged political opposition due to potential conflicts of interest. Frankel predicted the trend would narrow to national security and defense but cautioned that government involvement doesn't guarantee a winning investment. Lou Whiteman disagreed that it was a "political third rail," suggesting more bipartisan consensus than perceived. He argued that the appetite of companies has changed, citing historical government interventions during distress (Lockheed, Conrail, GM) and suggesting a new willingness from both government and corporations to collaborate.
Tyler Crowe raised the point that government entities, like France's Caisse des Pagnes, often prioritize strategic goals (e.g., building supply chains) over maximizing investment returns, potentially leading to businesses with high dividends but limited growth. Lou countered with the L3 Harris deal as an example of a win-win, where the government provided capital for low-margin munitions capacity, freeing L3 Harris to invest elsewhere. Matt added that in Intel's case, the government didn't take voting rights, and discussed the potential for Social Security reserves to be invested more efficiently in broader markets for better returns, rather than just in treasuries.
Finally, the mailbag addressed Helen C.'s question about increased stock volatility (10%+ daily swings) and how investors stay disciplined. Lou Whiteman found larger swings easier to ignore, almost comical, and saw them as opportunities for selling low-conviction holdings or buying dips. Matt Frankel attributed increased volatility to more of the market's value being based on future growth, meaning small changes in growth assumptions have big impacts. He advised that a 10% move doesn't necessarily mean a 10% change in business value unless there's thesis-changing news. He recommended reevaluating position sizing if volatility causes anxiety, always knowing one's investment thesis, and avoiding frequent portfolio checks, as research suggests it worsens decision-making.