In this episode of Motley Fool Money, Motley Fool contributors Jon Quast, Rachel Warren, and Jason Hall discuss:
- Goldman Sach’s Q1 2026 financial report.
- Economic trends to watch during earnings season.
- The impacts from new U.S. blockades.
- A listener question about SpaceX and major stock indexes.
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 13, 2026.
Jon Quast: It’s the start of earning season, and Goldman Sachs is kicking us off. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money. Welcome to Motley Fool Money with the Hidden Gems team. I’m Jon Quast, and I’m joined today by Fool contributors Rachel Warren and special guest Jason Hall today. Thank you all for being with us.
Look, we’re going to get right to our first story here, and that is the investment bank Goldman Sachs just reported financial results. I just want to, for context, put out there that every three months, publicly traded companies report their financial results to investors. Usually these reports concentrated all in a few weeks of a timespan. That’s what we call earnings season. It’s not required, but it’s just how it happens. There’s always banking companies that kick us off. Investment Bank Goldman Sachs is really the first one out of the gate with first quarter of 2026 results here this morning, Rachel, let’s talk about the numbers. What are just a couple of numbers here that investors should be interested?
Rachel Warren: I would say it was a pretty strong start to earnings season. Goldman Sachs reported quarter net revenues of 17.2 billion. That was up 14%. Year over year, it was better than what Wall Street had been guiding for earnings came in about 5.6 billion. The big takeaway, I think, for investors, is really how much they earned per share. $17.55. That beat Wall Street’s expected $16.49. It’s also helped push the return on equity to 19.8%. The business is being run very efficiently right now. Other number that stuck out to me Goldman’s Asset and Wealth Management Unit brought in 4.08 billion this quarter. That was a solid 10% increase from last year. It missed Wall Street’s targets slightly. Basically, what this means is they earned more in management fees because the total assets they oversaw grew, but those gains were dragged down by a dip in revenue from their private banking business.
Jon Quast: Some other things that were in the Goldman Sachs report here, and I want to turn this to Jason. I did notice that fixed income, currencies, commodities, or FICC revenue, that was actually down 10%. But then, on the other side, we see that equity’s revenue is up 27%. For a person such as myself, maybe somebody out there listening who doesn’t really follow banks all that much, doesn’t really follow Goldman Sachs all that much, seeing one part of the business up, one part down, are there any high-level takeaways that we can have there and anything that we should know about the economy from?
Jason Hall: First with Goldman specifically, it’s different than Bank of America. Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, a lot of these other banks. Now, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have huge investment banks, but they’re part of their universal bank profile, where they also have the commercial bank, which is like, that’s what we as just regular humans think of as a bank. Like, it’s where we keep our money. It’s where we write checks or pay our debit from. It’s where we go to get loans, that kind of thing.
Investment banking is a different animal. They do lots of things. The thing you were talking about with FICC and then with equities that we’ll talk about, too, this is trading, basically, and Goldman has a big role as a market maker, and that’s the intermediation part of the business for trading, fixed income assets like bonds, currency trading, commodities, like oil and gas futures, that thing. Then we’ll talk about it too, they have equities business, too, so equity is stocks. They’re the market maker for a lot of this. Then they also provide a lot of the liquidity, and that’s the financing part of that. If we go back to the first quarter, two things were true. Stock markets were at all-time highs. Then we got extreme volatility at the end with the U.S. war in Iran.
Now, for Goldman, bull markets and volatility are really good for the equity business. As we get to the end of the quarter, again, we go from record highs. Markets active, lots of trading volume. That’s good. Then the end of the quarter, you’re going to see lots and lots of their clients are repositioning their portfolios like hedge fund clients and different investment managers like that, and also lots of volatility with oil. They’re trading desks for commodities. All the commodities that we’re going to talk about that, go through the Strait of Hormuz, lots of action happened there, but still ended up with, like, the commodities bucket, a FICC broadly is a lot of other things. You think about the weakness in the mortgage business, uncertainty with interest rates? Not that long ago, the betting money was on a couple of interest rate cuts this year. Now, we’re saying the Fed might be raising rates. If there’s any one real takeaway, there’s not, like, a clean, obvious takeaway, it’s just a reminder that nothing is working perfectly all the time.
Jon Quast: As we go ahead and start closing out this discussion of Goldman Sachs, I just want to frame this in the context of the kickoff of earnings season. Is there anything that you saw here in this report that you think will be a theme in the upcoming earnings season. Rachel, let’s start with.
Rachel Warren: I think there’s a few key big picture themes from Goldman’s management that might echo across the street this month. I think that starts with the resurgence of the capital markets. I mean, CEO David Solomon has very specifically highlighted the firm’s leading role in what we’re seeing is a very cyclical rebound for advisory and equity underwriting. You’ve got a very high-profile IPO pipeline. You’ve got names like SpaceX and OpenAI that I think are capturing a lot of investor interest right now. I do think there’s a clear message coming through, which is that this very long-awaited return to normal for global deal making is seemingly upon us. That could provide a massive tail firms with heavy investment making exposure, of course, like Goldman Sachs. But there’s a lot of headwinds in the market right now. I think we will know a lot more as we get later into the year.
Jon Quast: Jason, how about you?
Jason Hall: I mentioned that Goldman’s, it’s not like the commercial banks are universal banks out there. In a lot of ways, that makes its relationships because it tends to be more concentrated in its customers, even more important. I expect that we’re going to hear David Solomon and his team, they’re really going to lean on those deep relationships with his clients. The track record of results that it’s delivered backs up the depth of those relationships. It’s precisely for the uncertainty that we’re navigating right now. I mean, it’s broad, whether it’s things like acting as a market maker, helping finance trading activity across any assets, assisting with mergers and acquisitions, wealth management, and like Rachel was talking about, helping finance and deliver on those big IPOs, this is a business that has the resources to deliver for its clients on whatever its clients goals are.
Now, one more thing I want to note, it’s not like it’s the commercial banks, but it has a growing loan book. It’s worth noting that Goldman did increase its credit loss provisions. I think that’s probably more due to the growth of the loan book than any concerns about credit quality, but it’s very much worth watching. Broadly, as we start hearing from the Wells and the BOAs and the JPMorgan Chases out there, what is credit quality looking like? That’s a thing that can give us an idea how the consumer’s doing.
Jon Quast: We’ll definitely keep an eye on that then as the other banks start reporting in upcoming weeks. After the break, we’re going to look at some of the latest developments in the Strait of Hormuz. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money.
ADVERTISEMENT: Speaker 1: In January of 1915, Ernest Shackleton’s ship Endurance became encased in the ice in the Weddle Sea. Through determination, grit, and savvy, Shackleton would lead his men through a brutal winter, then over hundreds of miles of Antarctic ice, followed by 800 miles across some of the roughest waters in the world. It is one of the most extraordinary and inspirational journeys in the history of exploration. Find this story and many others at the Explorers Podcast available wherever you get your podcast or at explpodcast.com.
Jon Quast: Welcome back to Motley Fool Money with the Hidden Gems team. We are not a team of geopolitical experts on this show by any stretch of the imagination, but we do want to acknowledge what is happening in the Iran conflict. Over the weekend, talks between the US and Iran in Pakistan broke down. Nothing really came of it. Now we’re hearing that the US intends to block Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz, and by the time you’re listening to this, it may have already started. Aside from the obvious instability of the region, there are real-world economic impacts here, and I think if I’m listening to the show, I just want to know what is the immediate impact of this decision from the US? What can I expect? Rachel, let’s start with.
Rachel Warren: I think there’s a few things to be thinking about here. The U.S. Navy is enforcing this blockade, as of this morning, there seems to be a particular enforcement mechanism in place for ships that have reportedly paid tolls previously to Iran, and it kind of remains to be seen what that looks like in practice. GretKrud and WTI had already surged past $100 a barrel. You’ve got analysts at firms like Onyx Capital Group wording. We can see it go up to $150 if this standoff continues. It’s worth noting this isn’t really just a paper price hike. It effectively wipes out nearly 1.8 million barrels of daily Iranian supply from a market that’s already from a regional shortfall that’s estimated around 11 million barrels.
The other thing, I think that’s important to note, the Persian Gulf is a primary hub for nitrogen-based fertilizers, and that blockade has already caused prices of elements like urea and ammonia to jump by as much as 50%. Well, why does that matter? Urea and ammonia are the lifeblood of modern farming, so they’re primary ingredients in nitrogen-based fertilizers. Without them, crop yields can drop significantly. That’s why we’re seeing some grocery supply emergencies. When the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, the flow of these chemicals stops, and then the cost of growing everything from corn to wheat spikes almost instantly. That’s the long-term view of what we could continue to see if this us.
Jason Hall: We think about the Middle East, we think about oil, and to a lesser extent, we think about natural gas, and we think about transportation fuels, electricity production, heating, and that thing. But what we don’t often think about just as regular people on the street is the massive infrastructure in petrochemical manufacturing that’s happened in those markets. Instead of just shipping oil somewhere else, and then that place gets to make value-added, higher-margin products, there’s a massive amount of that that now takes place in the Middle East. That’s exactly what Rachel is talking about. It extends even beyond that.
I want to talk about some of those opportunities. There is a real human toll that’s happening here, and we’re not ignoring that. I want to really be clear about that for people listening, but this is a show about investing, and we’re focusing on the investing aspect of it here. At the risk of sounding like a heartless capitalist, we do see the Strait remain limited in flow, because that’s another important part of this. The U.S. Navy is not blockading the Strait. They’re blockading Iranian ports to be very specific about what’s happening. If we do see a limited flow continue for an extended period, companies like Cheniere Energy could be beneficiaries, other LNG exporters in North America, and also places like Australia that have large natural gas resources.
Rachel, you were naming off a lot of those feedstocks. Here’s the thing. The reality is that prices are likely to be higher for those goods. Global shipping markets will adapt to where the supply is located. That means that that could be beneficial for companies like Shiner and others. Now, the other thing, too, I think maybe one of the long tail impacts is we could see domestic energy costs start to move higher if we do see more natural gas leave the U.S. because generally, it’s just like a locally traded commodity that the price goes up and down based on weather. Like when it’s really cold, the prices go up. When it’s really hot, the prices go up because of the energy demands. But we’re starting to see, like the fingers of macro global policy start to affect gas prices.
Jon Quast: What we’re talking about right now is the immediate impact of what this decision from the U.S. could mean. But let’s extend our time horizon just a bit because we are a long-term investing group, and we want to have that long-term perspective always. Let’s just extend the timeline here. I mean, what happens if this continues to drag on, or what is going to happen now that the decision is made?
Rachel Warren: I think if it drags on, the immediate risk is that you see sort of this temporary crisis become a permanent part of our cost of living. Some of these cost inputs, even if it were all to reverse now, we might be seeing through the end of this year. But you think of the global economy like a massive adjust in time conveyor belt. When the Strait of Hormuz, which is obviously a literal choke point for this, is facing blockades, more specifically in the Iranian ports, that belt stops. Shipping companies are forced to take the long way around the tip of Africa. That adds weeks to travel time. There’s obviously massive fuel costs. Those billions in extra expenses don’t just disappear. They inevitably often get passed down to consumers and the price of cars, computers, household appliances. The list goes on. Over time, there could be this situation where we are stop talking about a price spike and more about a global manufacturing stall where factories might struggle to get the raw materials they need when they need them. I think that still remains to be seen.
Jason Hall: Jon, there’s so much of the focus right now on what happens in weeks to months out. But I think we’re already in a situation where global commodities flows are going to be disrupted to some degree for years. There are reports of significant infrastructure damage in Qatar, for example, and in parts of Iran and Qatar that are across some of the same areas. We’re at a point now where we could see escalation of military action again. If that happens, those hard assets that produce, store, and move energy out of this part of the world, they took decades to build. It could take years and billions of dollars to repair them. That ties a lot to what Rachel was saying.
But I think the thing that I’m really most interested about as an investor, looking out in the future is there are always, I mean, the law of unintended consequences is a real thing. I’m really curious, What is the thing that happens as a result of this war that none of us predicted or even really expected? My deepest hope, guys, is that it’s something disruptive and positive for humanity.
Jon Quast: It reminds me of Morgan Housel. The future is surprising, and I think that there’s a lot of things that we’re just not thinking of today, and that’s just how it works. After the break, we are getting to our mailbag. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money.
Welcome back to Motley Fool Money with the Hidden Gems team. We want to make you a part of our conversation here. If you have a stock or an investing question for Jason, Rachel, myself, or anyone else on the show, you can email us at podcast at fool.com. We would love to have mailbag segments like this whenever possible. Send in your questions. Remember to keep them Foolish, please. But that email again is podcast at fool.com, podcast at fool.com.
On that note, we are closing today’s show with a question from you, our listeners. This one comes from Garrett Campbell. He writes, hello. I’ve heard that the S&P 500 is considering a rule change to allow SpaceX to join without meeting the traditional requirements. I’m not knowledgeable on the IPO process, how shares become public, and who owns shares. Can you discuss the pros and cons with granting an exception and allowing SpaceX to join the S&P 500 once it’s public? Thank you, Garrett.
There’s actually a couple of things here in Garrett’s question. First, I thought that maybe we would just speak quickly to the IPO process. Garrett saying doesn’t really know how the rules work here. Jason, can you just walk us through the IPO process and talk about basically whose shares investors are buying when it comes public?
Jason Hall: Jon, asking me to discuss anything quickly is a challenge in and of itself, but I’ll do my best, so the IPO process, a company and its investment bank partners, they go around and meet with potential IPO investors and underwriters. This is the institutions that are actually buying the shares in the IPO. You hear, they’re going to set a price. Then that IPO price is the price that those buyers and the underwriters are paying. In general, when a company IPOs, the company is going to issue new shares for the IPO. They’re diluting the internal investors. They’re creating these new shares that the IPO investors, the underwriters buy minus a fee, of course, to the banking partners. The company gets the proceeds. This isn’t always the case. The company we’re talking about that are looking to go public now, that would be the case. They would be getting the proceeds, but it’s not always the case.
Sometimes we see a company that’s part of a private equity business that gets IPOs. A lot of times, when that company IPOs the proceeds, they go to the PE firm. The PE firm is selling part of its stake. The company doesn’t get any additional liquidity. It’s just going public. That’s an important thing to remember. Sometimes you also have some insiders when accompany IPOs that are also selling into the IPO. It’s not always generally the case, but sometimes that’s part of it. Usually, you see insiders that have a lockup period that they can’t actually sell for months, months, and months after the fact. That’s roughly the way it works.
Now, here’s the thing. That’s who’s buying the IPO. As retail investors, we’re not buying from the company. When the stock debuts on the market and starts trading on the NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchange, we’re buying shares from those underwriters. We’re buying from the people that bought the IPO.
Jon Quast: I think that’s such an important clarification there, Jason, that the IPO shares have already been sold at whatever the IPO price was. Then when we see that big pop on the initial trading, that’s because some of those people who did buy are selling right then and there to the people who are now retail investors on the market. Let’s get to the main part now of Garrett’s question. Basically, the rumor is that the S&P 500 considering tweaking the rules for Space I just want to point out here before we go any further, this is unconfirmed. This is just conjecture. It’s a rumor at this point, so we don’t want to treat it as if this is gospel truth at this point. But I do want to speak to the question. Basically, Rachel, if the indexes are actually thinking of changing the rules here to include Space X stock early, which rules do they have to change here for this to happen?
Rachel Warren: The reporting is that the S&P 500 would change its rules for SpaceX This is an active proposal reportedly. It’s not a done deal. You know, right now, a company has to be public for a full year, show four straight quarters of profit before it could even be considered for the index. SpaceX, the IPO is expected to be historical, massive. Reportedly, that’s the reason that S&P Dow Jones Indices is officially asking investors if they should ditch that one-year seasoning period, if you will, for giant companies. Reporting is that they want the index to reflect the actual market immediate rather than waiting until 2027, presuming the IPO occurs this year to include what would be expected to be one of the world’s most valuable firms.
Now, it’s actually interesting because NASDAQ actually just approved a new fast entry rule starting May 1st of this year. It allows a mega company to join the NASDAQ-100 just 15 days after its IPO. If we saw the S&P Dow Jones indices follow suit, it would be a big shift in how they’ve operated for decades. I think the goal is to make sure billions of dollars that would be sitting in passive index funds can start buying the stock right away. But we will have to see how this bears out.
Jon Quast: Hypothetically, let’s say that S&P Global did change the rules here. Is there any benefit here, Jason, for the market for investors?
Jason Hall: Rachel, I actually agree on the downside, so I’m going to let her take that. But I do think there is some upside. There’s a couple of parts of it. First of all, I think it’s more that the indices are starting to acknowledge the need to at least consider evolving with how the market for IPOs has changed. We’re going to see more and more companies. We’ve already seen it happen where companies are staying private much longer. That means they’re getting much larger. That means they’re getting more stable. I think that means that if we see a company go public that would normally would qualify for the S&P large enough, but also four straight quarters of profitability and a clear path of remaining profitable, then it does make sense for it to get included a little bit earlier.
Now, what about the NASDAQ-100 thing? That wasn’t the question, but I’m going to answer it anyway. I do think that there’s may be reason to be a little more leery about that because there’s no requirements around profitability for NASDAQ-100 companies. If you have a giant AI startup like Anthropic that’s still burning lots of money, go public and get pulled in, there is certainly more risk for investors in that situation. That’s another show. Like I said, our listener wasn’t asking about that one.
Jon Quast: Are you basically saying it might make a major index more volatile?
Jason Hall: I think so. It’s the NASDAQ-100 is already more volatile. Let’s throw open AI in there, too. What do you say? SpaceX. Let’s throw about I don’t know, $2.5 trillion worth of market cap.
Jon Quast: That could certainly be interesting. But, Rachel, you’re the one who’s going to talk to the downside here. What would be the downside of changing the rules?
Rachel Warren: I’m coming in with the negative angle here. Look, I do think that there are some downsides to consider. I think the biggest what is that changing these rules does create the risk of market distortion. Historically speaking, that one-year waiting period, it acts as a cooling-off phase. Allows the market to find a stable price for a new stock after that initial IPO hype fades. Certainly, that has been a trend we’ve seen with a lot of these vague tech companies that have gone public. By waiving this rule, index providers would very likely force tens of billions of dollars in passive funds to buy SpaceX shares almost immediately. That could massive potentially artificial surge in demand that could leave the stock at an unsustainable nosebleed valuation.
That could also provide guaranteed high-priced exits for early insiders, and everyday retail investors could be more vulnerable if the price were to then have an inevitable crash once that initial buying frenzy ends. Obviously, that’s the worst-case scenario there, but I do think it’s important to consider and be aware of both sides of this equation if, in fact, we do see those rules change. I think for now, it’s more of a wait and see.
Jason Hall: I think that’s right. I’ll just add one thing as a food for thought. Let’s say SpaceX goes public so large that it’s 5% of the S&P 500. Let’s say that happens, and it falls by 50% in the first year. That’s only a 2.5% haircut for investors in those indices. It’s not nothing, but it’s also not the end of the world.
Jon Quast: Well, either way, we are going to look forward to the SpaceX IPO with great anticipation. Garrett, thank you so much for the question, and to the fools out there listening, we hope that you get more questions like that in future episodes. That’s all we have time 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, Bart Shannon, and the rest of The Motley Fool team. For Jason Hall, Rachel Warren, and myself, thank you so much for taking time to listen to our show today, and we’ll see you in the next episode.
