• Slate Auto CEO Chris Barman described five types of buyers interested in the company's low-cost electric truck.
• The demographic groups included fresh college graduates, newly-licensed drivers, and retirees, she told Sherwood News.
• The Jeff Bezos-backed company initially promised a truck "under $20,000," but shifted to a "mid-twenties" expected price tag.

Slate Auto's new electric vehicle is expected to be unusually cheap, priced in the mid-twenty-thousand-dollar range.

Given its anticipated price point, Slate says it has seen interest from five different consumer segments as it prepares to enter the market, CEO Chris Barman said in a recent interview with Sherwood News.

First, Barman said that "everyday Americans" are interested in the vehicle, mostly because "it's just an affordable vehicle and a lot of utility and value for the money."

Barman also said that "young professionals" fresh out of college or trade school are interested. "They're looking for value for the money, and what they love is the fact that it's an EV and they love the customization," she said.

Electric vehicle ownership has long veered younger, according to a March Gallup poll, with 64% of 18-34-year-olds surveyed interested in owning an EV, compared to just 41% of those ages 55+. Barman is eyeing an especially young demographic: newly licensed drivers.

"Parents like the fact that there are only two passengers, it doesn't have an infotainment for distraction, it has really high safety standards, and it's affordable," Barman told Sherwood.

Among the older set, Barman points out that "contemporary seniors" are interested in the vehicle. "

"They're individuals who are semiretired or retired and are interested in an electric vehicle, but have been intimidated by all the other technology that has been in an EV," she said. "They just want a simpler form of driving."

Finally, auto junkies are interested in tricking the car out, the CEO added.

Slate's electric pickup truck's "mid-twenties" price target remains relatively inexpensive, a feat especially important as the EV market floods with Chinese competitors outside of the US.

The Jeff Bezos-backed EV producer originally said that its truck would be "under $20,000" after federal incentives. That price would have made the truck substantially cheaper than its EV competitors, like the Nissan Leaf, which starts at $28,140.

When $50 reservations opened in April, the company reported receiving more than 100,000 requests in the first three weeks.

President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is set to eliminate many of the country's clean energy incentives, including the $7,500 tax credit for new US-built EVs, which Slate had been counting on to hit the sub-$20,000 pricing threshold.

After Trump's spending bill was signed into law on July 4, Slate Auto changed the expected price online from "under $20,000" to "mid-twenties," where it remains.

In this podcast, Motley Fool host Anand Chokkavelu and contributors Jason Hall and Matt Frankel discuss:

• AI stocks in the data center space (including CoreWeave).
• Winners and losers in energy and solar from Trump's "big, beautiful bill."
• Ranking the intellectual property of Warner Bros. Discovery, Comcast, Disney, and Netflix.
• Prime Day and other made-up holidays.
• Stocks to watch.

And Dave Schaeffer, founder and CEO of Cogent Communications, talks with Motley Fool analysts Asit Sharma and Sanmeet Deo about how Cogent's deals with customers like Netflix and Meta Platforms work and what keeps him awake at night.

Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Learn More »

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.

Where to invest $1,000 right now

When our analyst team has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,053%* — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500.

They just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now, available when you join Stock Advisor.

See the stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of July 14, 2025

This podcast was recorded on July 11, 2025.

Anand Chokkavelu: Yes, we're talking all kinds of stocks. This week's Motley Fool Money Radio Show starts now. It's the Motley Fool Money Radio Show. I'm Anand Chokkavelu. Joining me are two of my favorite fools, Jason Hall and Matt Frankel. Today, we'll talk about stock market winners and losers from the Big Beautiful Bill. We'll pit Superman versus the Hulk, and we'll of course debate stocks on our radar. But first, we'll discuss whether there's an AI opportunity in investing in data centers. Upstart data center company, CoreWeave, again made news this week this time for announcing the purchase of Core Scientific for $9 billion. This allows it to add infrastructure to consolidate vertically as it seeks to gain market share among AI and high performance computing customers. CoreWeave is just the tip of the data center iceberg. Matt, what categories of data center opportunities are out there?

Matt Frankel: First, you have hyper scalers. These are companies like AWS, Microsoft, Desha. They are companies that operate the large scale data centers. They offer computing and storage infrastructures to customers. As Anand put it, there's CoreWeave, which is one of the least understood recent IPOs that I know. [laughs] They rent out GPU data center infrastructures to customers. It's not always practical for companies to invest in all of NVIDIA's latest chips on their own, for example. That's really what they do. There's the REITs still, Digital Realty and Equinix are the two big ones. They own the data centers. CoreWeave is actually a big Digital Realty tenant. Then there's power generation. I know Jason's going to talk about this a little bit later in the show, but data centers consume a lot of power, and it's growing at an exponential pace. These chips that NVIDIA produces, they are power drains. Nuclear, especially, could be a big part of the solution, but solar and other renewables are also in there.

Jason Hall: We're definitely in the land grab phase of the infrastructure buildout for accelerated computing. I think accelerated computing is maybe a better description than just AI. We talk about the Cloud REIT large. As we see more of the companies involved start to monetize things like AI agents at scale. I think that's where these investments are going to pay off.

Anand Chokkavelu: Big question. Do any of these categories interest you all for investing?

Matt Frankel: Well, I'm well known as being the real estate guy at the Motley Fool, so it shouldn't be a big surprise, but Digital Realty is my second largest and my second longest running REIT investment in my portfolio. I'm an Amazon shareholder, and I know that's not their only business, but AWS is the primary reason I own it. I don't own CoreWeave yet, and I think the stock is a little bit pricey, to say the least. But the more I read about it, the more I'm intrigued by the company. As I mentioned, they're a big tenant of Digital Realty, so I have some exposure already.

Jason Hall: The things about CoreWeave that concern me is the stock is definitely expensive. But if the opportunity is even close to as large as we think, it could still work out, but they're going to need a lot of money to pay for what they're trying to do and depending on how much of that is from raising debt versus secondary offerings of shares, there's still a lot of questions there. But, Anand, you've given me a chance to talk about Brookfield here. [laughs] How do I not take that opportunity? But I do think that there's a couple of Brookfield entities that are positioned really well here. I want to talk about the providing the energy part of it. Brookfield Renewable is really in the driver seat here as a global provider of renewable energy on multi decade contracts. It is not just accelerated computing, it's the energy transition REIT large. We've already seen it strike big deals with Microsoft and others to provide renewable power on those multi decade contracts. The dividend is really attractive, too. BEP, that's the partnership, yields over 5%. The corporate shares BEPC, it yields about 4.5%. Since mid 2020, that's when Brookfield Renewable rolled the corporation part out and restructured its dividend. The payouts been increased almost 30%. There's a lot to like here. Beyond the yield, I think it's primed to be a total return dynamo over the next decade. If you don't want to own a company that's in the energy part, you want to own the infrastructure, just take a look at sister company Brookfield Infrastructure. The tickers there are BIP and BIPC.

Anand Chokkavelu: Of course, these aren't the only AI stocks out there. Hi, NVIDIA. Do any other areas of AI interest you guys?

Matt Frankel: I love that. You can't talk about AI and data centers without talking about the chipmakers. NVIDIA just hit $4 trillion today as the day we're recording this. NVIDIA is an amazing business, and it has more room to grow than people think just in the data center accelerator space, which is why they're getting so much attention for good reason. The market size is expected to roughly double over the next five years. That's not even to mention the opportunities they have in chips for autonomous vehicles, chips for gaming and more but I prefer AMD, which is often referred to as NVIDIA junior, but I don't think it should be. It's an incredibly well run company that's been a mistake to bet against in the past. As Intel found out the hard way, just having a dominant market share in an area of chip making is not always enough.

Jason Hall: An area of the market that I think could do really well some of the legacy enterprise software giants. I think there may be underappreciated winners from AI. I'll use Salesforce, ticker CRM as an example. It's really starting to get traction with things like it's data cloud and with AI agents. It's starting to sell. We're seeing really rapid uptake of those things and monetization. It has a benefit, an advantage over a lot of these AI start-ups that are just pure AI businesses. It's already a trusted integrated partner with hundreds of thousands of enterprises. It knows their business, it knows their challenges, regulations, opportunities and that credibility, I think, is an edge that we don't give enough credit to. We shouldn't underestimate switching costs, I guess, is what I'm really getting at. You look at Salesforce rates for about 21 times free cash flow and less than seven times sales. That's a really good opportunity. I think it equates to double digit returns if it can just grow revenue around 8-12% a year over the long term, which I think it can.

Anand Chokkavelu: We started to talk a bit about energy and the need for it with all this AI. Let's talk about the energy industry implications of the Big Beautiful Bill, which was signed into law last week. Jason, can you give us the summary of the energy portions?

Jason Hall: Summarizing anything's hard for me, but I'll try. I think the short version is the incentives for renewables, they're getting gutted, really. There's a 30% investment tax credit or ITC for short. The residential solar and battery systems portion of that had been in place to run through 2032 before gradually declining for a few years after that. That now expires. The systems have to be fully installed and commissioned by the end of this year. The commercial ITC for solar and wind projects was on a similar track, but now it expires at the end of 2027, but those projects must begin construction by July 4th of 2026 to qualify for that 30% tax credit. It also terminates the tax credit for new and used EVs, $7,500 for a new EV and up to 4,000 for a used EV. The purchase has to happen before September 30th of this year, so a couple of months. Lastly, it ends the US regulatory credits around vehicle emissions that automakers buy largely from Tesla. This is a significant and profitable revenue stream for EV makers that essentially is going away.

Matt Frankel: Jason, when you say renewables are being gutted, you're essentially referring to solar and wind, if I'm not mistaken. It's not gutting anything for nuclear power, correct?

Jason Hall: That's correct. These things you get are the pure renewables as we think of them.

Anand Chokkavelu: Let's put a fine point on this with specifics. Who are the relative winners and losers, Jason?

Jason Hall: This could be an hour long show, but I'll try to summarize it here. Thinking about the companies that are most directly affected, I think Canadian Solar, which is a large manufacturer of solar panels and energy storage, and they really largely target the utility market, but also residential is definitely a loser here. In the near term Sunrun, its business model is tied to these tax credits as an installer and to some degree, First Solar is also going to be affected. I don't think there's really any winners out of this when it comes to solar. But I think Enphase is probably still in a better position in the market may believe. Maybe First Solar as well. It's been through these battles before, and it has been a winner over the long term. If you look at wind, GE Vernova has been on a huge run. I love that business, but I don't love the stock right now. Tesla, I think maybe one of the bigger losers that investors haven't really considered. Last fiscal year, it earned 2.76 billion in revenue from regulatory credits. That's largely pure profit. Then there's also the loss of those EV tax credits for buyers. That might be offset from some incentives for US made autos that are part of the bill now that were part of the law, but I think this puts Tesla in a tougher spot. The tailwinds are not favorable for fossil fuels before this. This doesn't really change any of that. There's opportunities there, but not because of the law.

Matt Frankel: The reason I asked about nuclear a minute ago is because that's really what I see as the big winner here. I like some of the nuclear focused utility providers. Constellation Energy is one that comes to mind. One of their stated goals is to have the largest carbon free nuclear power fleet in the US by 2040. Jacob Solutions, they provide consulting and design services to the industry. Ticker symbol is J, so it's really easy to remember. They recently had some really big nuclear contract wins. I'm going to push back on Jason's Tesla as a big loser. One, they're American made cars. They qualify for that new auto loan interest deduction, so that could help offset what they're losing from the EV tax credits. They have a big energy storage business, and AI has not only giant power demands, but very variable power demands, and it's going to create a lot of need for large scale energy storage, and Tesla does that. I think they're worth watching.

Jason Hall: That's the one part of Tesla's business that's done extraordinarily well. Over the past few years, as the EV business has weakened, is that the battery business.

Anand Chokkavelu: Now quickly the big question, is solar still investable, Jason?

Jason Hall: I think so. We have a very US centric view, obviously, and the US is a massive important market for solar. But you look around the world and the regulatory environment is still largely favorable. I think if you're willing to write out plenty of volatility, that global opportunity is still really good. Businesses like Enphase, businesses like First Solar that have been through these battles before, and even a Canadian Solar, where it has a ton of projects that it's been funding to build on its books that the math just got changed for them in some big ways. The valuation is so cheap that I think that there's some opportunity there.

Matt Frankel: Taking a step back, the reason you have incentives for solar energy, for EVs, for all this, is because without them, they're not price competitive with the existing technologies. The gap has narrowed significantly, especially in solar over the past say 10 years as to the efficiency of the products themselves and just how much they cost. Eventually, solar is going to be able to stand on its own without incentives. But like Jason said, you have to be able to write out some volatility because that could be five years, that could be 10 years, that could be 20 years so eventually, it won't matter.

Anand Chokkavelu: After the break, we'll move from solar to something else that gets its power from the yellow sun. Stay right here. This is Motley Fool Money.

Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Anand Chokkavelu, here with Jason Hall and Matt Frankel. One of our Brothers Discovery's much anticipated latest reboot of Superman hits theaters on Friday. Hoping the Justice League can one day catch Disney's Marvel cinematic universe and hot on the heels of last week's Jurassic World Rebirth from Comcast. In honor of Summer movies, we're going to rank those three companies based on the value of their intellectual property. We'll throw in Netflix for good measure. Its headline this week was stating that half of its global audience now watches anime. Chokkavelu household certainly does with one piece. My kids have gotten me into it. For those unfamiliar, they have more episodes than the Simpsons. Matt, once again, your four choices are Warner Brothers Discovery. That includes the DC Universe, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Harry Potter, the Matrix, Looney Tunes, all our favorite HBO shows. You got Comcast with Shrek, Minions, Kung Fu Panda. You got Disney with Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar and Mickey Mouse. Finally, you got Netflix with things like Stranger Things, Bridgerton, Squid Game, newer Adam Sandler movies, and tons of niche content. Mentioned anime, you could argue whether that's niche content or not at this point. Whose intellectual property do you most value, Matt?

Matt Frankel: See, I said Disney. All four of these have excellent intellectual property, and I'll give you a more elaborate description there. In my household, you mentioned your household, how you have all these streaming things. We have a streaming service from all four of these. We have the Peacock service, which is a comcast product. We have HBO Max, which is a Warner Brothers discovery product. We have Disney Plus, and we have Netflix. Disney Plus also has Hulu attached to it. I ask myself, which is the least dispensable? I could cancel all the other ones before I'd be allowed to cancel Disney Plus for the other members of my household. Their film franchises are beyond compare. They have a much longer history of building intellectual property than all of these, especially in terms of valuables. Mickey Mouse is so old, it's not even intellectual property anymore. It's over 100-years-old, so I think it's actually in the public domain now. I have to say Disney, although it's a lot closer than I would have thought a few years ago.

Jason Hall: Yeah, if you had have asked me a few years ago, I absolutely would have said Disney, but I'm going to give the advantage to Netflix here. Let me contextualize that. I think the total value of Disney's IP is probably higher, but Netflix's ability to monetize it more effectively all over the world, I think, is even better than Disney's. I don't think any of these businesses in their studios have done a better job of making content that's relevant in more markets around the world than Netflix does. Let's be honest, I was able to watch Happy Gilmore with my eight year old son this weekend and I watched that on Netflix, that's bridging generations right there.

Anand Chokkavelu: Three things. One, Chokkavelu household is very excited for Happy Gilmore, too. Even my wife is in on it. Two, the Steamboat Willie era, Mickey Mouse is free to the world. The other ones aren't. I'm glad I'm not the only one with way too many streaming services, Matt. Let's talk about Last Place. Who are you cutting first, Matt?

Matt Frankel: Well, all those streaming services are still less than I was paying for direct TV a few years ago, so I think I'm doing all right. For me, the last place, it was between Comcast and Warner Brothers Discovery, both of which have amazing intellectual property, just to show you what a tight race this is. Comcast has universal. I was just in Orlando, and the universal theme parks are massive down there. But I have to put Comcast in last place. Just because Warner Brothers, I think the HBO Max acquisition was such a big advantage for them. They have some of the most valuable television assets of all time. More people watch the sopranos now than they did when it was originally on TV. It's a very valuable valuable asset, Game of Thrones. All these HBO shows that are among the highest rated shows of all time are part of their library. In addition to their film studio and all the other assets that we can't name because it's not that long of a show. I'd have to give Comcast last place, although, like I said, there's a good argument to be made for most of these to be in the top one or two.

Jason Hall: Yeah, I think that's fair. I agree with Matt that Comcast is the Number 4 here. But I don't think that's a flaw. It's just the nature of its business. About two thirds of its business comes from its cable subscriptions and high speed Internet. It's built differently than these other companies. I think it's fine that it's a little bit smaller.

Anand Chokkavelu: I will say, just to defend Comcast a little. I was thinking about my parents live in Florida, and it's high time we bring my two boys to Disney World or something like that. Honestly, the Universal theme park, the new one with Nintendo, Mario and the Harry Potter realm, it's close. We might we might prefer that one, but just to give a little love to Comcast and Universal. Jason Hall and Matt Frankel, we'll see you a little bit later in the show, but up next, we'll talk to the founder of one of the top five networks in the world, so stick around. This is Motley Fool Money. [MUSIC].

Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Anand Chokkavelu. Dave Schaeffer is the founder and CEO of Internet Service Provider Cogent Communications. Believe it or not, Cogent's the seventh successful company Dave Schaeffer has founded. Shaffer joined Fool analysts Asit Sharma and Sanmeet Deo to discuss how it deals with customers like Netflix and Meta platforms work and what keeps him up at night.

Asit Sharma: Well, hello, fools. I am Asit Sharma and I'm joined by fellow analyst Sanmeet Deo today, and our guest is Dave Schaeffer. Dave is CEO of Cogent Communications. He's also the founder of this company founded in 1999. Dave has grown Cogent Communications into a global tier one Internet service provider. It's ranked as one of the top five networks in the world. Dave is also a serial entrepreneur. He's founded six successful businesses prior to Cogent, and foolishly, he's also one of the longest serving founder CEOs in the public markets. We're delighted to have him with us today. Dave Schaeffer, welcome.

Dave Schaeffer: Hey, well, thanks for that great introduction.

Asit Sharma: To get started, let's jump in. Dave, for our members who might be unfamiliar with the ISP or Internet service provider industry, can you just explain what Cogent does and how it makes money?

Dave Schaeffer: Yeah, sure. Cogent provides Internet access to customers and to other service providers. I think virtually everyone uses the Internet, but rarely understands how it operates. Cogent has a network of approximately 99,000 route miles of intercity fiber that circumnavigates the globe and serves six continents. We then have an additional 34,000 route miles of fiber in 292 markets in 57 countries around the world. That network is solely built for the purpose of delivering Internet connectivity. When a customer buys Internet access, what they are really buying are interfaced routed bit miles connected to other networks. If you tried to sell a customer that they would have no idea what you're talking about. The average bit on the public Internet travels about 2,800 miles. It goes through eight and a half unique routers and 2.4 networks between origin and destination. Coaching carries approximately 25% of the world's Internet traffic on its network and has more other networks connected directly to it than any other network.

Asit Sharma: Yours is a primary network. Oftentimes, we hear of middlemen carriers in between ourselves sending that bit. Let's say I'm chatting with Sanmeet over Slack, sending him some bits as we have been exchanging through the day and him receiving that. But you are, I think we can think of Cogent as being the primary fiber that is the backbone of this information communication network, is that correct?

Dave Schaeffer: That is correct. We operate two very different customer segments, roughly 95% of our traffic, but only 37% of our revenue comes from selling to other service providers. We provide Internet connectivity to 8,200 access networks around the world and about 7,000 content generating businesses. Whether it be Bell Canada, British Telecom, China Telecom, Comcast or Cox. They could be customers of Cogent on the access side, where they aggregate literally billions of end users. Then on the other side, we sell connectivity to large content generating companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta, where they use us as their Internet provider. The second portion of Cogent's business is selling directly to end users. That represents about 63% of our revenues, but only approximately 5% of our total traffic. Cogent is an ISP, primarily in North America, where we connect to a billion square feet of office space, where we sell directly to end users. Then globally, we sell to multinational companies, oftentimes using last mile connections from third parties.

Asit Sharma: I always like to understand how exactly the companies I'm looking at make money. For example, for Netflix or Meta, or you pick a content provider, whoever it might be, when they work with you, explain that to me how they buy? Do they buy bandwidth in a package? Do they have a contract? How does that work? When they look to you to say, hey, we want to buy some bandwidth?

Dave Schaeffer: Yeah, so typically, we will provide them connections in multiple markets around the world. They will then have a minimum commitment level, and then above that, they pay on a metered basis. The way in which we bill is megabits per second at peak load over the course of the month. We bill at the 95th percentile, which means if you have a very spiky event that lasts less than 18 hours in a month, you don't pay for that incremental bandwidth but everything below that peak utilization, you pay a bill on a per megabit basis.

Dave Schaeffer: That is the way in which any service provider, whether it be an access network like Telkom South Africa, or a cable company like Rogers in Canada would buy from us. But for our corporate customers, the billing model is very different. For corporate customers, they typically buy in end user locations, not in data centers, and they are paying us a flat monthly fee for a fixed connection that is unmetered. I think of it as an all you can eat model.

Sanmeet Deo: There is a monthly recurring revenue that you get. It's just that with your network or your content customers, it could vary based on their usage. They could dial it up, dial it down, based on, like, this week, actually, they're dropping Squid Game, so they can anticipate they're going to need a lot of bandwidth versus maybe next month, their content late is a little lower, so they won't use up as much versus the corporate customers are paying more of a recurring, not based on volume. Is that accurate?

Dave Schaeffer: Is correct, Sanmeet. Virtually all of our revenue is predictable, even for those variable usage customers, there is oftentimes a very consistent pattern to their usage, and their bills do not vary by more than a couple percent month over month.

Sanmeet Deo: Dave, let's go on to looking at a review of recent performance. 2024 was a great year for Cogent. It crossed $1 billion in annual revenue. Can you just walk us through the highlights of your key business segments, wholesale, enterprise, net-centric? What drove the performance? Also did anything about the year surprise you as you went through it?

Dave Schaeffer: Two things. First of all our Internet based business represents 88% of our revenues across all three segments. We do derive about 12% of revenues from selling some adjacent services. Those being co location in our data center footprint. Optical transport or wavelength services and the leasing out of IPV4 addresses. We did generate about $1 billion in revenue in 2024 and 2024 was a year of significant transition for Cogent. Cogent had organically grown between 2005 and 2020 as a public company with no M&A at a compounded growth rate of 10.2% per year average over that period. We also were able to experience significant margin expansion during that period, where our EBITDA margins expanded at roughly 220 basis points per year over that same 15 year measurement period. When COVID hit, our corporate segment slowed materially because people were not going to offices, and as a result, Cogent's total growth rate had decreased to about 5% and our rate of margin expansion slowed to about 100 basis points. In May of '23, we acquired the former Sprint Long Distance Network, a Sprint Global Markets Group business from T-Mobile. That business was actually in decline and burning cash. In 2024, we significantly reduced that cash burn, and we were able to begin to repurpose some of the flow Sprint assets. In order to facilitate this transaction, T-Mobile paid us in cash over a 54 month period beginning in May of '23, $700 million. In 2024, a significant milestone for Cogent was our ability to take out much of that burn from that business and to actually accelerate the decline in that acquired business, as many of the products that were being sold or gross margin negative services.

Anand Chokkavelu: 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. Don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. See our full advertising disclosure. Please check out our show notes. Up next, we've got stocks on our radar. Stay right here. You're listening to Motley Fool Money.

I'm Anand Chokkavelu, joined again by Jason Hall and Matt Frankel. This week's been Prime Day week invented out of thin air in 2015 to boost sales. It's almost literally become Christmas in July for Amazon, and to a lesser extent, all the imitating retailers. Got me wondering. Is this the greatest feat of something from nothing marketing we've seen? If not, what's competing with it, Jason?

Jason Hall: I think it's not even something from nothing. I think they stole this idea. Christmas in July has been around literally since the 1900. I think they're getting maybe a little bit too much credit for just being a really big retailer, smart enough to say, hey, we're doing a sale when there was nothing else going on, and people were like, oh, it's a big sale. Well, people kept coming, so it just gets bigger every single year.

Matt Frankel: Before e-commerce, Jason's right, remember the Sunday paper that had all the flyers from all the stores. They'd have their semi annual sales. The President's Day weekend sales were the ones I remember that were the biggest deals ever that really were just meant to invigorate sales in a historically slow time of year. But really, this concept has been applied over and over. Think of how many tourist destinations create random festivals in the worst months to go, like, weather wise. I used to live in Key West, Florida, and the biggest party of the year is called Fantasy Fest. It was created to invigorate tourism during hurricane season. It's a concept that's worked over and over, and this is a big one.

Anand Chokkavelu: Dan.

Dan Boyd: I just wanted to jump in here and mention Father's Day and Mother's Day. Surprised that you guys didn't mention those. We're all fathers here on the podcast, so I know that we enjoy Father's Day, but, like, come on. They're nothing. They were just created to sell stuff.

Anand Chokkavelu: You're not going to mention Valentine's Day, Mr. Grinch.

Dan Boyd: Valentine's Day has somewhat historical significance with all the St. Valentine's stuff. I didn't want to go too far into it in my grumpiness Anand, but I guess we can throw that one on the fire.

Anand Chokkavelu: Speaking of Singles Day in China. The Alibaba took that cemented in the '90s. I think less commercy, but then it became more commercy. Two other things, Sears' catalog. Let's not forget. A lot of times Sears really is the Amazon before Amazon we forget about it because we see it at its late phases. It wasn't the first catalog, Tiffany, Montgomery Ward, they beat it to the punch. But when it was going, it was called the Consumer Bible. Then on a smaller scale, I'll give one more. Just shout out to Spotify rapped. They do a wonderful job inventing a thing to get us more engaged. Let's get to the stocks on our radar. Our man behind the glass, who we just recently, Dan Boyd, is going to hit you with a question. We're more likely, historically, an amusing comment. Jason, you're up first. What are you looking at this week?

Jason Hall: How about Church and Dwight? Ticker C-H-D. I don't know if we give some of these legacy consumer brands companies enough talk. What's Church and Dwight? You've probably heard of Arm & Hammer baking soda. But they also own a lot of other retail brands. You might be familiar with Orajel, if you've ever had a sore tooth or you have a baby that kind of thing comes up. They own Trojan, which is another brand that people might be familiar with. But here's my personal. Right now, I have a cold. I'm living and functioning off of Zicam. That's a Church and Dwight product that's really getting me through. Over the long term, it's been a great investment. Over the past 10 years, the stocks returned about 10.5% in total returns. That's underperformed the market, but it's better than the market's long term average. I think there might be something there.

Anand Chokkavelu: Dan, a question about Church and Dwight?

Dan Boyd: Not really a question, Anand, but more of a comment. Jason, you forgot to mention OxiClean in the Church and Dwight product catalog here as a parent of a three-year-old and a nine month old laundry is a very important thing on our house, and I don't think we could survive without that OxiClean.

Jason Hall: I will raise your three-year-old and nine month old with an eight and a half year old who plays soccer. My house runs on that stuff. I'm with you there.

Anand Chokkavelu: Matt, what's on your radar?

Matt Frankel: Well, now what's on my radar is the OxiClean that I have in the closet right there. But as far as the stock, I'd have to say SoFi. Ticker symbol S-O-F-I. Fantastic momentum. They've done a great job of creating capital white revenue streams in recent years. The growth is actually accelerating. They recently announced they're bringing crypto back to their platform now that the banks are allowed to do so. That's going to be a big driver. Not only crypto, they're going a step further. They're going to start bringing blockchain facilitated money transfers across border for free. They have lots of big plans. They recently started doing private equity investing for everybody. Guys like you and me can invest in companies like SpaceX and OpenAI that are pre IPO through SoFi's platform through venture funds. There's a lot going on in this business, and it's still a relatively small bank, and they aim to be a Top 10 bank within the next decade.

Anand Chokkavelu: Dan, question about SoFi.

Dan Boyd: Well, absolute F to name. SoFi, just terrible. I feel like smart people like them could have come up with something better, but private equity investing is very interesting, Matt, though a little scared to me without the reporting regulations that public companies have to do.

Matt Frankel: I do think it was a natural thing, though, now that all these companies are waiting longer than ever to go public. SpaceX is a massive business. OpenAI has a, $100 billion plus valuation. There's a lot to like there and a lot of potential.

Anand Chokkavelu: Dan, which company you're putting on your watch list, OxiClean or private equity stuff.

Dan Boyd: I'm going to go with Church and Dwight for some of that beautiful OxiClean.

Anand Chokkavelu: That's all for this week. See you next time.

John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Anand Chokkavelu, CFA has positions in Alphabet, Amazon, First Solar, Microsoft, Netflix, Salesforce, SoFi Technologies, Walt Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery. Asit Sharma has positions in Amazon, Digital Realty Trust, Microsoft, Nvidia, Salesforce, Upstart, and Walt Disney. Dan Boyd has positions in Amazon and Walt Disney. Jason Hall has positions in Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Infrastructure, Brookfield Renewable, Enphase Energy, First Solar, Nvidia, SoFi Technologies, Upstart, and Walt Disney and has the following options: short January 2026 $27 calls on SoFi Technologies, short January 2027 $32.50 puts on Upstart, and short January 2027 $40 puts on Enphase Energy. Matt Frankel has positions in Amazon, Brookfield Asset Management, Digital Realty Trust, SoFi Technologies, Upstart, and Walt Disney and has the following options: short December 2025 $95 calls on Upstart. Sanmeet Deo has positions in Alphabet, Amazon, Netflix, and Tesla. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Brookfield Asset Management, Constellation Energy, Digital Realty Trust, Equinix, First Solar, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Netflix, Nvidia, Salesforce, Tesla, Upstart, Walt Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Motley Fool recommends Alibaba Group, Brookfield Renewable, Comcast, Enphase Energy, Ge Vernova, and T-Mobile US and recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

In this podcast, Motley Fool analyst David Meier and host Ricky Mulvey discuss:

• On Holding's blistering sales growth.
• Why pharma investors aren't reacting to President Donald Trump's executive order on drug prices.
• If Alphabet's stock deserves to be in value town.

Then, Motley Fool personal finance expert Robert Brokamp joins Ricky to discuss why investors should consider buying individual bonds.

Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue »

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.

Should you invest $1,000 in On Holding right now?

Before you buy stock in On Holding, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and On Holding wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $635,275!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $826,385!*

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 967% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don’t miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of May 12, 2025

This podcast was recorded on May 12, 2025.

Advertisement...

Ricky Mulvey: Does Alphabet deserve a grocery store multiple? You're listening to Motley Fool Money.

I'm Ricky Mulvey, joined today by the smirking David Meier. David, thanks for being. What are you smirking about? What's so funny?

David Meier: Oh, it's all good today. All good.

Ricky Mulvey: Good. Just making sure I don't look funny or anything. That's why we do a audio only podcast for today. Politics keeps mixing with markets, and we have some earnings from a fast growing apparel later in this segment, Dylan and Ja-mo hit the trade deal-ish trade agreement question mark between the US and China yesterday. But there's another move from the White House that could have significant implications for markets. President Trump signing an executive order that Americans must get a "Most favored nation price for prescription drugs." David, when I saw this, my first reaction was sweet. You know what? I bet the big drug makers stocks are going to dive on this. They did not flinch. The US is where a lot of their profits come from. What's going on here?

David Meier: The reason they didn't flinch is because the market doesn't believe that those profits are going away. It's as simple as that. If we look a little bit under the hood at what the executive order actually says, it does lay out some cases where other countries around the world pay lower prices than we do in the US. Well, they negotiate differently. The market for drugs is way more open in the United States than it is in other countries. Governments tend to negotiate on behalf of their people because they're the ones making the purchases. They have some negotiating power. We here in the United States tend to let markets determine prices. There are other players. There's PBMs and things like that. But this is basically the market saying that the US markets will withstand higher prices. Basically, with the stocks not really moving on the news, the market says, Well, we look ahead and we don't see how you're going to do this. Basically, the other thing that the executive order said was, Health and Human Services Secretary, go out and put together a plan in 30 days for what you think the prices will be. There's a negotiation that's going to happen in between, so we'll see what happens, but as of right now, I think that's what the market is saying.

Ricky Mulvey: Well, the pharma lobbyists are saying something else, David, they're certainly sweating a little bit. According to Bloomberg, the brand drug lobby, PHRMA my old employer had an emergency call on Sunday and said that this could cost the pharma industry one trillion dollars over a decade. You look at a drug like Ozempic. This was mentioned in the press conference with President Trump, where a month of is almost $1,000 in the United States, about 60 bucks in Germany. That's not great if you need Ozempic. That's also a huge profit margin for Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk CEO trying to defend the practice in Congress a little while ago saying, don't look at me. Look at the pharmacy benefit managers. Those are the ones that are really screwing up prices here. The lobbyists are certainly concerned here, and is this a time where if you own stock in a drug maker, especially one making weight loss drugs, is this a time to revisit your thesis?

David Meier: The short answer is yes. Should you panic? I don't think so, but you should go back given how this all tends to work. Regulation does play a part in many industries, but in pharma specifically. The lobbyists are going to have to basically make the case to the HHS secretary to say this is why we think these drugs should be priced here. Again, this is about pricing power, this is about bargaining power. The lobbyist pharma is going to have to roll up their sleeves and do some work over the next 30 days and beyond that because if I read everything correctly, there's some other milestones at 180 days and a year out and multiple years out. This is going to take a while to play out. They're going to have to do some work to basically say, look, there's a reason that we one should be able to charge these prices, and two, there are benefits to our industry as a result. Because you got to remember, a lot of that gets plowed back into research and development of all kinds to bring the next generation of drugs and next generation of care. I don't think anybody would want higher prices just for the sake of higher prices. We should want our healthcare to be reasonably priced. But at the same time, we don't want to disrupt the long term innovation that happens here as a result.

Ricky Mulvey: I think the administration is saying and I would actually agree on this point. I've been accused of being too liberal and too conservative on this show, so we'll see what complaints I get this time. The administration would basically say, we don't want to stifle innovation necessarily, but it shouldn't be on Americans alone to fund that innovation when you have other developed countries in the European Union, Australia, for example, paying significantly less for the exact same drug coming out of the exact same factory.

David Meier: That makes sense. Then the question is, who's going to do the negotiating? Is our government going to step in and do the negotiating? That would be a big change to how our markets work today.

Ricky Mulvey: We'll see how it goes. I should also mention I've never worked for a brand name pharmaceutical lobbyist. I'm afraid of catching heat today, David. I don't know why. Let's move on to earnings. [laughs] Let's talk about earnings. Let's focus on the fastball here. On Holding the maker of comfortable shoes, where rocks and mulch often get stuck at the base of it, I enjoy wearing them still, they reported this morning sales up a blistering 40% from one year ago. That is on a constant currency basis because we're going Swiss francs to US dollars with this earnings report, getting us in some trouble. It's about $860 million in sales for the quarter. That's in US dollars. I'm looking at a retailer that is earning basically 40% more sales than one year ago. David, what is On getting right in this environment?

David Meier: They have the product that people want. I hope I don't sound glib when I say that, but that is true. Their products are very good and in demand all around the world. They had good growth in all of their geographical segments, and it's because they have taken the time and made the investments to put technology into their shoes that make them both comfortable, functional, whether you're running, whether you're working out, whether it's casual, all these things, but playing tennis can't forget about Roger Federer they have product that people want. As we saw here this quarter, more people wanted it, even as we're starting to get into a little bit of the impact of the tariffs.

Ricky Mulvey: On Clouds were one of my tariff panic purchases. Those included airpods for a birthday gift. I had to get some basketball shoes. Then I was like, my On Clouds have completely worn out at the bottom, where the rubber is gone, and I need to get these before the prices get jacked up by maybe 50-100%. I don't think that's going to happen now that we have the pods, but I do have some new On Clouds. I'm a big fan of the product. Is this something you own? Are you taking a lynchian look at this company?

David Meier: I don't own shares, but I was a bit of a sneaker guy. I have tried them, and also like them. You probably aren't the only one making a purchase ahead of what may have transpired, and you did it because you liked the product. It was their direct to consumer channel that actually had the best growth. I don't think you are in the minority in terms of maybe pulling a purchase forward. But to management's discredit, they actually said, we still see plenty of demand for the rest of the year. It's not a top line thing for them. What they are actually saying in terms of the tariff impact is maybe margins will get pinched a little bit. We're doing our best to figure out what those might be. We're not really knocking them down heavily, but we just want to let you know that it could be volatile. But on a top line basis, they say our product is in demand. We're making sure that all the places where we sell our shoes have plenty of product and good up to date products. I credit management for at least at the beginning handling this uncertainty pretty well.

Ricky Mulvey: Let's dig into the numbers a little bit more. Looking at operating margin here, I think there's a story because now On is about on par with Nike's historic average, about 10-ish, 11%. Nike dipped in a recent quarter, but we'll take that out to be nice to our friends at Nike. This is significant for a younger brand that you would think needs to spend more as a percentage of their sales on marketing or maybe have less negotiating power with shoe stores like Foot Locker and yet, there they are in an efficiency basis, pretty much on par with Nike, what story does that operating margin number tell investors?

David Meier: This is actually a fantastic question. Let's use the Nike and On Holding comparison. Both companies do sponsor athletes. But Nike, man, think about the suite of athletes that market their products. That's actually a huge expense for Nike, and they make the most of it by getting in terms of volume and pricing that they've been able to generate for their products over the years. Even though On does have, again, those sponsored athletes, it's less compared to what Nike spends. They have actually done a good job of again, creating a product that people want, creating a product where word of mouth marketing is probably more important than necessarily the sponsored marketing. Again, getting the products to consumers in the way that want to buy them. On has the advantage of having a consumer that is more apt to buy in a direct consumer channel, an online e-commerce type channel than Nike had when it was starting out.

The other thing I credit is, in addition to putting good technology into their products, they've actually done a good job of building their business from a supply chain management standpoint, from managing their marketing all these things, and figuring out where they can price their product in order to keep moving it at the volumes that they need. At the same time, they've been able to reinvest back into the company to say, hey, here's our latest technologies that we want to put in shoes. We want to expand into apparel. Hey, we need to open up a distribution center in Atlanta. I give management a lot of credit for not only creating a good product, an emerging brand, but they've created a very good business around this. This is something that's important for the long run because if you look at the history of Under Armour, Under Armour had a phenomenal brand, but they weren't the best operator. Eventually, that caught up with them as they tried to get bigger and bigger. Going forward, we'll see how all this plays out for On, but they've done a good job of balancing all the things that they need to balance in terms of creating a good long term business.

Ricky Mulvey: You don't think Elmo is getting Step Curry rates for those commercials?

David Meier: I don't know. Depends on how good Elmo's agent is.

Ricky Mulvey: That's a good question. They have the commercial with Elmo and Roger Federer. They're using Elmo quite a bit in their commercials. I think On looked at Adidas and saw the trouble they ran into with Kanye West and said, what is the opposite celebrity we can find? Then you get Elmo selling shoes for him.

David Meier: You asked about my smirk earlier. There is nothing but good entertainment value as well as educational value in what we're talking about today, because that is just awesome.

Ricky Mulvey: Let's close out with the story on Alphabet. We've gotten a few questions about this company from listeners. Because of its underperformance relative to the market and story line going into it, there's a Wall Street research report from an analyst named Gil Lurie. He would like to set the company on fire, basically saying the only way forward for Alphabet is a complete breakup that would allow investors to own the businesses they actually want, making the point that the entire business is valued on the worst multiple that investors can find. That's the search multiple. It's about 17 times. Before I get to your question on valuation, why do analysts need to assign the worst multiple to the whole business? There's a lot of smart people looking at Google, and I assume some of you can do math.

David Meier: [laughs] That is essentially the average. One way you could go about valuing Google/Alphabet is value the search business, which is by far the biggest business, generates the most cash flow, has the most uncertainty around it today. What is AI search going to bring in the uncertain macro environment? Is search going to go down? Is it a commodity now? There's all things facing the search business, but they have many other segments. What this analyst is basically saying is, hey, these other segments deserve higher multiples. Well, maybe that's true. As an analyst, you could do that yourself and say, YouTube is worth this. The Cloud business is worth that. The chip business is worth something else. If you think that as a whole, the business should be trading at maybe 24 times a weighted average multiple instead of 16, as an analyst, you can say that. The challenge, in my opinion, in breaking this up, is where do these companies get their capital from? All of them need investment capital in order to operate, and a lot of that comes from search. While I understand that breaking everybody up could unlock a lot of value, if you look at the most recent breakup of a very large company, go to GE. General Electric has split into GE Aero, GE Vernova which is the energy business and GE Healthcare.

That had a conglomerate discount, and it took years to divide that business up. Now, the sum of those parts is greater than the previous whole. But it's not necessarily easy for those companies to operate on their own. Again, the internal capital allocation process is taking a lot of cash flow that comes from search and putting it in new businesses, making new investments, making new moonshots. Is moonshots a thing still associated with Google?

Ricky Mulvey: We can count Waymo. They got self driving stuff going on.

David Meier: There's all sorts of stuff. While I understand breaking it up could unlock a lot of value, I also am sympathetic to the idea that, hey, most of the capital comes from search. If you put these businesses on their own, does that mean they have as much capital as they need in order to grow as fast as they want? I don't know the answer to that question. It's a risk to basically set all those free as individual companies in the market, and the market might say, well, this is great, but, Waymo, you need a lot of capital going forward.. Maybe I'm not going value you at the multiple that somebody else thought you were now that I can see all of your financials.

Ricky Mulvey: Let's close out with the question that introduced the show. There's some narratives going against Google right now. The search business is declining. You're doing nothing compared to ChatGPT. Your business there could become obliterated. For that, Mr. Market is assigning Alphabet a lower than average earnings multiple about 17 times. David, that is what Kroger trades at. A very mature grocery store business. Here, you have Google, which still dominates the search market. It's got a growing Cloud business. It owns YouTube, which is the biggest streaming service anywhere. It's free, but we can set that aside for now. I've got this company on my watch list. Should I pick up some shares while Alphabet's in value town? Are we looking at a falling knife here?

David Meier: Me personally, as someone who I've followed this company for a long time. I'm in agreement with you. I think shares are probably undervalued, but they're probably a little undervalued for a reason, and that's because there's a lot of risk and uncertainty that's ahead of the company in the short term. If you have a case where the lawsuits don't have a big impact, if there's not a call for a breakup by the FTC, if the other businesses that are growing, again, the ones we mentioned, YouTube, GCP, things like that. If they have all of the earnings power that this analyst thinks they do, eventually the market will be able to see through all of it and figure out what's the right multiple. I just personally think this is a phenomenal business generates significant cash flow. They have multiple ways that they can reinvest that cash flow. It's probably a little undervalued today. Even as a conglomerate.

Ricky Mulvey: We'll leave it there. David Meier, thank you for your time and your insight.

David Meier: Thank you so much, Ricky. This was a lot of fun.

Ricky Mulvey: Hey, Fools, we're going to take a quick break for a word from our sponsor for today's episode. Real estate. It has been the cornerstone of wealth building for generations, but it's also often been a major headache for investors with 3:00 AM maintenance calls, tenant disputes, and property taxes. A Fundrise Flagship Fund, a 1.1 billion dollar real estate portfolio with more than 4,000 single family homes in the Sunbelt communities, 3.3 million square feet of in-demand industrial facilities all professionally managed by an experienced team. The Flagship Fund taps into some of real estate's most attractive qualities, long-term appreciation potential, a hedge against inflation, and diversification beyond the stock market. Check, check, and check.

All without the complex paperwork, massive down payments, and soul sucking landlord duties. Visit fundrise.com/fool to explore the portfolio, check out historical returns, and see just how much easier investing in real estate can be. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses of the Fundrise Flagship Fund before investing. This and other information can be found in the funds perspective at fundrise.com/flagship. This is a paid advertisement. Up next, Robert Brokamp joins me for a look at bonds and what investors should consider before adding them to their portfolios. Investors own bonds for safety and income, but recent history has occasionally told a different story. The total return from the overall bond market has been flat to slightly negative over the past five years. That's if you bought into this safe investment as COVID kicked off. Over the past few years, investors in bond funds have experienced unexpected and historically steep declines. In 2022, the Vanguard total bond market ETF lost about 13%. Bro, that is nothing for a growth stock investor, but this could spook anyone who's closer to retirement.

Robert Brokamp: Yeah, and 2022 was probably the worst year for the stock market in US history. It was quite notable. The main cause of the declines has been the rise of interest rates. If you go back to 2020 in the middle of the pandemic, the 10 year treasury yielded an astounding 0.5%. But over the last few years, it has risen to almost 5%, reaching that in 2023. It's fallen down a bit back, but it's still at around 4.5%. When rates go up, the value of existing bonds go down. Why? Well, if you had bought a 10 year treasury back in 2020, that yielded 0.5%. It's now less attractive because after all, who would want 0.5% yield if 4.5% is now available? The price of the 0.5% treasury has to adjust downward. However, there's good news. The price of that bond will return to its par value as it gets closer to maturity as long as the issuer, in this case, uncle Sam, is still in business, so the price decline won't last forever.

Ricky Mulvey: Unfortunately, that same dynamic may not play out in a bond fund, which could hold hundreds or even thousands of bonds with different maturities and credit ratings that are constantly being bought and sold. But you can get varies with your 12 month trailing yield, your 30 day SEC yield, or your weighted average coupon rate. One solution is to buy individual bonds instead of bond funds. However, it's not as simple as it sounds, so Bro's got a few tips starting with invest enough to be diversified.

Robert Brokamp: There's one rule of thumb that says you shouldn't attempt to construct your own bond portfolio unless you have at least $50,000 to invest. That's because the issuers, whether it's corporations, municipalities, foreign governments, they can all go bankrupt and default on the debt. That doesn't mean you'll lose everything, actually. Investors typically recover 40% to 60% of the original value of the bonds after a company restructures, gets liquidated, but it usually takes a while for investors to get some money back. You want to spread your bond books around. When it comes to investing in stocks, we hear at the Fool generally say you shoul down at least 25 companies, and that's probably a good starting point for bonds as well. Though if you invest in really really safe bonds, you can get away with a smaller number. For example, you can feel more secure with a smaller bond portfolio or a smaller number of issuers if you invest primarily in US treasuries, which are still considered among the safest investments in the world.

Ricky Mulvey: Fledgling casino developers may not like this tip, but Number 2, stick to investment-grade bonds.

Robert Brokamp: To minimize the risk of buying bonds from a company that may go belly up, you want to stick with investment grade issuers, and those are rated Bbb or higher by standard and Poors or Baa or higher by Moody's. According to fidelity, here, the 10 year default rates on bonds of different ratings from 1970-2022 as rated by Moody's. Tripple A bonds have a default rate of only 0.34%, so pretty darn safe. Investment grade 2.23%. Speculative grade, high yield junk, whatever you want to call it, 29.81%. That's a high default rate, which is why they pay such high yields. But even if you stick with investment grade, there's still the risk of default. In fact, if you own individual bonds long enough, you probably will see a couple of defaults. It's still important to diversify your bond portfolio, but you can mitigate that whole default risk by choosing highly rated bonds.

Ricky Mulvey: Next up, find out whether the bond can be called.

Robert Brokamp: Every bond has a set maturity rate, but many can be called before then. What happens is that a company decides to pay off its bondholders before maturity. You bought, let's say, a 10 year bond, but then it got called five years in. Why did they do that? It's usually because interest rates have dropped or the bonds credit rating has improved. It allows the issuer to redeem the old bonds, issue new ones at lower rates. Unfortunately, that leaves investors left with having to reinvest the money at lower rates. You want to make sure you know beforehand whether the bond you're going to buy is callable, and if so, what the yield will be. You'll often see at the quotes, you'll see either the yield to call, YTC, or the yield to worst, YTW, and that's what you'd receive if it does get called. By the way, another benefit of treasuries is that they're not callable.

Ricky Mulvey: This next one gets a little tricky if you like owning investments in standard brokerage accounts, Bro, but pursue the primary market.

Robert Brokamp: When bonds are first sold to investors, what is known as the primary market, they're usually sold in $1,000 increments and will be worth $1,000 when they mature. This is known as their par value. But once a bond is issued, it trains on an exchange. This is known as the secondary market. At that point, a bond rarely trades for $1,000. The price is going to either be higher or lower, depending on changes in interest rates and what's going on with the company, maybe what's going on with the economy. If you buy a bond that is below or above its par value, this is going to add a layer of tax complexity because when the bond matures for $1,000, you're either going to receive less or more than you paid for it. This is a really complicated topic, but in most situations these days, investors are buying bonds at a discount, meaning they're paying, let's say, 950 bucks for a bond that will eventually mature in 10,000.

That $50 difference is going to be taxed as ordinary income in most situations, not as a capital gain. You can avoid all this tax complexity if you buy bonds right when they're issued in the primary market and then hold to maturity. That said, buying bonds in the primary market isn't easy. You're going to increase your chances by having an account with a brokerage that underwrites a lot of bond offerings. Some of the bigger discount brokers also have access to some primary offerings, but you might want to check with them beforehand to see how big that inventory is going to be.

Ricky Mulvey: If you want to play this game, you got to know what you're buying. Understand how bond prices and yields are quoted.

Robert Brokamp: Now, if you've never seen the quote for a bond, it's going to look a little interesting to you because despite being typically worth $1,000 at issue and at maturity, bond prices are quoted in a different way. You basically move the decimal point to the left. A quote for 99.616 for a bond indicates that the bond is being offered for $996 and 16 cents. You'll likely see both the coupon and the yield quoted. The coupon was the interest rate on the day the bond was issued. But once the bond begins trading and moving above or below its par value, the yield is a more accurate representation of what you'll actually receive as a percentage of what you paid for the bond. Then finally, most bonds pay interest twice a year. When you buy a bond in the secondary market, you'll owe accrued interest to the previous owner for the time she or he owned the bond in between payments, but then you'll get the full six months worth of interest during the next payment, even though you only owned the bond for maybe less than six months.

Ricky Mulvey: Bro, our engineer Rick Angol was asking for more excitement before we started recording in our segments. Really I think he's getting it with understanding how bond prices in yields are quoted. Let's keep going with the tip of buying directly from Uncle Sam.

Robert Brokamp: You can buy savings bonds, treasuries, I bonds, treasury inflation protected securities, otherwise known as tips, directly from the government, commission free @treasurydirect.gov. It's a really convenient way to buy treasuries. Unfortunately, it can only be done in taxable accounts because the government isn't set up to serve as a custodian for IRAs. But the consolation here might be that interest from treasuries is actually free of state and local income taxes, so that makes them somewhat more compelling. Also, in the case of treasuries and tips, you don't actually buy the security immediately, knowing the exact yield you'll receive, rather, you're basically signing up to participate in an upcoming auction. Once the auction is complete, you'll be informed of the rate you'll receive.

Ricky Mulvey: Finally, you can get the best of both worlds with defined maturity ETFs.

Robert Brokamp: If you've been listening so far, you can see that buying individual bonds requires more education and effort than just buying a bond fund. Fortunately, there's a type of bond ETF that offers most of the benefits of buying individual bonds. These are known as defined maturity or target maturity bond ETF. These are funds that only own bonds mature in the same year, and that year will be identified in the name of the ETF. Toward the end of that year, after all the bonds have matured, you'll just have a bunch of cash. The cash will be distributed to the shareholders and the ETF ceases to be. The two main issuers of this type of ETFs are Invesco, and they call them BulletShares or iShares, and they call them I-Bonds, but that's not to be confused with the inflation-adjusted bonds issued by Uncle Sam. You can use these ETFs to invest in all kinds of bonds, corporates, munis, TIPS, high yield bonds. Both the Invesco and iShares websites have tools that can help you build a bond ladder with these ETFs.

You have a certain amount coming due each year, probably particularly attractive to retirees. Like all bond funds, these ETFs are going to go up and down in value depending on what's going on with interest rates in the economy, but they should return close to their initial share price, that is the price of the ETF on its very first day once the fund matures. But there are no guarantees, and this is more likely if the ETF invests in safer bonds, less likely if you're choosing an ETF that invests in high-yield or junk bonds. But the bottom line is that with these ETFs, you can get the ease and diversification of a bond fund, yet a measure of the predictability about what the ETF will be in the future, similar to what you'd get from an individual bond, in other words, most of the best of both worlds.

Ricky Mulvey: As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about in the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear personal finance content, follows Motley Fool editorial standards, and we 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. Motley Fool only picks products that it would personally recommend to friends like. I'm Ricky Mulvey. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.

Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. David Meier has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Ricky Mulvey has positions in Kroger. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Moody's, and Nike. The Motley Fool recommends GE Aerospace, Ge Vernova, Kroger, Novo Nordisk, On Holding, and Under Armour. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Shares in gas turbine, wind power, and electrification company GE Vernova (NYSE: GEV) rose by as much as 10% in early morning trading, only to settle back into a mid-single-digit gain by noon ET. The move comes after its first-quarter 2025 earnings report demonstrated that plenty of life is left in the economy's electrification trend. Moreover, management reaffirmed its full-year guidance -- a significant plus in an economy threatened by an ongoing tariff dispute.

GE Vernova remains on track

Management's strategy is to take advantage of the strength in demand for gas turbines while growing its higher-margin gas services business in the power segment. The good news is that orders of $6.2 billion in the quarter were 1.4 times its $4.4 billion in revenue, indicating more growth to come. An increase in the installed base of gas turbines helped services revenue grow by 18% in the quarter.

Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue »

In its second largest segment, electrification, orders remain strong (at 1.8 times revenue in the quarter) as ongoing investment in electric grids and connecting renewable energy to the grid supports growth.

Finally, in the loss-making wind segment, GE Vernova needs to work through legacy offshore wind contracts while focusing on its profitable onshore wind business. The segment remains loss-making overall, but the earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) profit margin improved to negative 7.9% in the quarter compared to negative 10.6% in the first quarter of 2024.

Image source: Getty Images.

What's next for GE Vernova?

Management reaffirmed its full-year guidance for $36 billion to $37 billion in revenue and a high-single-digit EBITDA margin. It's a good result in a market stressing the potential for guidance reductions in light of uncertainty around tariffs.

Should you invest $1,000 in Ge Vernova right now?

Before you buy stock in Ge Vernova, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Ge Vernova wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $561,046!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $606,106!*

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 811% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 153% for the S&P 500. Don’t miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of April 21, 2025

Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Ge Vernova. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.