Motley Fool Money - Fall Q&A: Stocks, Dividends, Luxury Goods, and a Cannabis REIT

Episode Date: October 9, 2022

You’ve got questions, so we rounded up some Fools with answers! In this fall mailbag we’re answering your voicemails and emails about: - Adobe’s $20 billion acquisition of Figma - If a cannabis REIT is a good buy - Luxury goods stocks as a hedge against inflation - Using dividend payments for a mortgage Got a question for the show? Call the Motley Fool Money hotline at 703-254-1445. Companies mentioned: XOM, RACE, RH, SWGAY, LVMUY, CPRI, MTN, PEB, ADBE, DOMO, IIPR Host: Chris Hill Guests: Matt Argersinger, Dylan Lewis, Tim Beyers, Emily Flippen, Jason Moser, Robert Brokamp Producer: Ricky Mulvey Engineers: Dan Boyd, Rick Engdahl, Tim Sparks Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you're a small business owner, you already know what it takes to keep everything moving. You're juggling customers, invoices, and about 100 decisions every day. Thankfully, taxes don't have to be one more thing on that list. With Intuit TurboTax, you can get your business taxes done for you with a full service expert. TurboTax matches you with your dedicated tax expert. Who knows your industry understands your business write-offs and gives you the personalized advice your business deserves. Upload your documents right in the app, hand everything off, and still feel like you're in the loop the whole way through. You can even get real-time updates on your expert's

progress right in the app, which makes it so much easier to stay on track. And you can get unlimited expert help at no extra cost, even on nights and weekends during tax season. Visit turbotax.com to get matched with an expert today, only available with TurboTax full service experts. As they say on PTI, it's mail time. I'm Chris Hill, and today we're answering your email and voicemail questions about stocks, real estate, diversification, and more. If you've got a question for the show, call the Motley Fool Money hotline at 703-254-1445 and leave us a message. First up, a voicemail about ExxonMobil. Should you sell when you're receiving a 10% dividend? For this, We're going to Motley Fool senior analyst Matt Argusinger.

Hi, this is Alberto from Long Beach, California. My question is about the petroleum industry. I bought ExxonMobil in 2020 at its lows, around $32. I'm getting approximately a 10% dividend yield. I know that right now, pretty much petroleum is at all-time highs, and winter is coming, which is why I haven't sold yet. Should one simply give up that 10% yield, cash in, and then just invest in a diversified dividend portfolio or a mutual fund or ETS?

Or should I just keep holding it because I have that guaranteed 10% rate on a company that will not disappear? Thank you very much. I can't wait for your answer. Bye-bye. Well, thanks for the question, Alberto, and congrats on investing in ExxonMobil near its lows a couple of years back. Nice work. You were way ahead of the curve when it comes to investing in the energy sector, which is really outperform during the spare market we've had. So you

probably guessed my answer here, but at the Fool, we rarely think you should sell a winner. ExxonMobil, as you mentioned, it's not going anywhere. It's not a fly-by-net company or a technology stock that just happened to catch fire. This company has been a leader and an innovator up and down the energy sector going back over 150 years. And by the way, you mentioned the 10% yield you're getting on your cost basis. Well, that is almost certain to go higher. Exxon paid a dividend every year for more than a century, and it's raised its dividend for 39 consecutive years, and I'm sure it's going to raise it again next year. So you could certainly sell and roll into something more diversified. But just speaking for myself, that would be a tough to do for a company

like Exxon, which is a leading company already highly diversified within its own sector, and just pays out a nice, consistent growing dividend. You have what we call a wonderful problem. Next up, a tough question about diversification for my colleague Dylan Lewis. Hi, I'm Ortlie Kul. My name is Ashan. I'm from California. I have a question about diversification. So actually, I have been investing for the last two years and I have built a portfolio of like almost $35,000 and it consists of 55 different. stocks. Most of them are the Motleyful recommendations. One of my friend, he recently invested in stock Tesla this recent June and he invested almost like $45,000 altogether all at once,

Lamsam. His portfolio is down already almost like 6 to 7%. My portfolio is down almost like 25 to 26%. The question is, what am I doing wrong with diversity? Hey, Ashon, Dylan Lewis here. Great question and a tough situation. But I want to start out by saying that you're doing the right thing. If you've got over 30 stocks and you're planning on holding for three, five, 10 years, you're on the right path. Now, I don't specifically know what you own and when you bought it, but I think that this is a good opportunity to talk a little bit about diversification in a way that gets beyond just the number of stocks you own. We often tend to think about diversification in the sense of what you own, but it also can be thought about in when

you bought it. So it sounds like a lot of the money that you put into the market was a year and a half ago or so when valuations were a little bit higher, and some of the companies that we've seen and we've talked about a lot on the show are a little bit more growth-oriented, and that type of business has been hit hard in 2022 as Outlook has been a little bit tougher, as interest rates have gone up. These are things that tend to affect growth stocks a little bit more. The reason I want to emphasize looking at time in addition to just what you own is, I think 401Ks provide some of the best lessons to investors on the idea of being a net buyer of stocks. Your 401K, if you work for a company or a full-time employee, you have paychecks coming every two

weeks or so, and every two weeks, you're investing in the market. I think it's helpful for us to think about investing on our own with that same mentality. Ups and downs, we're buying stocks. And the reason that that's important is we're not tying our cost basis to any one particular moment in time. It's easy to look at something where companies have gone down and you're staring at some red, but your 401K doesn't know that. It's just continuing to invest over time.

And it's a very helpful way to think about putting new money in a brokerage account that you're putting into individual stocks to work as well. One of the things I also want you to think about as you're thinking about diversification is thinking about how diversification limits the range of extreme outcomes. And that only becomes more true with time and with sample size. Now, in this case, you're talking about what you're doing and what your friend's doing and kind of disappointed that your friend only has one stock that they own and they aren't seeing the losses that you are and trying to reconcile all of that.

And I think what diversification can help us do is limit the range of extreme outcomes, and we tend to see that as sample size increases, right? So your friend has bought one individual stock. and put tens of thousands of dollars into it. Ultimately, might create better returns in a few specific situations, but it is less likely to be the better option if you expand the sample size out. And I don't really like to talk about gambling and investing too much, but one way to think about this is if you are at the roulette table, your friend is essentially betting a specific number. And being diversified means that you are putting your money on the color

red, for example. If you're trying to maximize the returns on a single bet, you're going to put all of your money on an individual number. But the likelihood of repeating success with that bet is very low. And I think it's same thing with the number of positions that your friend holds. Over short periods of time and limited sample size, it's going to be very hard for the business to drive the overall results and returns that an investor sees. Over longer periods of time and larger sample sizes, it's going to be very hard for your friend to consistently be right on an individual company with a lot of money in that individual stock by being so highly concentrated. So I'd urge you to stay the course, continue to do what you're

doing, but just remember that you can continue to put new money into the market. And then as you do, your positions will be less tied to the specific moment that you'd already invested. So, you'll be spreading out your cost basis over time and diversifying not only the number of companies you own, but when you've put that money to work. If you'd like to email the show, just drop a note to podcasts at fool.com. Up next, a question for Tim Byers about a SaaS company called DOMO. Has anyone at The Fool taken a long look at DOMO, ticker D-O-M-O, a cloud-based platform for business intelligence? There are more phones than laptops being used on a daily basis, so this one makes sense. Curious to see if there's any potential down the road on this one.

Thanks, Wayne. So, Wayne, fascinating question, and I understand why you're referencing phones here, because DOMO really got famous for this idea that you could, in a simple analytics platform, you could have all the data you needed to run your company on your iPhone. And it would run through the DOMO app on your iPhone. And to be fair, that's a legitimate argument. Domo is elegant software. It is an elegant platform.

and there are some big customers that have adopted it. Here's the problem, Wayne. You can have a really great product, and you can have some problems in how customers adopt that product. And I think that's the case for DOMO here. It's hard to take the DOMO platform, even though there's a lot of it that's in the cloud now, and adopt it across your entire business

and do all the work to gather all of the data. It takes a long time to do it. It's probably easier now than it used to be. But this becomes a very long sales cycle. And when you have a really long sales cycle, it makes it much harder to grow very fast. And so Domo, unlike some of its peers, it's growing over 20%. You know, revenue is growing over 20%. But this is not one of those that's growing at 30, 40, 50%. And it's unlikely to do so in the future, Wayne. So I think, it's much more likely that this company that has been in transition for a while is an acquisition candidate. And there are some signs that the transition that it's undergoing right now is gaining some traction. Probably the biggest news in terms of that transition is that the founder, Josh James, has taken a longtime colleague of his, somebody he's worked with since the days that They were both at Omnature, which is another company that James founded. His old colleague, John Meller, who'd been at Domo since 2019, is now the CEO.

So James is out of the picture. He was kind of a strange and interesting and funny character who had a little bit of a reputation for spending too much money. Now Meller comes in, in March, is kind of inserting a little bit more discipline, maybe doing things a little bit differently, trying to shake things up, maybe on the sales team. And that could be a good thing. If anything, what I expect is him to kind of clean things up a little bit, get the company in better shape. So if a suitor does come along and makes a big offer for this company, it's going to be maybe a more attractive offer. So I personally think if there's a great outcome for investors in DOMO. It's going to be because a big company came along with a big

check and said, come on in. So, thanks for the question, Wayne. Hans in our Facebook group has a question about innovative industrial properties, a cannabis real estate investment trust. And senior analyst Emily Flippen has an answer. I have my eye on innovative industrial properties, ticker IIPR. I'm already invested in the company and it has an 8.1% yield. But the dividend growth has slowed down, and some of their customers are having trouble paying rent. I know you say add to your winners, and I see IIPR as a winner with some troubles. The stock price is down a lot, but the dividend yield is up a lot, and I sure like the yield. I'm considering adding heavy to the position, making it a 10% position.

Besides one big tenant having trouble paying rent, are there any other red flags? Thanks. I love this question, in part because I'm an innovative industrial property shareholder myself. So this is right up my alley. But there's really two parts to your question here. The first one being, how do we feel about the company today? And the second one being, how large of an allocation should I be putting into this business? So I'll address the first part first, which is IIPR, that's innovative industrial properties, has had a very challenging start to this year. I shouldn't say start. It's October. But for the first half or so of this year, they faced challenges that

they had not faced previously, which is why their stock price is down. much. The biggest one being, as you mentioned, issues with one of their tenants, Kings Garden paying rent. To this point, they haven't had any of their tenants default on the rent agreements. And Kings Garden, unfortunately, is the first one. They're in the process of bringing this company to court, but you can't get blood from a stone. And it's unlikely that Kings Garden, which is one of innovative industrial property's largest tenants, is going to be a tenant for this company moving forward, which is why you could say that the yield looks so cheap on a relative basis, is because the market is pricing in a decrease in distributable cash flows in the future.

And you can see this with their other tenants as well. It's not just challenges at King's Garden, but challenges across the cannabis industry as a whole. In fact, five of innovative industrial properties tenants, that's PharmaCAN, Parallel, Ascend, Kingsgarten, which you mentioned, and True Leaf represent 14, 10, 9,000, 8 and 7% of sales, respectively. So there's a decent amount of concentration, revenue concentration, with these customers. And not all of those customers are in great financial positions. This has been a really challenging year for cannabis operators at large. There's been a lot of competition, lots of price decreasing. Margins have fallen for a lot of businesses. While

there are some strong states at large, it's been challenging for cannabis operators. Now, while it's important for cannabis operators to make payments on their leases, the same way it's important for regular people to make payments on their mortgages or to pay their rent. Ultimately, if they don't have the cash flows, then that's cash flows that's not going to innovative industrial properties, which are not flowing down to shareholders. In addition, innovative industrial properties has always traded at a relative premium for what it is, which is a cannabis reet, in part because the market expected them to continue to pull on new business. And as investments in the cannabis industry have fallen this year, so has innovative

of industrial property's ability to get new leases, new tenants, which has negatively impacted growth. So there's a lot of headwinds facing this business today. I still like the business long term, but I would not say that looking at where the company is today versus where it was last year, that they are in a better spot. Which does bring me to the second part of that question. How should we think about the position sizing? Personally, I would never feel comfortable making this company more than, you know, three, four percent of my personal portfolio, in part because this is an extremely risky business. They depend upon the cash flows entirely from cannabis operators, and the cannabis industry is still so nascent that it can go out of business

quite literally any day now, and their core tenants can stop paying rents. If that happens, the yield that you're seeing today on this company is going to disappear effectively overnight. Now, that's a risk that exists really strongly in the cannabis industry. That doesn't necessarily exist when you're looking at other dividend-paying investments. So personally, it's not a company that I would recommend over-allocating in, but every person's risk tolerance is different. Are luxury goods a good hedge against inflation? We're going to go back to Matt Argusinger for the answer. This question comes from Andy in Memphis, Tennessee. I'm wondering whether investing in luxury companies would hold up well against inflation and a recession and perhaps reward shareholders going

forward. It seems to me that a person who can afford to buy a Ferrari doesn't care if the price goes up. So I'm thinking about a luxury basket of stocks, something along the lines of Ferrari, RH, Inc., the swatch group, LVMH, Monet Hennessy, Louis Vuitton, and Capri Holdings. It seems like this would cover a wide variety of luxury items, cars, furniture, clothes, watches, and other accessories. What do you think about this is a concept? Are there any others you might add to this basket? It seems like luxury companies haven't performed well over the past years, like most other stocks, so I'm wondering what I may be overlooking. I think you're on to something here, Andy.

Probably the reason a lot of luxury companies, including the ones you mentioned, haven't performed very well, is because a lot of investors assume that spending on high-end discretionary items will be the first to go once we actually enter a recession. Now, there's some validity to that, but I do think that wealthier consumers are far less susceptible to price inflation or a slower economy, like you mentioned. In fact, our team here at The Fool just had a conversation with Liz Ann Saunders. She's the chief investment strategist of Charles Schwab. She's an amazing array of data to make her investment calls.

One of the data points she brought up was how higher income households tend to have a lot of excess savings right now relative to lower income households. That tells me that their spending habits will likely hold up even if we do enter a recession. So I think you've got a great list. If I was to add one or two, I might add Vail Resorts or a company called Pebble Brubble Hotel Trust, which is a REIT. Of course, I'm sure you've heard of Vail, but both these companies own luxury resorts around the country. Pelbrook, for example, is seeing their demand surge back to pre-bendemic levels, and their nightly rates are hitting new records. So maybe add some luxury

travel to your list, but I think you've already got a pretty impressive basket of companies. A long-time listener wanted Jason Moser's latest thoughts on software giant Adobe. Question from Sean. Hi, Chris. I'd love to hear Jason Moser's thoughts on Adobe. Is the thesis still strong on this one? Does he feel strongly, like Wall Street does, that the Figma acquisition is a bad call due to the price tag? Thanks. Thanks for the question, Sean. And it was such a good question.

Yeah, we actually got Jason Moser on this one. Jason? Adobe paid $20 billion for Figma. What are your thoughts on Adobe and the overall thesis for the business? Because Sean is right. is right. The reaction from Wall Street was not positive because of the amount of money they were paying for Figma. Oh, no. It's as negative an outlook on this business as I have seen in some time. And I

mean, I say that as a shareholder of Adobe. I say that as someone who has recommended Adobe in our service. And I will say, I mean, I remain a shareholder. And honestly, I remain a happy shareholder, right? It's been a tough year for Adobe to be sure things got worse with the recent announcement of the Figma deal. And I get that. This is a big acquisition, and they are paying a lot for it in the context of where Figma is in its development. Now, a few things I will add, though, I mean, as a leader, when you look at just Adobe, look at the business of Adobe. As a leader in the digital media space, and most of its revenue is still tied to subscription. This is a very strong business. Forget about the acquisition and just focus on the core business

for a second. It's still a very strong business generated 7.1 billion. billion dollars in free cash flow over the last 12 months. That's $5.8 billion if you back out the stock base compensation. If you assume this deal goes through, which I think it will, then it removes a competitive threat that would only loom larger as the years go by. And so when you look at the valuation today of Adobe, these cash flow metrics that puts shares today at around 18.3 and 22.4 times those free cash flow numbers I just gave you respectively. Historically, I wouldn't say cheap, but it certainly seems opportunistic.

Now, the questions regarding the acquisition are absolutely fair and right. And the financials will look a little bit different in order to make the deal happen. But that will flow through in time, right? This is not something that just is going to pin this company down. It's got a lot of resources and it makes a lot of money in the process. So if you can afford to take the long review and think about owning these shares for, you know, for the next five years or even longer, then I think this valuation starts to seem

a little bit more worth paying attention to. And to put it another way, we'll ask on this show often, you know, value play or value trap, right? And I think that when you look at the core business of Adobe, acquisition notwithstanding, acquisition included. To me, it's very difficult to argue that this is a value trap based on the core business of Adobe.

You know, and there's an old investing saw, that goes something like if you want to outperform, then you have to go against the herd from time to time. The market, obviously taking a very glass-f-empty perspective here today, I think it's worth looking at it's a little bit differently based on the strength of the core Adobe business. And one final thing I'll add here, there's a thread on Twitter that I think is worth reading.

It's from someone named Amal Dari and the handle there is at AMA-L-D-O-R-A-I. And this is a thread posted from Amal Dari in mid-September right after this deal was announced. I would just encourage you to go read that thread for another perspective because it does seem to be a unique perspective. It does seem that Amal has experience in play here. The thread gets a little bit into the weeds, talks a little bit more about why Adobe is making this deal. It's not just to eliminate a competitor, but it's to bring some additional capability in-house. I'm not saying it's necessarily right or wrong, but it is another perspective. I think that's always important, particularly when you see deals like these, where it seems

like so many or so adamantly against it and saying it's just the wrong thing, find those voices out there that are arguing to the contrary, and at least read that thread to get a little bit of a different perspective. But generally speaking, I remain very bullish on Adobe, and I frankly think that today's price represents an opportunity for folks who are able to take that longer view. mortgage rates are rising. Should you change how you invest? We gave this question to Robert Browcamp. Hey fools, this may seem like a silly concept, but I thought I would throw it out there. I have a variable rate mortgage right now, and obviously that's not going well for me.

One of my holdings is with the first National Financial Corp, who I also hold my mortgage with. I believe in the company and do not plan to sell anytime soon. I've considered increasing my holdings substantially to quote, stick it to the man and use the monthly dividends from the company to pay the increased interest from my mortgage while interest rates climb. Is this a silly idea, or am I a genius for making my bank pay their own interest charges while still investing my money into a successful business? That's from Jeremy in Saskatchewan, Canada. Well, Jeremy, I love the idea.

I can see the satisfaction of getting a check from the same company you have to send a check to. That said, you do want to invest in the companies that have the most return potential, not necessarily for just the psychological satisfaction of feeling like, They're partially paying your mortgage. And I'm not familiar with this company, so I can't say whether this is the best place for your money. But I can see that it has a 6.5 percent yield. Now, I'm not an expert on Canadian bank stocks.

But if this were a U.S. stock and it had that yield, I might be actually a little concerned, because it could be a sign that the company is in trouble and the dividend may get cut. So you'll just have to do your own due diligence on whether that dividend is sustainable and maybe whether you can expect it to grow over time. I do like a company that can reliably grow its dividend year after year, especially if you're trying to pair it up with a bill that you have to pay. But I do think it's important to note that a dividend isn't a free lunch. The company is basically distributing its assets, in this case, on a monthly basis, and the

stock price should theoretically adjust accordingly. So if there's another stock or ETF that you think makes for a better investment, but it doesn't pay such a generous dividend, you basically could create your own dividend just by selling off little pieces of it gradually over time. And I should also add that we generally recommend that you don't invest money that you need in the next few years. So I'd hate for you not to be able to pay your mortgage because you put the next few months' worth of mortgage payments into a stock and then the stock plummets. So definitely play it safe with your near-term money. And really, and best of luck to you too, because I know there's a large percentage of mortgage

holders in Canada and other countries such as England whose rates are adjustable. And the upcoming mortgage payments could be very painful. And if you can make it work so that the bank could help you cover those payments with their dividends, well, then more power to you. Last up, can hedge fund techniques increase your returns? Our producer Ricky Mulvey took a crack at this one. Next question comes from Chuck. He wrote us, I divided my stocks into four portfolios, defensive, foreign equity, U.S. equity, and Motley Fool. Right now, I have 32 stocks. I'm also coursing through an MBA. However, like almost everyone, I'm pretty red this year. So here's the question. What are your thoughts about hedge fund techniques?

I was thinking about having another absolute return portfolio that I don't hold for five years, but one to two years to maximize the return. The math behind is pretty straightforward. Suppose you have two investments. One grows at 10 years for 7.2% and another grows at 12.4% for 10 years. If the second one is down 30% in the first year, both investments will have the same absolute return in 10 years. So what are your thoughts about using hedge fund techniques for, let's say 15% of the total portfolio to improve the return. Thanks a lot. Best Chuck. Thanks for the question, Chuck. And I'm going to take a crack at answering this one. A little curious what you mean by hedge fund techniques. That can mean a lot of different things. Could mean short selling or

merger arbitrage. Could mean that you're looking at event-driven trades. But I don't necessarily think that using that these techniques will help your overall return. One piece of data. Research from a company called GINS Global, it's an index provider, found that about 80% of US equity fund managers underperform the Standard & Poor's 500 over a five-year period. There was also a famous bet that Warren Buffett made back in 2008. He said that if any hedge fund manager could beat the S&P 500 for a 10-year period, he would donate a bunch of money to the charity of their choice. One guy took him up on it, lost handedly, although I will note that he said in a Bloomberg opinion piece,

quote, my guess is that doubling down on a bet with Warren Buffett over the next 10 years would hold a greater than even odds of victory. So he didn't quite back down on it. And hedge fund techniques can certainly win. There are some famous hedge fund managers who beat the market over extended periods of time. But that kind of market participation is extraordinarily difficult, especially for something, let's just say that's 15% of your total portfolio. One exception, you said you're an MBA student, so maybe you're thinking about working

in that realm, so you want to get a little bit of a flavor of it. Sure, try it out. Why not? But, I mean, among the fools I talk to, the best investments they make aren't not focused on trades, but it's holding businesses over a very long period of time. And the good news is that there's a lot of quality businesses out there that are on sale right now. And so, you know, bare markets are where investors make most of their money, even if it hurts right now. So I hope that answers your question and appreciate you listening to Motley Fool Money. Thank you so much for the questions, please keep them coming. You can email podcasts at fool.com. You can call the Motley Fool Money hotline at 703-254-1445. 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 ourselves stocks based solely on what you hear. I'm Chris Hill. Thanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow.