Motley Fool Money - 4 Monopolies Trading at Reasonable Prices

Episode Date: April 15, 2023

Investing doesn’t have to be complicated. Buy a business with a wide moat and hold it for a really long time. Mary Long talks with Ron Gross about: - How to tell if a business is a monopoly - Laser-focused companies that have fended off competition - Monopolies in railroads, trash, and surgical robots Companies discussed: MSFT, WDFC, META, GOOG, GOOGL, DUK, UNP, WM Host: Mary Long Guest: Ron Gross Producer: Ricky Mulvey Engineer: Dan Boyd Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi everyone, I'm Charlie Cox. Join us on Disney Plus as we talk with the cast and crew of Marvel Television's Daredevil Born Again. What haven't you gotten to do as Daredevil? Being the Avengers. Charlie and Vincent came to play. I get emotional when I think about it. One of the great finale of any episode we've ever done. We are going to play Truth or Daredevil.

What? Oh, boy. Fantastic. You guys go hard. Daredevil Born Again official podcast Tuesdays, and stream Season 2 of Marvel Television's Daredevil Born Again on Disney Plus. theoretically rest on your laurels, but if you do that for too long, then you run the risk of losing that monopolistic power. Now, you probably won't lose it if you're a regulated monopoly

or a legal monopoly, like a utility, but you could lose it if you're the dominant player in search and you stop innovating and chat to GBT isn't even on your radar, for example. I'm Chris Hill, and that's Motley Fool's senior analyst Ron Gross. There are a strong companies, and then there are monopolies. Mary Long cut up with Ron Gross to talk about the fundamentals of investing in monopolies, why monopolies are legal, and a few of them that are currently trading at reasonable valuations. So, Ron, today we are talking monopolies. We'll get to some specific stocks in a few minutes, but the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear the word monopoly is how. I thought

monopolies, at least here in the U.S., we're supposed to be illegal. Yeah, so I don't want to get too into the legal weeds here, but in general, it's not really that monopolies are legal. It's the harm that can be caused to consumers from a monopoly that the government is really trying to avoid. Now, way back when in 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, that was the first step to limit the harm. Then we had the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act, both from 1914.

way back in the day. And these are laws that the government can use to protect consumers. You may remember back in the day when the government made AT&T break up until lots of baby bells at the time. That was to protect the consumer. But not all monopolies are illegal. As you said, how? It's because sometimes the government actually allows a company to operate as a monopoly, and they're known appropriately as a legal monopoly. And that's where companies are permitted to offer a specific product or a service at a price that is regulated by the government. And they can be private companies.

They can be regulated by the government. They can be government-run companies. The U.S. Postal Service is an example of a legal monopoly. The National Football League, Major League Baseball, are legal monopolies that the government actually allows. So there are certain circumstances where our government, the U.S. government, does permit a company to operate in a monopolistic environment, but the main point of it all is making sure that the consumer isn't harmed. We see it today with Microsoft trying to take over Activision. There's a question about whether that would harm consumers in the

video gaming space. And so the government, the antitrust lawyers are deep into it to try to make a decision as to whether that would be harmful to consumers or not. So from an investor standpoint, maybe more so than a consumer one, what constitutes a monopoly? Are we looking for like just an insanely dominant market share or really something where it's the only company that dominates in a field? Yeah, there's a number of definitions. We won't go through all of them. But it can be either a company that has found its way to dominating a market.

Think of WD40, right? For some reason, they've decided and were able to dominate the oil in a can market. So when your door has a squeak, you're almost invariably turning to WD40. But it doesn't appear to have harmed consumers in any way because there are alternatives. It's just that they dominate from a market share perspective. And then as we discussed, there's other types of monopolies where the government has simply allowed it to have. happen and put regulations on. The legal definition is a firm with significant and durable market power. It's the ability to raise prices without long-term consequences or the ability

to exclude competitors. And that is kind of where the government gets a little worried, again, about competition, pricing the consumer. To be deemed a monopoly, there's rules of thumb. which generally, a company should have at least 50% of sales for its product or service within a geographic area, so more than half the market share of a potential industry or a potential product or service. So they're really, really dominating the market. And that's when the government starts to get a little itchy and may step in if they see that. Apart from like the pricing that monopolies could potentially cause consumers, what encourages monopolies with that singular focus to keep innovating? Do they need to if they're just the only

player in the game? You could theoretically rest on your laurels, but if you do that for too long, then you run the risk of losing that monopolistic power. Now, you probably won't lose it if you're a regulated monopoly or a legal monopoly, like a utility. But you could lose it if you're the dominant player in search and you stop innovating and chat to G.B. BT isn't even on your radar, for example, but other search engines are coming in and innovating. If you use new drugs or vaccines as an example, without patents and monopoly power, drug companies would be very, they'd be unwilling to invest a ton of money in drug research, because they need to know that if they get to the point of where they can commercialize a vaccine

or a drug, that they will have the exclusive market in that drug for at least a period of time. If they weren't assured that, it would be very difficult to get them to spend billions of dollars to attack any one or two or three drugs. That's one example. Other examples, like we keep talking about Google Alphabet and Search. They create so much money. Apple creates so much money with their dominance in iPhones that generates so much cash flow that then they can take that cash and do other things with it. New technological development. other parts of their business, self-driving cars, whatever they want to pour their money into. And so the bread and butter from the monopolistic part of the business can fund other parts of the business and new innovations.

You'd mentioned regulated monopolies. Duke Energy is a regulated monopoly. For listeners that might not be in North Carolina, what is Duke Energy and what does that regulated monopoly status mean for them? So Duke Energy enjoys a legal monopoly from the state of North Carolina. And with very few exceptions, third-party electricity sales are simply not permitted under state law. Solar companies, for example, cannot sell their output directly because Duke Energy controls distribution and transmission infrastructure. In exchange for the ability to control that market, the government steps in and regulates price and regulates the amount of profits a company like Duke Energy. another type of utility can generate. So they want to make sure that Duke doesn't use that monopolistic power to hurt the consumer

and charge exorbitant prices. So Duke, you know, they're in the generating electricity business, coal, gas, nuclear plants, 45% comes from natural gas and fuel oil, only 2% currently in hydro and renewables. would think that would start to ramp up over time. But even nuclear is actually 35% of their business. So they're relatively well diversified across the energy spectrum. It's a $76 billion company. And they also, coincidentally, have $76 billion a debt. So a lot of debt on this company. And that's because building out of utility is expensive. And they constantly need to float different types of bonds to continue to power the business to have enough money for their capital expenditure

programs. 28 billion in revenue, 4 billion in operating income, 96 quarters of paying cash dividends, 4% yield right now. So for those seeking a nice dividend and one that increases over time, Duke Energy is really interesting. And it is a relatively low multiple. We're really trading or only around 17 times probably forward. earnings. Now, that's not necessarily special in this sector. Most utilities, energy companies, trade around 17, 18, 19 times forward earnings. So it is not unique in that regard, but it is a

relatively low multiple when you compare it to other more growthier type investments. When we think about multiples, we think of like other energy companies in the space. What does competition look like for Duke? They don't have competition in North Carolina, but is their competition kind of spread out throughout the industry and other geographic areas, people that they're playing against? To a certain extent, but they really do have the monopoly in their main business. And so when you look at valuations, you can't really look at valuations of competitors, which is something we would often do if we're doing a relative valuation analysis, not an absolute

valuation analysis. So in this case, it's hard to do that because the competition doesn't exist, but you can look at similar companies throughout the country, other diversified energy businesses, other electric utilities. The median of those companies right now are trading at about 18 times forward earnings. Duke is trading around 17, 17 and a half. So kind of right in line right there. Duke does have that 4% dividend yield. Many electric utilities also have a nice dividend yield, not necessarily as high as 4%. That's one of the nicer yields I've seen. So, yeah, it's. It's not really the competition you look at, but it's similar companies.

Because it's the only game in town, I would imagine it operates in a really highly regulated market. Does that kind of regulation change how we would evaluate it? It would because it impacts the ability of the company to grow profits. They're not going to typically be able to grow profits the way a growth company would or a technology company would. There's a benefit to that in that they're somewhat more predictable because they're regulated. price hikes are regulated, growth is regulated. So you have a better idea when you look into the future, what a company like Duke Energy could potentially earn three, five years down the road.

Now, there's supply and demand characteristics as with any company. The demand for energy would impact ultimately their profits that they are generating. So there is some variability there, but not nearly the variability of just a regular company that is producing products services, deciding what price the market will bear, hoping supply and demand works out in their favor, and then growth will be whatever it will be. Dukes is much more regulated and therefore more easy to predict. Let's switch over to the other coast real quick and talk about Union Pacific, which is a railroad company, one of the largest in the U.S. Railroads don't strike me as cutting edge

or as an industry with a lot of growth potential, whereas maybe you could make that argument with energy. missing something? Is there something cool about this that I don't see? There is nothing cool about it. And our man behind the glass, Dan Boyd, loves it when I bring companies to the table that are really boring and he loves to make fun of me. But you know what? Railroads are responsible for transporting 30% of the goods that we use each year. And that's a big, big, big business. May not be sexy, but it's a big business. And railroads exist in a really special environment. One word, there's really never even the possibility of a new market entrant, at least not a new rail market entrance. It would cost an estimated trillion dollars

to reproduce the Class 1 railroad networks that have been built over the last 150 years. And that's not even accounting for the cost of the land. So the barriers to entry of creating a new railroad company are, they're astronomically high. So you're in a protected, protected industry, really. And there's not much competition that's going to creep in. There's other types of competition. There's ships and planes and other types. But in terms of moving the 30% of goods across the nation, railroads are the only game in town. And Union Pacific is certainly one of the biggest. It's North America's pretty much premier railroad, 32,000 miles of track. They operate in kind of a duopoly, so two companies across the U.S. West. It's Burlington,

Northern, Santa Fe, and Union Pacific, which kind of make up the monopolistic companies in that Northwest. Burlington Northern is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. But Union Pacific is a really nice company. 2.7 percent dividend yield. Again, most folks are probably looking at railroads for the dividend yield. But, you know, they've got 10 billion in operating income. They do have $35 billion of debt. Again, let's keep an eye on the balance sheet. But they've paid dividends on their common stock for 123 consecutive years. That's the kind of stability that certainly some more conservative or older investors really look for. So after 123 years of consistent dividends, I would imagine Union Pacific spends a lot of its

cash flow on those dividends. At the same time, many railroad companies we've seen in the news, Union Pacific included, have run into talent and some safety issues. What's the story with UNP's capital allocation and what do you think of their current strategy? Yeah, well, first of all, the industry in general has to clean up this barrage of safety issues that have really just popped up in a pretty big way of late. And that's primarily both for safety reasons and because we don't want the transportation of goods across our country consistently disrupted, but I think mostly for the safety. Let's be careful out there. In terms of capital allocation, they returned about $10 billion to investors last

year, $7 billion through stock buybacks and about $3 billion through dividends. The dividends I'm fine with. The stock buybacks are always a little bit tricky because you want to make sure that they're purchasing stock, especially at that level, at prices that are attractive to the shareholders, and they're not just trying to kind of lower the earnings per share, boost the earnings. So I would have to dig in a little bit more to see if $7 billion is the right number. That seems perhaps like it's a little bit high. They may need to pull back on that and up their cap-X spending, especially to address some of these safety issues, as we discussed.

So it'll be interesting to see what they do. an activist investor in that stock who primarily is calling for the CEO to be replaced, and therefore all the things that flow from that, which is improving operating metrics and improving the business in general. So it will be interesting to watch if they're successful as well. This is another relatively low multiple company, trading at 17 times forward earnings. But again, not unique. Other Rails, CSX is at 16 times, Norfolk Southern 15 times.

Canadian national, 20 times. So they're all kind of in that 15 to 20 range. So not really high, but the Union Pacific is not necessarily unique. This might seem like a bit of a departure from energy, electricity, rail freight, transportation, but intuitive surgical could also probably be considered a monopoly. Yet out of the other companies that we've discussed, this might be the one that's more unfamiliar to listeners. What does intuitive surgical do and why do we consider it a monopoly. Yeah, this one is totally different because it has nothing to do really, at least directly, with government regulation or being a legal monopoly.

It's a company that has innovated to the point of where their product, which is a robot-assisted minimally, easy for me to say, invasive surgery robot that can perform quite a number of different types of surgeries, their product is really the best. the best one out there. And it's gotten traction over the years that has really allowed it to rise to by far the leader in terms of market share. They have about 80% share in the surgical robotics market. So not necessarily a monopoly by definition, except for the fact that it is over 50%, but we don't currently see them harming consumers in any way or trying to charge prices. that would somehow hurt the consumer or the hospitals and eventually the patients.

But it's a very, very strong company. It's this classic razor-raiser blade model where you buy the robot, but then you kind of always have to then buy the instruments that go with the robot for each subsequent surgery. So you have that recurring revenue stream alongside the purchase of this relatively expensive robot, which I have actually had the opportunity to use. Not on an actual person, but in an operating room, just trying to pick up and move things around. And it is pretty cool. I will not lie.

The only part of this business that is regulated, if we want to call it that, is the FDA is big into anything having to do with surgery or medicine or medical devices. And so this was approved, I was going to say, only back in 2000. I guess that's 23 years ago at this point. But it seems recent because the robotic market is not that old, quite frankly. So they're doing great. The pandemic put a lot of elective surgeries on hold, and they've gone through a little bit of ups and downs there. But this company has crushed the market since its inception, crushed the market over

the last five years. It is a company that Molly Fool Growth investors have done quite well in David Gardner. our chief rule breaker really discovered this company very early on as he is so good at doing. I'm more, I'm a conservative investor. So for me, that kind of growth and that kind of unknown into the future always makes me a little nervous. But this company has done really incredibly well. Well, and it seems like they've really tapped into an industry that I would think lots of

other companies, other medical device companies or companies in that field would want to tap into. You kind of hinted at this by saying that they've got the best technology out there, but what is stopping another company from trying to catch up to intuitive surgical? What kind of moat have they carved out for themselves? The main thing would be the cost, the R&D, research and development, to develop a cutting-edge robot. Now, there's plenty of companies with plenty of money out there, so that's not impossible, but you would have to develop that, and it would take years to receive FDA approval. And then you would also have to then get into the relationships with the hospital systems and convince those hospital systems to move away from Intuitive's Da Vinci Robot, which is the name, and to something else when the Da Vinci probably is operating perfectly well. So once you get entrenched with your clients and your customers, it is very difficult for another company to move in.

It happens all the time with, you know, easy things like soft drinks or restaurants or, you know, different retail products for something that requires FDA approval and is so, so, so important because it's performing surgery, that becomes a little, not a little bit, a lot more entrenched and it's hard to kind of usurp and kind of kick them out. That's not to say over time there won't be other robot surgery companies, but intuitive has a really, really big lead. Yeah, the common theme among all of these companies seems to be really high expensive startup costs.

And whether that's laying the groundwork for utilities, for railroad tracks, or for robotics within a hospital, are kind of, seem to be now, kind of like a utility for the hospital. Yeah, that's an interesting way to think of it. Yeah, the classic barrier to entry, and one of those is extremely high startup costs. or R&D expenses. And that can provide a moat in certain circumstances. And so what is intuitive surgical trading at right now? What do you think of its valuation and

what do you keep an eye on moving forward? So this is a growth company through and through, always has been and will be for quite some time. And so it is trading at multiples that imply significant growth, or maybe not implies not the right word, require significant growth in the future. So it's probably trading it around maybe 70 times current earnings, but let's look at forward the next 12 months, almost 50 times forward earnings. 50 times when the market right now, the S&P 500 is trading in the low 20s, around 22 times, or 18 times forward. So comparing apples to apples, the market is trading 18 times forward earnings, intuitive the circle is trading it 49 times forward earnings, more than double the market.

And that's because investors assume or project that this company has a very large growth runway and will continue to grow well into the future. If they don't do that, then investors are not going to fare very well because the stock is in that sense very highly priced. So whenever you invest in a company with high multiples that have a lot of. lot of growth built into the current stock price, you are hoping, you are projecting that growth in the future will materialize. If it doesn't, that's when the stock gets hit. We've got one more quasi-monopoly on our list of stocks to talk about, and it's waste management,

which I found out recently rebranded to WM because they're more than just a waste management company. Sure. But over the past, that's what they'd like you to do. think. Over the past five years, waste management stock price has surged like 95% or just about that. Those are the best numbers out of the four companies that we've talked about today. So what is so sexy about trash? Well, garbage ain't going away anytime soon. And they are one of two or three only games in town. And that's because they control the landfills in the United States. I want to say waste management owns about 260 landfills and 340 transfer stations around the country. Republic Services is the second largest waste connections is the third.

But that's it. I mean, everybody else is tiny. And so they control this business. And as I said, we're producing as much trash as ever. And even recyclables is a big part of this business. too. So the ownership of those landfills really is the barrier to entry. This is a highly regulated business in the sense that anything having to do with waste or trash or recycling does have regulations on top of it, but it is not protected by those regulations. You do need

permits for these landfills, and they're not giving them out like candy anymore. So again, they're pretty entrenched here. And they generate $20 billion in revenue, three. billion in operating income. They've increased their dividend for 17 consecutive years. The yield is about 1.7% right now, which is not astronomical. That's probably around the yield of the S&P 500 right now, but still pretty good. And as I said, they increase that dividend every year. And it's a relatively safe investment. It's a relatively recession-proof business because even in the heart of the pandemic, we were still producing plenty of garbage. It wasn't nearly as much because people weren't in the offices as they were.

And so the commercial business was rough. But it's relatively recession-proof because in good times and bad times, we're still producing all that garbage that needs to be picked up and transported and dealt with. So it's a really interesting one. Not as cheap as the other utility companies we mentioned. It's trading around 27 times forward earnings. Republic Services is 26 times forward earnings. So kind of right there together.

So there is some growth built into that price, too, again, trading higher than the S&P 500. In general, pretty great business that will be consistent over time. And more than just a waste management company. There you go. So when we think about all these monopolies, if we want to call them that, stocks that we've talked about today, how might investors think about these four companies and other monopolies or companies that look like them when it comes to their portfolio allocation? So when I think of allocation, I never think of monopolies.

as being one of those allocation categories. But I do think of mature, steady companies that pay dividends, that have a moat, that have barriers to entry, that have what we call a competitive advantage, sometimes because of legal regulations or restrictions. And so that I like, and that would be probably in my more conservative bucket in my portfolio. I think most portfolios can have some growth, some more,

more conservative, some dividend payers, some, you know, ETFs, some index. And so these types of companies would largely fall into my more conservative allocation category, pay a dividend, entrenched, not the fastest growers in the world, although intuitive surgical is. So intuitive surgical would not fall into my conservative bucket. It would fall into my growth oriented. And we talked about the valuation that it's currently trading at. So just because the company has a monopoly, or a near monopoly, doesn't necessarily mean

it falls into the more conservative category, but often that is what you'll say. 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 yourself stocks based solely on what you hear. I'm Chris Hill. Thanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow.