"Motley Fool Money" Mailbag: Commercial Real Estate, Personal Finance, and International Investing

A motley collection of Fools from The Motley Fool answer listener questions.

To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. To get started investing, check out our quick-start guide to investing in stocks. A full transcript follows the video.

This video was recorded on August 12, 2023.

Asit Sharma: We'd all love to see those 80% and 100% gains stay there linearly and then start to increase from that level, but it ain't how the market works. Unfortunately, I've experienced this myself, have been fortunate enough every once a while to buy at a great point when the market's really down as i think Cassandra has and see some big gains. But I think in the investing game, it's more important to try to realize those long-term returns and not try to get things perfect.

Mary Long: I'm Mary Long and that's Motley Fool Senior Analyst Asit Sharma. On today's show, we're cracking open the mailbag and answering listener questions. If you have a question about saving, investing, or the economy, shoot us an email at [email protected]. That's podcasts with an s, @fool.com. We're starting off with a commercial real estate question. We'll kick that one over to our resident real estate expert and Motley Fool Money co-host, Deidre Woollard. JD from Fairfax Station, Virginia, writes, "Hey Fools, do you think a United States commercial real estate crash could have a similar impact on the global economy like the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007, 2010?" Well, JD, that is certainly an interesting question. There are absolutely signs commercial real estate is in a tough spot. I would say though, that the impact is spread out a little differently. You've got a few different things going on here. First, as you know, high-interest rates. So that makes getting a new loan or refinancing really tricky. And you have that both on the residential and the commercial side. But on the commercial side, the total commercial and multi-family borrowing and lending that has dropped dramatically. It's expected to fall to 504 billion, down about 38% according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Now it is expected to rebound next year, but you've got this stalled-out market right now. Global investment in CRE down for at least this year, probably next year too. At the same time, you've also got a lot of big cities that have dramatically reduced office occupancy rates. You've seen companies cutting back their leases so there's higher vacancy, unused supply. Then what makes all of this more concerning is that you've got those smaller regional banks, they're holding a lot of these commercial loans.

That's some of what we saw with the Moody's banking downgrades recently. They were about a lot of those smaller regional banks. We're seeing it in bigger banks too, Wells Fargo for example, and Bank of America. They have a fair amount of exposure to office real estate. I feel like this could have some of the flavor of the subprime crisis and the real estate drags down some of the banks, but my instinct is that the overall economy itself may suffer less. To me, it feels like that old adage that history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. This is a different rhyme. This type of crisis is absolutely going to drag on banks. It's certainly going to drag on a lot of the office rates I follow. I don't believe that the commercial real estate twice is going to lead to any economic downturn the way the subprime mortgage crisis did, but it absolutely is going to contribute to it meaningfully. I looked at some CBRE information and interesting stuff here, two-thirds of all US office buildings were more than 90% leased as of the second quarter. Not great, but not maybe as dire as you might think, down from about 71% leased in the first quarter of 2020. Overall, US vacancy rates in the second quarter, now, they had a 30-year high of 18.2%. That's definitely a concern. CBRE is saying that we might hit a peak of almost 20% by 2024. Now, it's bad, but there is something to keep in mind is that about 10% of all the US office buildings account for 80% of the occupancy losses, between 2020 and 2024. That's the big city stuff that we've been seeing. San Francisco, Manhattan, Los Angeles, definitely. We've seen some pretty high-profile foreclosures in those markets. But there's a wildcard for me and that is the September return to office. I've been following this. We've seen more and more companies like Zoom and Amazon, they're tightening their policies.

There's talking a lot more about hybrid work and moving people closer to office hubs. I know we've even got the federal government calling for more in-person work. The White House Chief of Staff, they send out a mellow that said, it's priority of the president. They're planning to move forward aggressively on this shift in September and October. I'd start to fall as this though, if that tide change dramatically, if the job market remains steady, if occupancy ticks up, maybe things turn more positively than we thought. That's a lot of ifs for me. If I'm investing I like one if, not like if, if, if. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I'm going to say it's going to take at least a year or two for this all to shakeout. Next up, what happens when a company you own declares bankruptcy? We'll send that over to Motley Fool Senior Analyst Jason Moser. Josh says, "Hi Fools, two long-term positions with relatively small weight in my non-IRA portfolio recently went bankrupt. AppHarvest ticker APPH, and Plant-Based Investment Corp, ticker CWWBF. What are some good conventional wisdom on how to handle the situation? Does it make sense to hold out help for a buyer to revitalize the companies or to sell them at a loss. It appears I can still sell AppHarvest, but it doesn't look the same for CWWBF stock. I'm wondering why that might be. Thanks.

Asit Sharma: I can speak a little bit better to AppHarvest in this particular situation. I'm not as familiar with Plant-Based Investment Corp, but I do understand some of the differences here. Now, in regard to AppHarvest, AppHarvest is a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, so a reorg. Which means at least their intention is to not go out of business. They're trying to reorganize the business, pay off the debts that they owe, and ultimately restructure the business so that there is a future there. The stock currently has been delisted from major exchanges, so it does trade over-the-counter on those pink sheets, so it is still liquid, it can still be traded. I would say too, there was an 8-K that was filed on August 4th. If you look at that 8-K, which is a press announcement of a press release under the segment, there's a section in there called cautionary statements regarding trading in the company's securities. I'll read what it says there. It says, quote unquote, the company's security holders are cautioned that trading in the company's securities during the pendency of Chapter 11 case is highly speculative and poses substantial risks. Trading prices for the company's securities may bear a little or no relationship to the actual recovery, if any, by holders thereof in the company's Chapter 11 cases. Accordingly, the company urges extreme caution with respect to existing and future investments in its securities. Now, I think that really all goes to it. I'll offer my perspective here as an AppHarvest shareholder.

This is one where I own this in one of my retirement accounts. But I think regardless, you're going to look at this and think, well, do you want to be part of a potential future here? Because there is a potential future now, typically when a company files for bankruptcy, in Chapter 11, reorg, that usually doesn't bode well for shareholders, but it doesn't mean that shareholders absolutely are going to be left out in the cold, there is a future, there's a possibility. There's the potential that things could work out and somehow in some way this business restructures and your claim on this business as a shareholder amounts to something down the line. If it does, that would be well down the line. I think in this case, when you're owning this in what is a non-IRA portfolio, you could look at selling these shares and taking advantage of the capital loss in this situation, perhaps to offset some gains. In my case, for example, this is something that I own in a retirement portfolio, I'm just going to let it run. It wasn't a large investment by any means, it was a speculative position. Who knows down the road, maybe this restructuring works out and something ends up positively for shareholders. But generally speaking, I think in this case with a non-IRA portfolio, it certainly can't be held against you in going ahead and just cutting bait as they say, and moving on.

You can at least take advantage of the capital loss in that situation. As it pertains to Plant-Based Investment Corp, while I don't know this company as well, this seems to be a little bit different than AppHarvest in that while AppHarvest is a business focused on doing something in controlled environment agriculture, Plant-Based Investment Corp looks like it's a principal investment firm. They were ultimately investing in other businesses, and in businesses that were focused primarily on the cannabis industry. So it does look like based on what I've seen here, that this investment firm essentially has liquidated. I don't know that there is anything else to say here. You may want to contact your brokerage to see what the status is in regard to wiping it from your account and finalizing the loss, but I don't think there is any future here from what I can see. Again, this is a Canadian company, so there are some different laws and rules that come into play here. But generally speaking, it's a bankruptcy like any other in that regard. I think that at least with AppHarvest, there's the potential for a future, although that's a very small potential. Whereas with the Plant-Based Investment Corp, it seems that future has been pretty much sealed and there really isn't one. I'd contact your brokerage, in that case, to see what you need to do in regard to getting that wiped from your account and being able to take advantage ultimately of that loss.

Mary Long: Now, a question about a growing health issue and if it presents an opportunity for investors. For that, we'll turn to Motley Fool contributor and Biotech Analyst Brian Orelli. Our next question comes from Carol Liz, who writes, "Hello, best wishes from Lithuania. I am a new investor and bought my first stock in October of last year." Congratulations. "Thank you for your content. Ever since I found you guys in January, I have never skipped an episode. However, I have a question for you. While I was searching for new opportunities in the market from time to time, I came across articles stating that more and more people will experience hearing problems in the future due to listening to music too loud and so on. Even popular media such as Forbes has articles with these statements. Here are some quick stats. More than one-and-a-half billion people worldwide are currently affected by hearing loss in at least one year. Around 430 million people worldwide require rehabilitation for disabling hearing loss. Approximately 13% of adults aged 18 and older experience some difficulty hearing even when using a hearing aid. The list goes on and on. I'm I the only one who sees an opportunity in this field? Maybe you guys know some companies which have potential to grow in this field, I appreciate your time and have a good day."

Brian Orelli: Carolis. It's not just listening to music too loud that affects hearing. The average American is also getting older, which will increase the number of people who need help improving their ability to here and even chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer can cause hearing loss. You basically have two options here. Hearing aids or drugs designed to improve hearing. On the hearing aid side, there's quite a bit of upside because the FDA changed the rules last year, which allows consumers to buy the hearing aids without a medical exam, prescription, or a fitting from an audiologists. Removing that added hassle may result in people with mild hearing loss buying a device earlier in their hearing-declined journey than they would have otherwise. The big players here in the hearing aid business are all foreign companies. There's Senova, which trades on the Swiss Stock Exchange under the ticker SON, there's demand, which trades on the Copenhagen Stock Exchange under demand and GN Store Nord, which is also in the Copenhagen Stock Exchange under GN. There's also a couple of privately held companies you might want to keep an eye on to see if they go public, lively starkly and WS Audiology. Finally, if you want to go with a picks and shovels route for devices, there's Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S ticker KN, which makes components for the hearing aids, but they also make components for other devices. 

So it's not a pure play on hearing loss, devices increasing. But on the drug side, it's substantially more risky because there aren't any drugs that are approved by the FDA. So you'll be investing in development stage companies, a case in point Frequency Therapeutics, which was developing a new drug to help regrow hair cells in the cochlea, which the hair cells help you hear better and our meeting cause of why you have hearing loss. The early stage company looked promising, but earlier this year and midstage clinical trial failed and the program was shuttered. The company plans to merge with another company and is selling off its remaining non-hearing loss programs. There's Decibel Therapeutics ticker, there's DBT X, which has multiple early stage gene therapy programs. The programs looked promising enough that Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, just this week, announced that it was going to acquire decibel for approximately $109 million upfront. Investors will also get approximately 213 million if regulatory milestones are met. Regeneron is a fairly large drug maker. So this won't be the pure play on hearing loss that decibel would have been if it had said, independent company. Then finally, privately held sound Pharmaceuticals has a late-stage treatment for Meniere's disease, which is caused by a buildup in fluid in the chambers in the inner ear and has also a few other hearing loss early stage programs, it might be worth keeping an eye on if the company decides to go public. 

Mary Long: We also got a couple of questions that are perfect from Motley Fool Senior Analyst, Asit Sharma, one about Tesla and the other, about staying in the market as stocks are moving up into the right. This question comes from an anonymous listener who writes, with car companies agreeing to use Tesla charging stations, will it generate enough revenue for them to be viewed as a utility company if EV's grow enough and stick around?

Asit Sharma: Mary, this is an interesting question. At the end of the day, this is what all of us would love is to own interests in growing companies that also have these annuity-type revenue streams. I just don't see it for Tesla though in the near term, I've seen a bunch of estimates from people who are much more knowledgeable than me in the auto industry, in the EV space, estimates that range anywhere from this being a three-billion-dollar business to five billion bucks a year. Now that's substantial, but it's just a fraction of Tesla's quarterly revenues or annualized revenues, looking at it that way. So this is a business which certainly has the potential to contribute some more umph to Tesla's bottom line. But I wouldn't buy these shares just on the thought that, hey, this is the next utility. Maybe if we return to this question around 2030, which is where I've seen most of the projections go out to, we can discuss it then.

Mary Long: Next question comes from Cassandra, who says, last year I was dumping paycheck after paycheck into the market. Considering the whopping super sale, that was 2022, it was like buying the last available air conditioner during a heatwave while hundreds are in line to buy the exact one you just got. You want to sneak out the back door. Now, I am really rotation to buy given the higher prices. I feel emotionally blocked concerning dollar-cost averaging into the super awesome companies in my portfolio. It feels so good to see 80% or 100% gains. If I buy now, those joyous numbers will tumble into oblivion. Any advice?

Asit Sharma: Well, one is, we'd all love to see those 80% and 100% gains stay there linearly and then start to increase from that level. But it ain't how the market works. Unfortunately, I've experienced this myself. Have been fortunate enough every once in a while to buy at a great point when the markets are really down as I think Cassandra has and see some big gains. But I think in the investing game, it's more important to try to realize those long-term returns and not try to get things perfect. In other words, you can have a situation that seems really optimal now. You had some quick gains so there's a temptation to sell out. You'd have to feel the pain of watching those gains go down. But this is the beauty of dollar-cost averaging. As those companies now are going to retrace a bit, you have a chance to add to that cost basis. You're still looking out over a longer time horizon. So the discipline of dollar-cost averaging is what drives the returns. I totally get that emotional seesaw that can happen, have been victim to it myself. But overall, it's better for us just to keep doing what we're doing, as long as we're buying quality companies that are going to generate higher cash flows in the future. There's a somewhat reasonable valuations still on the table as you're averaging in.

Mary Long: One more plug, if you've got a question you'd like answered on the show, seriously, shoot us an email @[email protected]. We also have a voice mail, so leave us a message at 7032541445. We'd love to get some listener voices onto the show. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. We've got some personal finance questions, so we'll send those over to Motley Fool Senior Advisor Robert Brokamp. JS writes, Hello Fools. This past year or so, since i started listening to the podcast, I decided to make some investing changes. I decided to become more foolish with how my portfolios are setup. I divested from my over-represented positions, ensuring I held over 25 stocks. I started to avoid meme stocks and I decided to hold specific portions of my accounts in an S and P 500 ETF ticker SPY and the Vanguard total market index fund, ETF VTI, and cash. For the most part, everything has gone well and according to plan, except I can't maintain my cash goal. I love buying new stocks as a net buyer to add to my portfolio. Do you have any recommendations? Are there any [inaudible] that could be used in place of cash?

Robert Brokamp: Well, the assets, it sounds like you're on the right track. You're being sufficiently diversified with your individual stocks, but you're also owning some index funds as well, which I love. There really two main reasons to hold cash. The first is that classic emergency funds. You have money to pay your bills or something happens to your job or to pay for an unexpected big ticket expense. The other is to have cash in your portfolio to use opportunistically when you see a good investment opportunity. It sounds to me like you're talking more about the ladder and that when you see cash in your portfolio, you just itching to invest it. To be honest, if you have the risk tolerance and the time horizon for a portfolio that is pretty much 100% stocks, I'd say go for it. Of course, then you won't have any more cash to invest if another investment appears on your radar, but you can gradually build up your cash with new contributions to your IRA 401K your brokerage accounts. Also by not reinvesting your dividends and for the stocks that don't pay, Dave, and you can create your own by just selling off one to two percent of those holdings each year to create the dividend. But only if you're looking for more cash. Just be careful not to become over-diversified and own so many stocks that you can't stay on top of them.

As for where to park your cash in a brokerage account, definitely look for higher yielding choices because the default cash account for some brokers do not pay very much. See if your broker offers a higher-yielding option, it might be, it's so-called Sweep account. Another option is a money market fund in many of these days are yielding 5% or more. Just find out beforehand whether it will be considered among what is known as your settlement funds, which is money that you can use immediately to buy another investment. Otherwise, you might have to first sell the funds then wait a day or two to invest the proceeds. Then finally, treasury bills are generally yielding over 5% these days and they have the benefit of being free of state income taxes. So you can buy them individually or through an ETF, like the iShares, zero to three months treasury, ETF ticker, SGOV. It's an ETF that I actually own. But you would generally have to wait a day or two after selling to use the proceeds to buy another investment.

Mary Long: Now we hear from Patrick who writes, "Friends at The Fool, I've had some health issues that did not interfere with my ability to work but made me almost uninsurable. I'm in my 50s and comfortable financially. My wife and I are now about halfway toward our retirement savings goal. If I were forced to retire now, we could do so comfortably but would need to adjust our lifestyle. We have fully funded our children's college and will be mortgage-free in seven years. I have term life insurance policies. My agent and financial advisor have each tried selling me the idea of converting a portion of my policy to whole life without a health exam. To me, it simply sounds like an expensive annuity. Well, I hope to work at least another 10 years, I realized that health issues sometimes have other plans for us. Generally, when is it better to self-insure versus buy a whole life insurance policy? As always, I appreciate the great advice."

Robert Brokamp: First off, Patrick, I'm sorry to hear about your health issues, and I certainly hope you're able to work as long as you'd like. But your situation does highlight an important reality, and that is as much as 40% of people retire earlier than expected, mostly due to health issues. It's important not to put off saving for retirement until your 40s or 50s because you may not be able to work well into your 60s. As for life insurance, the main reason to have it is to support people who would be financially devastated if you passed away. It sounds like your kids would be fine, since you've been smart enough to save up their college expenses, and you only have seven years left on your mortgage so perhaps your wife would manage financially without you as well. But if not, then perhaps it is worth looking at ways to maintain your coverage. I would just go back to your agent and financial advisor and get very clear explanations and illustrations about why they think you should buy a whole-life policy instead of just investing that money. Because I really don't want to dismiss it outright. They know your situation and I don't. Some features of life insurance policies vary. For example, some allow you to use the money early for long-term care expenses, which might be important to you. But generally speaking, for people who don't need life insurance, they're better off investing that money that would otherwise go to whole life premiums, which can get pretty pricey.

Mary Long: The mailbag had a couple of questions about international investing. For the first one, we'll turn to Bill Mann, Lead Advisor on our Global Partners investing service. Next question comes from Spence in Los Angeles. "Hey, there. Long-time fellow Fool and listener. You all rule." Thanks, Spence. "I just read an article that said India's economy is on track to become the second largest in the world by 2075. I was just wondering if TMF has any stocks on their radar sectors or potential investment opportunities in India specifically. Seems right for growth and would love to hear people's takes on the matter. Much love and Fool on."

Bill Mann: Hey, Spence. Thanks for the question about India. I've got bad news and I've got worst news when it comes to India. The bad news is that there are only 12 Indian companies that have ADRs in the United States, which are direct ways in which American individual investors can invest in the country. The worst news is that India is not one of the countries that is generally accessible through any of the brokers. The primary brokers that people use to trade internationally here at the US are Interactive Brokers, Schwab, and Fidelity. India is not on any of their platforms. It is very difficult to get approved as an investor in India. It is almost impossible unless you are a non-resident Indian, or NRI, as an individual to get approval in India. That leaves 12 companies that have listings here in the US. Then oddly enough, there are more than that of ETFs, which actually provide a little bit of breadth into India. It's almost impossible to get individual stock exposure. If I were to invest in India, I think I would focus on the iShares MSCI India Small-Cap ETF. It's up about 17% on the year, and the ticker for that is SMIN.

Mary Long: For our final question, we got to note that may have been intended for the Australian version of Motley Fool Money, but it's OK because we got Scott Phillips, Chief Investment Officer for Motley Fool Australia to answer it. Anonymous writes, "Hey, guys. Love the podcast. As the Australian dollar weakens against the US dollar, is now a good time to be stocking up on US shares. I know there are 100 other factors, but should that metric be taken into account? Thanks very much."

Scott Phillips: This is a really really good question. That's a really difficult thing to do. First thing I want to point out is the difference between share prices and exchange rates. Now, you know what they are. But I want to draw a line to them because it's important. Share prices tend to go up over time as companies make more profit, they are, to some degree, there are relative measures because there are multiple of earnings, generally speaking, or at least express that way. But they're absolute in the sense that for the best businesses in the world, there is no, well, not a reasonable upper limitation in terms of profitability. I mean, trees can't go to the sky, but they can grow for a very long time. An exchange rate, and it's implied by the name, is a measure of the exchange. The difference in the relative value. This is the relative not the absolute value. This is the point between two currencies. It generally tends to do two things. Firstly, mean reverts. Secondly, there's only a reasonable range of movement in that exchange rate. You're not going to all of a sudden get $100 Australian for $1 US, or $100 US for $1 Australian.

You're going to get somewhere around, at least historically, $0.85 US to $1 Australian, maybe $0.80 these days is about the average. It goes a bit above that for a while, a bit below that for a while, but you're bouncing around that average number. That's important because if you think about then the two things side by side, if I've got relatively unlimited upside in my share price, but I've got a relatively fixed movement around the exchange rate, and if I'm a long-term investor, it's very likely that the long-term returns from the shares, getting the share purchase, the company selection run is far more likely to be impactful on my portfolio returns than getting the right exchange rate. I would always spend much more time looking at the company and less time looking at the exchange rate. In fact, if the exchange rates close to enough, but as close a reasonably big range, but around that average, I don't know what the exchange rate is going to be moving forward, so I'm going to focus on the company. The only exception I'd make, and this goes to the question is, if you have extreme outliers when it comes to that exchange rate, then yeah, you probably want to have to think about it. If you have a very favorable exchange rate compared to history, then you probably want to take advantage of that. If you have a very unfavorable exchange rate, you're rolling the dice against you. The bogey is that much harder to get because you have to be right about your company, and as to be so much more right, you have to make so much more money to overcome the impact of the exchange rate going back to some degree of normal. That's important when you think about balancing the two. Generally speaking, the closer the exchange rate is to the average, the less I care about it. I don't care about it much at all.

At some extremes, there was a time a few years ago when the Aussie dollar was buying $1.10 US. I can't remember the last time was over dollar. That was huge. We're saying to our Australian members, hey, now's the time. If ever, now is only buying US dollar assets now that the exchange rate is about $0.65 now down from $1.10. You can see the value of doing that at the time. Generally speaking though, I mean, I guess at the current level I'd be slightly dissuaded from buying US dollar assets because the exchange of $0.65 for the long run averages 80 or 85. That being said, if I found the next Apple or Amazon or something else, I should say I own Amazon shares, then again, the opportunity I don't want to miss out on a big multi-bagger share price-wise because I'm trying to be too cute on the exchange rate. I hope that helps. Buy the right companies at the right prices. As long as the exchange rate is roughly OK, the further away from average it is, maybe the more you should just think about the timing of your purchase. But don't let a small exchange rate differential, and so you miss out on some really big, particularly long-term winners. The last thing I'd say very quickly is thinking about long-term winners, that's important.

The long you own the shares, particularly if and I hope when you get the share selection right, the less exchange rates going to matter. If you're buying, holding for three, five, 10, 15, 20 years, there's a very good chance. Again, if you're right over that period of time, the share price accumulation, the share price increase is going to dwarf any movement in the exchange rate. Particularly because hopefully by then you can choose the time you want to sell and the time you bring the money back to Australia, or in the case of American investors, buying in Australia the other way around. Hot tip as I finish. If you're an American investor and you're looking at buying shares in Australia at $0.65, it's been better for you guys. Not all that much better and certainly toward the bottom end of the range. If I was an Australian I'd be not exactly [inaudible] myself to buy US dollars right now, not so much US companies, US dollars. If I was an American investor and I could find great Australian investment opportunities, that's $0.65 or probably was $1.30 in reverse, so you over there may be a very good time to look at least at whether the Australian market has something to offer for you. That's it. That's the end of the PR exercise. But I hope you've learned something from the answer as well. Thanks and Fool on.

Mary Long: 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. I'm Mary long. Thanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow.