By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on Micron's current valuation, citing cyclical memory market dynamics, potential supply overramp, and risks associated with long-term contracts and HBM demand sustainability.
Risk: Rapid capacity addition by competitors or shifts in HBM demand could lead to a faster-than-expected price collapse and margin compression for Micron.
Opportunity: None identified
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
In this episode of Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing, Motley Fool contributors Travis Hoium, Lou Whiteman, and Rachel Warren discuss:
- Micron’s trip to $1 trillion.
- Eli Lilly’s winning streak.
- Zscaler earnings.
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.
Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue »
A full transcript is below.
Before you buy stock in Micron Technology, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Micron Technology wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $443,191! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,258,838!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 941% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 211% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 6, 2026. *
This podcast was recorded on May 27, 2026.
Travis Hoium: We have a new member of the $1 trillion club. Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing starts now. Welcome to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. I'm Travis Hoium, joined today by Lou Whiteman and Rachel Warren. Guys, we have a new member of the trillion-dollar club. I believe there's now 14 companies that are worth over $1 trillion. This used to be a really big number, and now it seems like we get a new company every week. But, Lou, the company that we're talking about is Micron. Passed $1 trillion. I thought it was interesting. I look back at their financials five quarters ago; they were free cash flow negative. Now they are the hottest stock on the market. This is a cyclical industry. Typically, a cyclical industry, but this is now also one of the most valuable companies in the world. Is this time around different for Micron?
Lou Whiteman: Maybe. But let's pause for a second and look at what they've done. This was a $350 billion company on Jan. 1. Guys, it's still May. They've had a heck of a career in a couple of months. Gained 19% yesterday, basically on an analyst price target move. These are not normal times. That said, there is a there there. These AI models need memory. Micron has done a decent job shifting its business just away from this brutal commodity cycle and towards a higher-value product. They are special among memory. The note in question, the note that triggered this move over $1 trillion. That analyst sees long-term contracts in plays through 2029. If that's correct, and I do think they're directionally correct anyway, this is not a fluke. This is not a one-time thing. This is the market responding to real demand, and with AI, just the numbers are all huge, but the demand is huge.
Travis Hoium: Rachel, it does seem like this time is a little bit different. They are in a little bit higher value segment of the market, but there's also more players coming into the market. At the end of the day, memory is the thing where supply and demand ultimately matters, but free cash flow does, too, and it seems like they're going to have a really good year.
Rachel Warren: Absolutely. It's interesting to take a step back because historically, memory was this unglamorous brutal corner of tech. Companies like Micron, they made standard dram for PCs and smartphones, demand would dip, inventory piles up, prices crash. It was a really pure commodity cycle. There has been a lot that's changed over the last few years, and a lot of that goes back to high-bandwidth memory. Modern AI accelerators, you think of Nvidia's Black LOD chips, for example, they can't function without massive amounts of premium ultra-fast memory stacked directly next to the processor. Micron has pivoted from selling what was essentially in comparison, a cheap commodity to selling this very high margin, highly customized strategic asset. We're really seeing the physical reality of chip manufacturing is creating a massive bottleneck, as well and that actually benefits Micron. They’ve sold out their entire high-bandwidth memory chip supply for all of 2026 under fixed long-term contracts. The CEO is saying that they can only fulfill about 50% to 67% of current customer demand, and because building these semiconductor fabs takes years, new supply from their domestic expansions won't even hit the market until 2028. That is creating tremendous tailwinds for the business. I think we're seeing a lot of that enthusiasm bear out, certainly in that analyst note and of course, in the broader markets response.
Travis Hoium: Lou, I want to just touch on their valuation, too. This is one of those companies that you look at the stock in a very low price-to-earnings multiple, especially on a forward basis. It has been even in the low single digits, not just single digits, but four or five as recently as a few weeks ago. I think we're a little bit over that now. But historically, we're trying to give a little bit of historical context here. When these cyclical companies get to this point where everyone can see that they're incredibly cheap, that's also when things are really dangerous for investors, because the E part of the price-to-earnings multiple is typically starting to peak. What should we be looking for in these commodity markets? I know HBM isn't a commodity market today, but it's potentially commoditizing over the future. There are things that customers can do to use less HBM, to be less reliant on companies like Micron. The market will react at some point. What should we be looking for as investors?
Lou Whiteman: I feel like we go back to a conversation we had 24 hours ago about how something has to give here. Not everything can keep going straight up. Where does it give? I do think, when you're looking at this market right now, it's like, how do customers react? It may be that they can't for now. But that for now does a lot of work in that sentence. This whole thing, I could say with great confidence that it won't go on forever. What we're looking for is when will that turn? All we really know right now is not now. There is a sustainable there there through this year. You don't get rich calling a bubble. Nobody got rich declaring it a bubble. They got rich acting on it, and a lot of people didn't get rich because they acted at the wrong moment. Right now, I think this sustains until it doesn't, to go to say the obvious. Any sign of a pivot one way or the other, or more capacity coming online, I still think it's going to be the CFOs that some of the hyperscalars said, we're just going to tap our brakes ever so slightly. But I think we need to see a flinch. Until we do, the standoff just continues.
Travis Hoium: The long-term contracts sound really great. I followed the solar industry for a very long time. Those long-term contracts that was silicon and a little bit different silicon, but the same concept where you need to get this supply. You got to lock it up long term. That became really problematic for actually both sides. The companies that were signing those long-term deals signed them at really high prices that ultimately led to some of their downfall. If their customers are no longer buying those products, then that leads to problems for the manufacturers as well. I think you're right, Lou that this is not going to be the same forever for at least the foreseeable future. For the next few quarters, it seems like memory is going to be a business that's going gangbusters. We'll see when it turns. When we come back, we're going to turn our attention to the pharmaceutical space and what's going on with Eli Lilly. You're listening to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing.
Welcome back to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. We got some really potentially big news from Eli Lilly, who seems to be absolutely on fire right now. They introduced some trial results, some early trial results that could impact the future of heart disease. Rachel, this is a little bit over my head. Explain this trial and exactly what they're doing to me. Like I'm my 9-year-old son.
Rachel Warren: Sounds good. Eli Lilly, they just released Phase 1B trial data. We're in the early stages of testing at this point, on a gene-editing therapy, which is unnamed right now. It's just called VERVE-102. They acquired this asset last year from a company called Verve Therapeutics. They purchased Verve Therapeutics for about $1 billion. This is a candidate that the FDA has already fast-tracked, so that could mean that we see it developed and hit the market at a much faster pace. Phase 2 trials are scheduled to begin by the end of this year. But why is this candidate so notable? In this early trial, a Phase 1B trial, you had a single intravenous infusion that slashed LDL cholesterol. Remember, that's the bad cholesterol, slashed it by up to 62%. There was a durable reduction in bad cholesterol, lasting up to 18 months and counting in trial participants. The drug uses a very precise form of CRISPR technology called vivo-based editing. It basically uses these tiny nanoparticles that travel right into the patient's liver cells, and once there, acts like a genetic eraser, actually changes a single DNA letter to permanently turn off a gene that otherwise holds the liver back, and that way, the liver can clear the bad cholesterol from the blood naturally.
Why is this so important? Historically, managing heart disease, it means taking a statin every single day for the rest of your life. Data from this early trial showed that about half of all patients stop taking their daily cholesterol meds. This therapy is really completely shifting the medicine that could be available for these patients from continuous chronic management to a permanent one-time preventative measure. It's still very, very early days. We will have to follow this closely, but it is really exciting news.
Travis Hoium: I saw one comment say that this could eliminate heart disease. That's probably going to the extreme extent. But it seems like the doctors who are looking at this are just incredibly impressed with the results. The other thing, and you mentioned it, but I want to highlight it. This was one infusion. This was not taking a pill every day. This is not doing an injection every day. This is a one-time infusion that lasts at least a year, 18 months. We're still early in what this would actually look like in commercial patients. But this is potentially the thing that could have a dramatic impact on people's lives and longevity with relatively minimal invasiveness.
Rachel Warren: Absolutely. The other thing that I think is important to note is Eli Lilly has been on an acquisitive streak. One other note to what I was saying, they just announced that they're acquiring three new companies. They are flush with cash from the GLP-1 successes that they have enjoyed. Of course, they have a broad portfolio outside of that. But they're spending up to $4 billion on three clinical-stage vaccine developers. One is a company called Curevo that's developing a next-generation vaccine for shingles. Another company is really designed to buy out their vaccine against the Epstein-Barr Virus. There's no approved vaccine for this virus, causes mononucleosis. It's been linked to chronic conditions like multiple sclerosis. Third, they're acquiring a company called LimmaTech Biologics. It's a Swiss firm, and they focus on developing vaccines against severe bacterial pathogens. The company is on a run-up right now, but if you look at what they're doing with their business, with the profitability and cash they have on hand, it's really strategic use of their capital.
Travis Hoium: Lou, this seems like the thing where they're on a roll, and they're just building a moat around their business. We didn't even talk about Rtotrutide, which is potentially coming in the next year or so. I think they're in Phase 3. That is a GLP-3 is what they're calling it, phenomenal results for that. It seems like everything is going incredibly well for Eli Lilly right now.
Lou Whiteman: I don't know if they're building a moat because I don't know what that would look like, but they are building optionality, and that's what's really important. Look, VERVE-102, I hope for the best here. I've been on their statin since I was in my '20s. I get this. It's not going to cure heart disease. The heart breaks in a lot of different ways, but it could really help in one of the leading causes of death. That's what matters. Also, though, this was a study of 35 patients over 18 months. As Rachel said, we have a long ways to go. We'll see. The thing is, and this is what Rachel was focused on, and it's absolutely right. There's this. There's all of these acquisitions. Verve was just an acquisition a year ago. Lilly has just this ton of cash because of GLPs, and they are making sure they are buying options on the future to a time when patents go off or when GLPs aren't the next big thing. They are making a lot of strategic bets, smart bets. They're just not throwing money at the wall, but they are buying promising technologies. Truthfully, if one of these four turns into a blockbuster, they will have done better than most. It's almost hard to invest on any one of these things. But for a pharmaceutical company with all of the risks, with all of the hurdles that come with this business, with all the patent expirations, what you want is for them to take in times when they have the cash to expand their portfolio and find good uses of that cash, and Lily gets really high marks on that.
Travis Hoium: We talk about building portfolios at the Motley Fool, diversifying your risk. That's exactly what Eli Lilly is doing. It seems like things are going incredibly well on multiple fronts. We'll see if that continues for investors. When we come back, we're going to talk about Zscaler's results and the market's reaction. You're listening to the Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing.
Welcome back to Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing. Zscaler reported earnings after the market closed yesterday, and Rachel, the stock is down 30% as we're recording. The numbers didn't look terrible, but investors are
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Micron's valuation hinges on a perpetual AI-memory demand supercycle that may not materialize, leaving FCF and multiple in danger if cyclical memory pricing reasserts and capacity expands."
Micron's move above $1 trillion reflects AI memory tailwinds and long-duration contracts, but memory is a cyclical, capex‑driven business. The article treats the demand backdrop as durable; in reality, rivals can add capacity, pricing pressure can reassert, and fabs won’t vanish into thin air—2027–2028 supply ramps could outpace demand if AI compute growth slows. The narrative around HBM as a near-irreversible moat seems optimistic given potential technology shifts and substitution. Lilly and Zscaler look interesting, but MU-specific downside risk—execution, margins, and macro cycles—merits caution.
The strongest counterpoint is that this 'mega-tailwind' is not guaranteed; AI memory demand might fade, and long-term contracts could trap customers at high prices, worsening when supply catches up.
"Micron is currently priced for a permanent departure from its historical commodity cycle, a thesis that ignores the inevitable supply-side response and the fragility of long-term fixed-price contracts."
Micron's $1 trillion valuation is a classic example of cycle-peak euphoria disguised as a secular shift. While HBM (High Bandwidth Memory) is a legitimate tailwind, the market is pricing in perfect execution through 2029, ignoring the inherent volatility of semiconductor capital cycles. The 'long-term contract' narrative is a double-edged sword; if hyperscalers like Amazon or Google face their own demand deceleration, those fixed-price commitments will quickly become liabilities rather than assets. Investing in MU at these multiples, after a 200% year-to-date run, requires ignoring the historical reality that memory manufacturers have zero pricing power once supply-demand equilibrium inevitably shifts back to oversupply.
If HBM truly becomes a custom, non-commodity component rather than a standard memory chip, Micron could transition toward a higher-margin, software-like valuation multiple that the bears are currently ignoring.
"MU's $1T valuation prices in sustained HBM scarcity that new 2028 supply is structurally positioned to erode."
Micron (MU) surged past $1T market cap in May 2026 after jumping from $350B on Jan 1, fueled by HBM demand for Nvidia GPUs and 2026 supply sold out under fixed contracts. Yet memory remains cyclical; new domestic fabs online by 2028 will ease the 50-67% demand shortfall cited by the CEO. Forward P/E still sits near single digits, but the E in that multiple has peaked in every prior cycle when capacity finally arrives. Investors should watch hyperscaler capex comments for any early flinch rather than assume AI demand overrides supply math.
The 2029-dated contracts and sold-out 2026 HBM capacity could insulate MU from the classic inventory crash, sustaining margins even if broader DRAM softens.
"Micron's valuation assumes HBM supply scarcity persists through 2028, but memory cycles reward early sellers, not late holders—and fixed-price contracts signed at peak shortage often destroy margins when demand normalizes."
Micron's $1T valuation rests on three shaky pillars: (1) HBM supply scarcity through 2028, (2) long-term fixed contracts locking in today's premium pricing, and (3) forward P/E compression from 4-5x to current levels. The article treats these as permanent, but memory cycles are ruthless. The solar analogy Travis raises is apt—suppliers who locked in high-price contracts during shortage cycles often got crushed when demand normalized or customers engineered around the constraint. Micron's 50-67% unfulfilled demand claim is unverifiable here and could reflect marketing rather than structural shortage. The real risk: customers optimize AI models for lower HBM requirements, or competitors (SK Hynix, Samsung) ramp faster than 2028.
If HBM truly is the bottleneck for AI scaling (not compute, not power delivery), and if Micron's 2028 supply timeline is real, then current pricing power could persist through 2027-28, justifying near-term valuations despite cyclical history.
"The 'unfulfilled 50-67% demand' figure is unverifiable marketing, and MU's margins could compress sooner than the bear case if 2027–28 capacity adds snap memory prices."
Claude’s risk thesis centers on HBM scarcity and long-term pricing; I’d push back on the 'unfulfilled 50-67%' claim as unverifiable and potentially marketing-driven. Even if HBM bottlenecks persist, the memory cycle tends to overshoot demand once capex ramps—faster than this article suggests. A rapid 2027–28 capacity add by Samsung/SK Hynix or Nvidia diversifying memory usage could snap prices, compress margins, and expose MU to the 'cycle overhang' earlier than the bear case admits.
"The bullwhip effect in memory supply chains will trigger a price collapse regardless of existing long-term contract protections."
Grok, your focus on the 2026 sold-out capacity ignores the 'bullwhip effect' inherent in semiconductor supply chains. When hyperscalers realize they have over-ordered to secure supply, they won't just stop new orders; they will aggressively offload inventory, cratering spot prices. Even with fixed contracts, the secondary market impact on average selling prices (ASPs) will be brutal. You are assuming contractual rigidity holds when the underlying demand for AI compute inevitably hits a plateau.
"Fixed contracts limit bullwhip inventory dumping more than Gemini allows, shifting risk to Nvidia's potential HBM optimization moves."
Gemini's bullwhip scenario overlooks how 2026 sold-out HBM and multi-year fixed contracts with hyperscalers reduce the ability to flood secondary markets. Once capacity is allocated under those deals, aggressive inventory dumping becomes contractually constrained rather than automatic. The real pressure point instead sits with Nvidia's roadmap: any shift toward lower-HBM GPU designs would bypass the contracts entirely and hit ASPs faster than a classic DRAM oversupply cycle.
"Nvidia's architectural flexibility poses a bigger threat to Micron's contract moat than secondary-market inventory dynamics."
Grok's contractual-constraint argument is stronger than Gemini's bullwhip framing, but both miss the real pressure valve: Nvidia's incentive to design around HBM bottlenecks isn't hypothetical—it's engineering necessity. If Nvidia ships competitive GPUs with lower HBM ratios by 2027, those fixed contracts become stranded capacity, and Micron's ASP collapse accelerates regardless of contractual rigidity. That's the underappreciated execution risk.
The panel consensus is bearish on Micron's current valuation, citing cyclical memory market dynamics, potential supply overramp, and risks associated with long-term contracts and HBM demand sustainability.
None identified
Rapid capacity addition by competitors or shifts in HBM demand could lead to a faster-than-expected price collapse and margin compression for Micron.