QAV 508 

Cameron  00:02

Welcome to QAV 508, TK. Are you doing better with age? Your t-shirt says

Tony  00:11

I’ve got my Murray Brothers’ Bourbon t-shirt on. “It’s better with age,” exactly.

Cameron  00:19

Your last day down at Cape Schanck today?

Tony  00:22

Yes, I’ll leave tomorrow morning. Back in Sydney on the weekend.

Cameron  00:26

Oh, that’s good.

Tony  00:28

I don’t know, Sydney’s copping the rain at the moment, too.

Cameron  00:31

Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Tony  00:32

So I’m not sure its worth going back to but yeah, I need to get back.

Cameron  00:34

Might have to take a puddle – not puddle, a paddle, a paddle for the puddle on your way. Well, it’s been a big week in the markets, in the world, we’ve got a lot to cover. And then I need to edit the show myself this week because my normal editor of this show for the last four or five months, Dennis, lives in Kharkiv, in Ukraine. And he has, as people who are in ou Facebook group, or might follow me on Facebook anyway, might know I’ve posted an email I got from him. He’s obviously gone underground and said probably won’t be able to work for you for a while. So, I guess the most interesting thing outside of the ins and outs of what’s going on over there is, for us as investors, is the way the market handled it. The day before the invasion the markets tanked and the day of the invasion they turned back up, and it’s been sort of boom days for the last couple of days. Lots of growth across the board, a lot of our stocks are doing well, markets in general seem to be handling it fairly well. I read a number of different analyses on why the market picked up on the day of the invasion, like the biggest invasion in probably, at least in that part of the world, since World War II. Nothing that I read really convinced me that anyone who was writing these articles really had a clue about what was going on. I read stuff in Chanticleer about interest rates, I read somebody else quoting Rothschild “buy on the sound of the cannons, sell on the sound of trumpets.” You know, you’ve been around a long time, Tony, not since World War II, but what’s been your experience with wars and markets?

Tony  02:35

Yeah, so, the Fin Review published some analysis about all of the wars in the 20th century, and they do tend to send the stock market down when they start and it turns around and comes back pretty quickly soon after that, including the big ones; World War, World War II in particular. I think, you know, I’ll draw a long bow and say it’s just the fact that the market doesn’t like uncertainty, and once, once an invasion actually happens and people see it may not be the end of the world, or the end of civilization as they know that, they buy the bargains. It’s a bit more complicated than that, because obviously, commodity prices are affected. So, oil and gold have both gone up, particularly oil. Gas has too because Russia is a big gas supplier, and all the sanctions are going to hurt their business. Aluminium’s in the same boat. Russia, I think is the biggest producer of aluminium in the world, so aluminium prices are going up quickly. So, I think it’s just the market adjusting.

Cameron  03:33

Right.

Tony  03:33

I’ll never forget, I remember when I was working at Shell in Brisbane back in the early 90s and I was talking to one of the service station operators that I looked after, and he was saying he never made so much money as when the Gulf War started and he was in hospital having an operation and was laid up for a week or two, and just traded the oil market while he was laid up in bed. And, you know, fill the tanks at his service stations appropriately or let them run down, and then refill them again quickly and sell it quickly and put the price up and whatnot, and he made lots of money because the oil price is very, very fickle or very-it moves very volatile when war starts. Especially, well, it did in that case in the Middle East, and in this case it’s Russia, which is also a big oil producer.

Cameron  04:22

Yeah, I, you know, I also think that there’s an element of military Keynesianism that’s got to be involved in this as well. You know, everyone knows that when a war’s going on governments, particularly the United States, are apt to set aside billions or trillions of dollars to put the country on war footing or to support their allies, sending them you know, aid or money to buy weapons, etc., etc., which flows back into the economy. So, it’s probably an aspect of that around wartime as well, you know, they know that there’s going to be a lot of money flowing into the economy.

Tony  05:04

Yeah, so there’s a bit of that, but it doesn’t really explain why the market goes down when the war starts and then rises quickly after that, so.

Cameron  05:11

Yeah.

Tony  05:13

That’s your reasoning’s certainly the case why I think America was in Afghanistan for twenty odd years.

Cameron  05:18

Yes.

Tony  05:19

You know, just lined the pockets of the contractors and the military operators for a long time.

Cameron  05:24

Yeah. And, you know, I’ve done a lot of analysis on how that works on the Cold War Show, as you know, and I was astounded when I did it, sort of, to realise where all that money goes. Like, you kind of think that, you know, when there’s military spending it goes to people who make guns, and, you know, planes and ships and stuff like that. And then you start to realise that the United States has eight hundred military bases around the world, and the Pentagon supplies those eight hundred bases and all of the people on those bases and all the people on boats, etc., with everything from condoms, to toothpaste, to food, to software to, you know, you name it, and ping pong tables, and the businesses in America that supply all of those, you know, dip their hands in the tin – in the Pentagon jar – and it’s a huge part of their income. Tens of thousands of businesses right across the US profit during war from Pentagon spending, it’s a big part of it… and it’s easy money. They don’t have to bid for it usually or not very hard, because usually it’s being doled out in an emergency, during crisis times. “Quick! Need to spend $500 billion, who wants it?”

Tony  06:45

Yeah. No tender. Well, it’s the old saying that war breaks out, buy paperclips. I heard that somewhere.

Cameron  06:54

Why do you do that?

Tony  06:55

Well, so, because there will be a lot of paper clips going into the US Army bases and going overseas.

Cameron  07:00

Right. I thought it was to keep, tie all the cash together. Anyway, so I mean, it’s, it’s really interesting times, obviously, terrible stuff going on and no one wants to see war going on under any circumstances. But, I guess there’s not a lot we can do about it. We just need to…

Tony  07:23

Stop buying Russian vodka, I suppose. If you can reach out to the editor, it would be great to have him on the show next week or as soon as we could, just to quiz him about what life’s like over there during wartime?

Cameron  07:37

Well, sure, I’ll try. I think he’s probably more interested in keeping his head. But who knows what’ll happen between now and then, it could all be over?

Tony  07:47

And it could be a lot worse for us as well because, I mean, look, the Russian rubles I think devalued by half, the interest rates are on 20% in Russia and the stock market’s shut. So, we could have invested in a Russian company and we haven’t, which is lucky, but they’re doing it tough over there. Sanctions will probably have some long-term effect, probably not short-term effect in terms of getting out of Ukraine, but some long term effect.

Cameron  08:11

Mm. I guess we’ll see how it plays out.

Tony  08:14

I’ll leave it until the after hours, but I did want to comment on just how crap the Australian journalism coverage of the war is and how one sided it is. And I’ve found a couple of people who are willing to give, not so much a Russian point of view as a deeper analysis into why Russia might be doing what it’s doing. But I can save that ’til after hours, it’s very interesting.

Cameron  08:34

Did you listen to my podcast about that?

Tony  08:37

I did. Yeah, well the first episode, I think there’s two episodes. I haven’t gotten to two yet, but the first one, yeah.

Cameron  08:42

The second one that we did the end of last week, yeah, all about, you know, what’s going on and the media coverage again. I was criticising the ABC media coverage, just terrible. Woeful. Anyway.

Tony  08:54

It’s rubbish.

Cameron  08:55

We’ll talk about that later.

Tony  08:56

Yeah.

Cameron  08:57

Other news this week is you increased the bank rate in the checklist from 3.42% to 4.49%. I saw somebody on Facebook ask where you came up with that number from, you want to remind people how you come up with the number?

Tony  09:10

Yeah, so that’s the, that’s the, I use ANZ, that’s the bank I have my home loan with but could be anyone, any of the big majors. But it’s the home loan reference rate on their website. It’s now 4.49%. And it’s risen since the last time I had a look at it, largely because bond yields have risen. So, clearly the bond market is getting out ahead of the RBA in terms of raising interest rates and we’re starting to see that flow thrown into interest rates for mortgages as well, which is what we’re really referencing when we do our check to see if the yield is greater than the mortgage rate.

Cameron  09:48

Only seems like yesterday that people were telling us that interest rates were going to go to zero and stay there forever.

Tony  09:55

Well, yeah, it was during the COVID cough, wasn’t it? And after the COVID cough. And now there’s, you know, I think one of the reasons why the market has been a little buoyant recently is because people, particularly in the US, are starting to say that the war might put a handbrake on rate rises over there. So, yeah, it’s a bit of a Yahoo moment for the US market, but we’ll see.

Cameron  10:16

Yeah. Okay, so people just doing your checklists this week if you haven’t already, make sure you update that in the relevant spots in the checklist. MWY results, Midway, came out on Thursday last week, Tony. Sales were down 39%, the shares plummeted by 19% in like several hours. I owned Midway, but it’s been doing well before that. Dropped by 90%, still wasn’t a rule 1 sell for me, though. It was only about 8% below my buy price and I was wondering, well, is this bad news? Should this be a bad news sell? But I only waited a couple of hours and then it did become a rule 1 sell, so I didn’t have to worry about whether or not it was a bad news sell anymore. But, I wanted to ask you about that situation in that sort of a scenario; sales down 39%, share price plummets to 19% in the morning. What would you normally do?

Tony  11:18

Yeah, I’d probably sell. But, usually the decision’s taken care of by either rule 1 or sentiment when something big like that happens. And I noticed on the Brettalator this morning it was like a cent above of its sell price, but, like, I had a look at the sell line and it didn’t make sense. And I had an email exchange with Brett quickly, so thanks, Brett, and he pointed out that because today’s date is the first of March, there was a little bit of a, a trough created by the end of February and the first of March, but it was so small, you couldn’t see it on the graph. And if people are wondering about the lines on the Brettelator and it’s early in the month, they might want to go back and put a date in of 28th of February 2022, which of course you can do, and see what the sell line was like before the end of the month. But I have Midway as a sell at the moment.

Cameron  12:14

Right. Now, I read a little bit about why their sales were down, something to do with global pulp stocks trending lower due to COVID 19 production and supply constraints. I know, I think you have talked before about a pulp commodity graph?

Tony  12:30

Yes, originally, I think we used soft lumber as the graph for Midway, but we changed it to pulp because that’s basically what they’re selling. But, I looked up, it’s pretty hard to find a graph for pulp, but I looked up one which I found on the, it’s called Fred: Fred dot St Louis Fed. So, it’s the St. Louis Fed in the US, and it has a graph of pulp. But it looks strong to me, so I’m not sure if I’m using the wrong graph or whether the comments they’re coughing up is the reason why their sales are down are completely accurate. What graph are you using?

Cameron  13:04

Yeah, I don’t have one. That’s what I was gonna ask you, what you were looking at?

Tony  13:10

Yeah, so I was looking at this one, the St. Louis Fed, which will be a US graph and applicable to the US. So, it’s quite possible there’s another one out there which is more applicable to Australia, but I couldn’t find another one when I was looking today,

Cameron  13:24

Just wondering if we could have predicted this by looking at pulp commodities, but yeah, anyway.

Tony  13:32

We should be able to, but, yeah, it doesn’t appear to be the case. Which doesn’t make me think, like, I’m using the wrong graph by the way, when this kind of thing happens. Yeah, so I’m not convinced I’m using the right graph.

Cameron  13:44

Well, that was brutal. Well, for those of us that helped Midway; 20% down in a day, right?

Tony  13:52

Well, the same thing is happening to me today with Sandfire Resources. It’s down 13%.

Cameron  13:58

Woah!

Tony  13:59

As of time of recording, so I’ve had to sell out of that as well. It’s just crossed its sell line, so people might want to have a look at that. And it seems like that was on the basis of results not meeting analysts’ predictions. I think the results are quite strong, but analysts thought they’d be a little bit stronger and had even forecasted a bigger dividend which I think is one of the problems. There were some changes to the forecast for the new mine they’ve bought in Spain called MATSA, which to me, like my reading of the results were “okay, a little bit of a change there,” but the analysts have gone ape shit over looking like MATSA will have a higher cost of running than what they first thought.

Cameron  14:37

Right. That’s no good.

Tony  14:41

No, and the copper price is still strong, so it’s a bit of another case of a stock dropping when the commodity price is strong. Which leads me to think that, okay, I’ve sold it, but it may it may actually come back quickly.

Cameron  14:55

Yeah. Speaking of things dropping, Probuild, a major construction company that’s among other things supposed to be building this massive luxury apartment development in Queen Street in Brisbane, it’s ended administration. I remember a while ago, I think I mentioned this on the show, but probably sometime in the last year I was talking to a mate of mine who is a developer down on the Gold Coast. And he told me then that they were starting to have problems with some construction companies or suppliers going into administration. And he said, “you wait until the COVID money runs out, and you’re going to see construction companies all over the place falling over.” And, this is one. This isn’t the first that I’ve seen, but this is possibly one of the biggest. “Probuild, one of the largest building companies in the country, gone into administration caught everyone by surprise,” according to Union executives. It’s between seven to ten million owed the subcontractors in this particular instance. Not a good sign when you start to see big construction companies going under.

Tony  16:13

It’s not a good sign at all. It’s usually the sign of an impending recession, because that usually is what happens at the start of recessions. It’s a good point about the COVID money and people like Alan Kohler have been talking for a while about zombie companies, companies that are only still living and walking because of the COVID funding they’re receiving from the government. So, we might see some more of those as that COVID funding has been pulled. But the problem with builders going into recession is that they employ a lot of people, and if there’s money owed to the subcontractors then they’re gonna have to lay staff off as well. So, that can be a big hit. And of course, there are people who have already paid their deposits on some of these buildings, especially if they’re apartment buildings, who will lose their deposits too. So, it does have a terrible impact on the economy. In this case it looks like its as much a problem with supply chains and labour costs and not getting labour and all that kind of stuff as much as it is the fact that this company has a South African parent, and I think the South African parent has drawn the line and is not willing to put the $10 million into it that it needs to keep the company afloat. So, there might be something else at play behind the scenes from a corporate point of view, like they might I think it’s a good way to shut down and get out of Australia if that’s their strategic intent. But yeah, if we see some more of these, that’s not a good sign for the economy.

Cameron  17:35

Well, I did read that there had been apparently a strategy to sell the Australian part of Probuild to a Chinese company, which the federal government put the kibosh on. And, so yeah, that South African company parent has pulled the pin finally.

Tony  17:55

Right, yeah.

Cameron  17:56

So, a lot of different stuff going on. Hopefully, it’s not the beginning of many more to come. Berkshire Hathaway’s annual letter to shareholders. Warren Buffett, Christmas time for value investors.

Tony  18:09

Yes, on a brighter note, Christmas time in March.

Cameron  18:12

Yeah, I read the first bit of it anyway, skimmed the rest of it. But I read the comments from Warren, a lot of good stuff in there as always. My favourite is where he says “teaching, like writing, has helped me develop and clarify my own thoughts. Charlie calls this phenomenon the Orangutan effect. If you sit down with an orangutan and carefully explain to it one of your cherished ideas, you may leave behind a puzzled primate, but you will yourself exit thinking more clearly.” And I was thinking maybe we should call this podcast, change it to the Orangutan Podcast.

Tony  18:47

I wonder why Charlie used the Orangutan in the example, and not a two-year-old or a lamp shade?

Cameron  18:55

Because Orangutans are funny, they’re inherently funny. And Charlie is inherently a funny guy.

Tony  19:01

He is. It’s a good, it’s absolutely true as you and I both know from putting out podcasts. You do learn a lot more and clarify your thinking when you’re talking about it and teaching people, don’t you?

Cameron  19:15

Same as writing a book, you know, I found that with the last book, the psychopath book. Like it forces you to, I mean, if you want to do a good job, and you don’t want people to come back afterwards and say “you’re a complete idiot, what the hell are you talking about?” You have to really think through your position and you have to back it up and you have to challenge yourself and get other people to challenge, all that kind of stuff. Yeah, but I know with a podcast, certainly, you know, I know that from your perspective the podcast has forced you to quantify some things that were previously just gut feel for you for thirty years.

Tony  19:49

Yeah, second nature. That’s right. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, I mean, if you’re an operator who’s not stopping and teaching people you do operate at speed, so you don’t have to go back and think about why you’re doing it from first principles. So, teaching does force you to do that.

Cameron  20:04

So, what were your highlights from the Berkshire Hathaway letter?

Tony  20:08

I had quite a few, so sorry if I take some time here, might want to edit it if it gets too long. But the thing which strikes me every year when I read the letter is that first page with the returns from, you know, way back when – fifty odd years ago through ’til now -and the thing that strikes me always recently is that the good years were really early on, probably up until about the 70s. You know, if you look at it, I think, going back, 1976 was the largest year in terms of returns and Berkshire had 129.5% return that year, versus the S&P 23.6. So, you know, bonzer year for them that year. ’79 was similar; 102% versus S&P 18.2%. But for this century, their largest year was 32.7%, and that was in a year when the S&P was up 32.4%. So, it’s certainly, they’re certainly still doing well and certainly still having good years, but they’re slowing down. And now, Buffett always claims that’s because they have, they’re a larger business, they have larger funds to manage and they have a lot of cash holdings. But, it does make me think that the other thing that’s happened over the years is Buffett’s style has changed. So, if people are familiar with his story, and I guess they are, he started off as a deep value investor in the Graham School of picking up cigar butts and getting one last puff before tossing them aside. And then he changed. I’m not sure exactly of the date, but it would have been probably around the 70s or so, and became a quality investor and famously said he’d rather buy a quality company at a reasonable price than a bad company at a great price. So, I’m wondering whether it’s you know, Buffett’s being a bit of a magician here and saying “look over there at all the cash on holding, that’s slowing me down,” when really what’s potentially slowing him down is the fact that he isn’t really a deep value investor anymore. So, that’s the first thing. It is certainly the case that they’ve got a lot more cash to invest in, but he comes out later on in the in the letter and says that Berkshire Hathaway is now I think, the biggest owner of infrastructure, by a corporate company in America. And I think that’s, you know, again, pointing towards why Berkshire isn’t getting those big returns that it did early on. And infrastructure, if you think about it, is a good investment for Buffett. It kind of makes a lot of sense to me, because he looks for quality, predictable earnings in companies with what he calls a “moat,” so they have a big barrier to entry. He’s got lots of cash, so infrastructure requires lots of big investments which is a barrier to entry. So, they often are government monopolies or highly government regulated, so that provides some level of predictability in their earnings. And it’s kind of what, in some respects, Berkshire Hathaway now reminds me of a superannuation fund, much like the big ones in Australia – or in Canada, for that matter, they tend to be big like ours. And super funds are going through a stage where they’re trying to invest in as much infrastructure as possible because they are a place to park large amounts of money, get a decent return, and not have the volatility that you could get from investments in other companies. And if you look at, like, the takeover of Sydney Airport just recently, that was driven by super funds and that was an infrastructure play. The other one that comes to mind is APA, which I seem to think may have had an approach recently as well. But they’re infrastructure funds, and they really do tick all the boxes for a Berkshire Hathaway investment. However, they tend not to be high-well they are, by definition, not high growth because they’re often, you know, the price rises at hyper CPI and things like that by the government. So, I kind of think that, yeah, Berkshire Hathaway’s still doing well, but it is slowing down. I’m not sure we’re going to get the sort of, not sure for how much longer they’re going to get the sort of 20% a year returns that they’ve been getting over their previous life. So, that’s that point. One of the things that struck me again was just the way that Buffett is so humble in what he writes. And he talks about, you know, he and Charlie’s keenness to have long term shareholders, how they care about them, how they think about them, how they try and align their objectives with them. And that resonates with me as well. And I don’t know about you, Cam, but you know, I can’t underscore the feeling of responsibility that has, that I take for QAV – and we spoke about, about teaching things and how it makes you think clearer – but particularly for an investing type podcast, if you’re teaching that, it does come with a great deal of responsibility. And, you know, it’s getting the teaching right, and the knowledge that people out there are trusting their savings in futures to us. I’ve always kind of felt that because I’ve been doing it for Jenny and Alex, for my family, for a long time, so that responsibility has always been there. But, it’s even more keenly felt by me, I guess, going forward. And I guess the reason why I raise it is that, it’ll be, I think it’ll be the emotional response that some of our listeners and investors start to have themselves as their investments, you know, gain a bit of traction and become meaningful in their lives. And I think if you don’t have that kind of feeling about it then you’re probably taking it too lightly, and you’ll make more mistakes then you should. But, I think having that sort of sense of responsibility and stewardship is a good thing, and it comes out in Buffett’s annual letter as well.

Cameron  25:51

I agree. He always does have this warm, fuzzy family sort of feel about his letters and his talks when he talks in person. And I noted in one of the sections here he said, “I make many mistakes. I like that. He’s always the first person to admit that he gets it wrong. Which is, which is good. You want to hear that.

Tony  26:15

He’s a good marketer, isn’t he? Before you challenge me on my mistakes, I’m just gonna step up and say I make them. Yeah.

Cameron  26:21

Well, you know, we’ve said this many times on this show, too, with our weekly checklist or stuff that we pick, like, you’re not quite a God yet. We’ve got you nominated in Godhood, but you’re not quite a God. We’re humans and humans make mistakes, even if they have a really good system, and like Buffett they’ve been doing it for a million years and have been very, very successful. He’s a human at the end of the day,

Tony  26:51

Correct, yeah. Yeah, we haven’t greased palm of the Catholic Church enough yet. So, one day maybe.

Cameron  26:57

No, yeah. By the way, it’s not their palm that they want greased.

Tony  27:01

I’ll leave that one alone.

Cameron  27:07

They won’t. If only they would leave that alone. If only. Anyway.

Tony  27:14

Okay. A couple of other points he makes, again, Buffett talks about the importance of float. And that’s, he’s talking about the money held by insurance companies within the Berkshire Hathaway group that needs to, may need to be redeemed over time. So, can turn over quickly for car insurance, but can be long term for life insurance. And Buffett’s always tried to write policies which are profitable, and therefore the float is his to invest. And, you know, you can’t underscore the importance of that for Berkshire Hathaway, it’s really like having an interest free loan that he can go and invest and not have to worry about paying any yield on or any mortgage payments on. And that’s sitting at $147 billion dollars now, so it’s a sizable free loan to Berkshire Hathaway which definitely boosts their their profits. He talks about the giants of his business, now. He said there’s four giants; there’s the insurance business, Apple is now such a large part of their investments that it’s getting up to being 25% of the worth of the company, railroads is his third giant and energy is his fourth giant. So, going back to what I said before about infrastructure, railroads and energy certainly fit into that. Almost monopoly like characteristics that Buffett seeks. And, you know, he’s doing the right thing by his shareholders here. He has a lot of money that he’s trying to steward and keep from going backwards, and he’s saying, basically, “I may not get great returns going forward, but you know, trust me, you’re not going to lose a lot of money as well.” And certainly, infrastructure fits that bill. And if you think about it, like, I mean, some people might want to consider this that are listening to this podcast. But, you know, twenty years ago there were a lot of infrastructure stocks on the share market – there’s only a couple at the moment. But, one of the benefits of investing in them is it takes time, but the dividends grow to a stage, especially if you reinvest them when, after about ten-fifteen years, you’re really getting your at least 20% return just from the fact the dividends are that much bigger. So, if I think about APA which I spoke about before, APA is Australian Pipelines, it’s just basically the pipeline infrastructure to send gas around Australia. It’s a low growth company because of that, it only really grows if they acquire another pipe network or buy another or add to their current pipe network. It tends, you know, they can get, I guess, some fee raises from the gas companies that use their pipes, but it’s all pretty low growth, solid, heavy capital investing. But they do pay, you know, around a 5% yield, and even with low growth that company over, say, ten years is probably going to double its worth and therefore the yield is growing to 10%. And if you’re reinvesting, it’s compounding as well alongside the growth of the company. And so, you know, over a period of time the dividends become really important and you reinvest them, they compound, and you can get up to, sort of, to become a long-term shareholder in those companies, you can get 15/16/17% growth, dividends and capital combined in a low growth company. So, I can see what the attraction is to Buffett for that. I think that’s probably it. The last point I’ll make is that he freely admits that he has lots of cash and the way he’s been deploying it because he can’t find things to buy, as he calls them “elephants”, is by doing share buybacks. So, that’s one of the things propping up the Berkshire Hathaway share price. They’ve bought back something like $50 billion in the last two years. So, it’s certainly a meaningful thing for them at the moment.

Cameron  31:08

What are you tapping in the background?

Tony  31:10

Sorry, my pen.

Cameron  31:14

I read, I think, that they’re sitting on $200 billion in cash at the moment.

Tony  31:19

Are they really? I had a small number, but I wouldn’t…

Cameron  31:23

That might be Australian.

Tony  31:26

Yeah, could be Australian. I think it was about 150 billion in cash I reckon, 147, something like that, yeah.

Cameron  31:31

And I saw, you know, Charlie was talking about it in his daily journal Q&A, and he was saying, you know, “it’s not that we want to sit on cash, we just can’t find anything worth buying at a price we’re willing to pay for it.”

Tony  31:46

Yeah.

Cameron  31:48

Some other quotes that I liked out of Warren’s part of the letter; “Charlie and I are not stock pickers, we are business pickers.” Personally, I’m a nose picker, but doesn’t pay as well. Business pickers. What do you think about that statement? Do you feel like a business picker?

Tony  32:07

No, bit of a stock… a bit of both I suppose, a bit of a stock picker. What he’s saying there is he’s not chasing short term returns again, he’s chasing businesses which are going to be robust for the long term. So, it is, I mean, he has grown to be a different investor to the way I invest. He’s no longer a value investor, I think, he’s more like a super fund.

Cameron  32:27

Right. The other quote that I liked was “deceptive adjustments to earnings, to use a polite description, have become both more frequent and more fanciful as stocks have risen. Speaking less politely, I would say that bull markets breed bloviated bull…”

Tony  32:51

Completely, completely right. Completely accurate. Yeah.

Cameron  32:55

But I like this guy in his early 90s, able to write stuff like that. And Charlie at 98 – there was a thing I posted in our Facebook group, somebody did like a compilation of Charlie’s, of Charlie quotes from his most recent daily journal Q&A AGM, and there’s some annoying music behind it but the quotes themselves are great. And like, he’s 98 and he’s so funny and direct, and so much wisdom about how things have changed and where things are at, and just really, really impressive at that age to be that coherent and cogent and insightful and sharing it, you know, fantastic.

Tony  33:34

Yeah. No, it’s great. Charlie’s always worth listening to. One of the quotes that stuck in in my mind after that was, I think the person asking the questions was asking, “what’s going to happen when interest rates go up?” And Charlie just came out and said “it won’t end well.”

Cameron  33:52

Yeah.

Tony  33:53

But he said it may take a long time before it won’t end well.

Cameron  33:56

Yeah. A little bit of more good news from the week; GRR, one of our stock picks from a couple of weeks ago shot up 38% yesterday morning. Came down a little bit by the end of the day, I think it closed somewhere like 33 or 35% up for the day. Taylor was happy for once, because he bought it and his mate Chris bought it. This comes on the back of its report that came out after the market closed on Friday, revenue for the year was up 49%. Think they report on a December 31st year by the looks of it. And profit was up 58%. And it made me think, you know, we get this question from time to time and we got it just recently because it’s reporting season and people always ask you, “should we wait till the report comes out before we buy a stock? It’s a little bit risky to buy before the report comes out.” And I think, in fact, last week you said “no, I just go and, you know, let it play out as it does.” And this was a great example of that. We bought, we recommend it – we didn’t buy it for our portfolio, but it was one of our stocks of the week two weeks ago. So, two weeks before their report came out, and then it shot up 38% on the day after the report came out. So, you know, if you didn’t buy it two weeks ago, you missed out on probably the most growth that it’ll have this year.

Tony  35:24

Yeah, well potentially, yeah. It is a two-edged sword. I mean, Sandfire has gone down 13% since the results came out, so it can cut both ways. But generally, if we’re buying cheap, quality companies, the results should be good.

Cameron  35:38

Right, yep.

Tony  35:40

More often than not, anyway.

Cameron  35:41

Yeah. You wanted to talk about the Navexa dummy portfolio?

Tony  35:46

All I wanted to talk about was, I can talk about it generally. So, when I realised that Navexa wasn’t adding cash back into our portfolio size even though I think it was taking the dividends, etc. into account when working out our performance, it just did hammer home again to me the importance of dividends. So, I kind of just touched on it with that Australian Pipeline example, but yeah, I mean, I think Navexa said something like we had $5,000 worth of dividends sitting there that hadn’t been accounted for properly in their portfolio, which is 25% of what we started off with. So, over a couple of years that’s grown into a meaningful number, and you know, we reinvested that last week once we worked out what was going on. But yeah, I mean, one of the things in the checklist is that we look for companies with a yield, a decent yield, and we use the mortgage rate as a benchmark which allows us to invest in them and have the dividends cover the interest payments. But equally just as important is that the dividends are a meaningful contributor to growth, especially over time; when they compound, when they get reinvested, and we get the tax benefits of them, too. So, I guess the last point is that dividends are a lot more stable than the stock growth or stock price movement can be. So, I’ve spoken before about how even in the GFC companies were loath to cut their dividends, and I think on average they did, but maybe only by about 25%, maybe 30%. So, it’s a big part of the Australian share market. It’s not the same in the US where they don’t have franking credits so it doesn’t carry as much importance, but certainly in Australia that kind of predictable addition to capital growth is important.

Cameron  37:43

Right. Okay. Well, the last note that I’ve got is somebody sent me an email yesterday saying, “hey, the QAV website is really slow for me, am I doing something wrong?” No, it’s not you. It’s the website. It’s very, very slow. It’s been getting slower and slower for several months. And, just to let everybody know that I’m replacing the IT team, I’m in the process, literally, today, we’re migrating the hosting over from where it’s been for the last couple of years to a new service facility in Brisbane with a new IT support team in Brisbane. The current ones been in Johannesburg, and it’s very hard to go and hit him with a lead pipe when things aren’t working well. Now, I can go and, you know, break knees if I need to, to keep the website up and running. So, hopefully it won’t be as terrible in a week or two from now. But fingers crossed. But my apologies if you’re having a hard time getting into the website.

Tony  38:45

Well, good news. That’s well done to find some local people to provide support. Yeah, I know you’ve had problems with the overseas guys for a while now.

Cameron  38:54

Yeah, I mean, I have no guarantee that the local guys are gonna be any better quite frankly, but they’ve been around a long time. They’re ten minutes away. I can, you know, I want to be able to go and eyeball people.

Tony  39:07

Yep.

Cameron  39:08

Have a chat. Anything else before we get into Q&A, Tony?

Tony  39:13

No, that’s all for me. Thank you.

Cameron  39:14

Alright. Bryan says “I’ve been having a look at the latest buy list and it appears that there’s a group of companies that have been awarded a point for the question ‘is the share price less than the consensus IV’ based on stale, sometimes very stale consensus targets. In my view they should lose that point and move down the list accordingly. A twelve-month projection made in 2018 is not much use to us today. The date is available in Stock Doctor. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.”

Tony  39:51

Yeah, great pickup, Bryan. So, a couple of things. I remember raising an issue with Stock Doctor a while ago as to why the front page in Stock Doctor, the company information page, was showing no consensus forecast but our filters were having a consensus forecast. And I got an answer, which said something like that they had to have three brokers giving a consensus forecast before they put it in the front page, but if they had one it was going into the stock filter. But, I think what Bryan’s uncovered is what’s really going on, is that they’re just, once they have a consensus price forecast it’s going into the filter and it’s staying even though it’s old. But, if it’s not, they’re doing some kind of recency test on the front page. So, Bryan’s completely right, I did go and check some of his data with Yahoo Finance to see if it was a, you know, a data issue in Stock Doctor, but it seems like Yahoo Finance and the numbers that Bryan pulled out of Stock Doctor correlate. So, we do have an issue there. I’m going to have to go and change the checklist to download the consensus target date which Bryan has provided and then do a recency test on that before we can score a company based on consensus forecast, because Bryan’s given us a long list here but there’s only one, two, three, I counted about half a dozen that are on our buy list at the moment. So, it’s not going to be a major impact to our buy list I don’t think, but I will do some work next week and get it right and put out a new checklist in the future.

Cameron  41:25

All right. And we’ll have to do the same with the AF version as well.

Tony  41:29

Yeah.

Cameron  41:29

I spoke to Victor at Stock Doctor yesterday, he just happened to call me. He’s, he calls me now like, once a month going “anything you need? Anything I can do?” which is great. And I said, “listen,” I asked him about this question, and I was hoping that we could build something into the filter in Stock Doctor which would say if the consensus price target date is greater than a year old, you know, don’t give it to us or something like that. You can’t do that. You can set, you have to go in, there’s like a little calendar drop down, you have to set it every time basically. Or, you can do it during the reporting period, I guess, you could say “don’t give me anything that’s older than the last reporting period” or something like that.

Tony  42:20

Yeah, right.

Cameron  42:21

But it’s a bit clunky. So, I think your method is probably better; just download the target date and… What happens if they, I mean, I don’t know, what happens if they have three consensus target analysts? Do we get three dates?

Tony  42:37

Yeah, I don’t know, Cam, I just started to investigate this today but I’ll need to spend some time on it next week. Just going through all those little wrinkles that are probably there that we need to work out.

Cameron  42:47

But you agree with Bryan’s basic premise that an old consensus is useless to us, right?

Tony  42:51

I do. Well, not entirely, but certainly in about half a dozen cases, yes.

Cameron  43:00

Under what condition would a five-year old consensus not be useless to us?

Tony  43:05

No, well, I don’t know if what Brian’s giving us is a complete list or not. But if it is a complete list, there is only about half a dozen stocks on there which are on the buy list. So, I haven’t gone back in to check yet, but I’m assuming all the other stocks on the buy list have a recent consensus target.

Cameron  43:20

Yeah, no, but I’m saying that you agree, though, that if we have a stock that is on the checklist and it’s got a consensus target that’s more than a year old, it’s not very useful to us?

Tony  43:32

Completely. I agree. Yeah. I don’t even know why Stock Doctor just don’t flush it.

Cameron  43:38

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I asked Victor about that. He said that he did have some sort of a developer note in to look at it, but you know, it’s not getting priority. ZGL, which has been – well, it was at the top of our list for six months – according to this thing that Brian sent us, it’s consensus target dates from 2013.

Tony  43:59

Yeah.

Cameron  43:59

Not great.

Tony  44:00

And Yahoo Finance back that up, too, so it wasn’t a corruption issue in Stock Doctor.

Cameron  44:04

Right, which is not surprising, because it’s a very, it’s a very small ADT stock. So, no analyst is really going to look at it.

Tony  44:12

No, correct.

Cameron  44:13

But taking that one point out of our checklist isn’t going to make a huge impact to its overall QAV score, right?

Tony  44:21

No, not at all. Correct.

Cameron  44:23

Yeah. Still good pick up, Bryan. Well done. Alex has a question somewhat related to this that he sent through on Facebook yesterday. I haven’t warned you about this, but I think it’s pretty simple. He says, “a question about ‘price is less than or equal to consensus’. In the AF spreadsheet, this is counted towards the quality score, but doesn’t appear to count towards Tony’s score in his spreadsheet. I noticed the difference on this week’s scorecard because I was getting a quality score of 57% using the AF and the official scorecard was getting 50.54%.” That’s not a quality score, it would have to be 57% not 54%, “for ECX. Which one is correct?” Do you know off the top of your head if that price is less than or equal to consensus is supposed to contribute towards a score?

Tony  45:21

Yeah, it’s meant to. I didn’t know it wasn’t, so I’ll have to take it on notice and have a look.

Cameron  45:25

Okay. Jolly good. Jeff asks, or says really, “Hi Cam. So, I’ve been reading What Works on Wall Street, and noted the author James O. Shaughnessy’s,” to be sure to be sure “emphasis on momentum using one-year relative positive price change as being an important factor in choosing stocks for outperformance.” He quotes from the book: “‘the advice is simple. Unless financial ruin is your goal, avoid the biggest one-year losers. Buy stocks with the best one-year relative strength, but understand that their volatility will continually test your emotional endurance. In coming chapters, we will see how relative strength is an excellent factor to use in conjunction with other factors to help us avoid the most richly valued stocks. For now we see that relative strength is among the only pure growth factors that actually beat the market.'” Then Jeff continues, “I can see QAV has incorporated momentum in several ways; is SDMax bullish, is the five-year price change positive, is six-month price change positive, plus a point for having all three above. Then we also use manual data to check for positive sentiment. But James O’Shaughnessy goes on to analyse five-year periods. ‘Instead of ranking stocks by their one-year performance, I ranked them on absolute performance over the prior five years. Here stocks with the worst five-year performance snapped back in the next one-year period, whereas those with the best five-year numbers ended up with far more modest performance in the following year.’ And he concludes that, ‘so although the performance of stocks with strong one-year positive or negative relative strength tend to keep hitting in the same direction, the opposite is true when looking at five-year periods. Stocks that have exhibited five years of strong relative strength, either positive or negative, are usually on the brink of a turnaround. So,'” James, or Jeff continues, “so according to his results, a strong five-year positive price change is a negative factor when screening for outperformance, and therefore QAV should be ranking high five-year price change positive as a negative factor? Or have I had too much or not enough coffee? Regards, Jeff.” We don’t actually use those things for our scoring, do we?

Tony  47:43

No. So, we use the five-year price chart and the manual sentiment check. We don’t use SDMax five-year price change or six-month price change. So, they’re there in my spreadsheet as a shorthand way to see if we can code for the three-point trend line checking. And this was a suggestion from Steve Mabb way back, and I put it in the checklist. It does correlate somewhat with our three-point trend line checking. So, if a company is SDMax bullish in Stock Doctor, has a five-year positive price change and a six-month positive price change, it gets coded into the checklist as being a bullish stock. And if it doesn’t have all three of those things, it gets a bearish coding in the checklist. But I just, that’s essentially not used in calculating the QAV score. I still use it myself, because rather than if I have a download which says there are two hundred stocks to go through and check sentiment on, I’ll just simply skip through and look at the ones where that calculation for bearish or bullish is different to how I last did my three-point trend line check and just look at those stocks, which makes the whole exercise a lot quicker. But that’s all it’s being used for. It’s just a time saver on my behalf. Essentially you can take those out of the checklist and ignore them, they don’t go into the QAV score at all. As for the other comments about the turnarounds or one-year stocks that have done bad or five-year stocks that have done well, I don’t doubt Shaughnessy’s research, but I’d have to go and research it myself and just see if, you know, under what conditions that applies. So, it’s a bit of a dog to the Dow in terms of the one-year performance. That’s, you know, if you recall, we did a bit of a look at that. And that’s when the worst performers from last year are often the best performance this year. So, that’s certainly something that people can play around with. It doesn’t give us, doesn’t usually give us 20% returns, but, you know, 15% returns aren’t unheard of from that kind of strategy. But as to the five-year ones, I mean it begs more questions than it answers. Are we talking about a stock which has consistently gone up over five years? One that has gone up and gone back and then gone up again? What are the conditions under which this applies or doesn’t apply? So, I’d have to look into it in more detail. But certainly, my experience is the five-year monthly is the best graph to use, and if it’s going up at the end, generally it’s a good stock to buy.

Cameron  50:25

But, you know, quite often they haven’t had a straight run for five years when we look at the chart like O’Shaughnessy’s talking about, and it’s only one of the factors that we look at, right? We’re looking at a whole bunch of other factors as well, not just, you know, it’s price performance over time.

Tony  50:43

Yeah, well the sentiment checker is a go-no-go but yeah, we don’t look at… I’m not sure, is he just talking about shares which have had a five-year continuous upturn, or is there something else in there? I’m not sure, I’d have to do some research on that.

Cameron  50:58

Yeah, he says “stocks that have exhibited five years of strong relative strength, either positive or negative, are usually on the brink of a turnaround.” So, I guess if they, if they’ve, what’s strong relative strength that’s negative?

Tony  51:14

Correct. Yeah. Does it beat the index? Has it gone up and down with the index? I mean, I don’t know.

Cameron  51:20

Yeah.

Tony  51:21

I do have that book to read, so I’ll, you know, get to it one day and may change my thinking. But at the moment, I’d need to do some more research before I wanted to change our checklist on that basis.

Cameron  51:33

All right. Well, thanks for bringing that to our attention, Jeff, it’s a good book. I really – haven’t finished it, I got halfway through it – I really enjoyed it from what I read. Alice says “it would be great to see an example of how to calculate CAGR in Excel.” She has an example that she found, was wondering if that was how you did it. She suggested that we should maybe do a video on it, and I thought that’s not a bad idea because I’m not really clear on how to do it either.

Tony  52:03

Yeah, well, we can, sure. Alice has got it right. So, people can’t see it, but she sent through an example. And essentially, she’s using the RRI calculator, or formula, in Excel and she’s used it correctly. So, yes Alice, that’s right, and well picked up. It’s something that we’ve been focusing on in the last couple of months as we’ve had questions over Navexa, and it’s the way it treats our portfolio in terms of performance. Not just Navexa, but Stock Doctor and all the other portfolio providers. There is another way of doing it in Excel, but essentially it gives me the same numbers. And you might, you know, sometimes I’ll do both just to make sure that, one’s a sanity check for the other, that I’ve got the right number, but you can actually code in the CAGR formula for yourself and you can look it up. But, it’s basically the growth over a period of time raised to the power of one divided by the number of years you’re looking at to the minus one power. So, it sounds complicated, but it’s not that hard. It’s basically, if you added two columns to what you’ve got, and Alice has got a simple series of cells running from 2010-2015. The first row has a starting amount of $200,000 and then it increases to 220 in the second month, 270-sorry second year- to 20,000 then to 733390, and in 2015 it’s 450,000. And if Alice added a column beside that where she recorded the growth every year, so in 2011 the portfolio grew by 10%, and then it grows again, etc., etc., each year. And if she adds those up, she’ll get to the amount of growth in the portfolio and then input it into the CAGR formula and it will also come up with the same result as our RRI. I guess a couple of points. This is the way that a closed end portfolio is best to be calculated, and by that, I mean there’s not huge amounts of money coming in and coming out. So, for example, in those numbers I read out, if, say, in year three another $100,000 was put into the portfolio, it would boost the returns even though it was just passively injected. Again, in my portfolio I just ignore those things mainly. Money’s always going to come in and go out for taxation reasons or to spend on racehorses or golf balls or whatever, and you really have to live with that. But these formulas are mainly for funds which stay intact and don’t have a lot of money coming in and coming out. There are other formulas in Excel which deal more with those funds which have lots of money coming in and coming out or have lumpy cash flows, like there are people who add on $1 cost averaging basis, they might add every year or every month into the portfolio. So, you can look up those two, there’s a whole lot of NPV formulas which deal with those, but certainly RRI or to manually calculate the CAGR formula are the two ones to go with. I did just want to raise one point for people. So, in Alice’s example, there are actually six rows. So, the first one is called Period Zero, but there really are only five years in the performance of this portfolio that we’re concerned with. And so, and number five is the number of periods. When I do this, I can use decimal points. So, for example, if I’m calculating the dummy portfolio progress since September 2019, we’ve had two- and a-bit years. So, that’s what, 2.4 years, I think. I would plug 2.4 into the number of periods, and that would still calculate a CAGR for that partial year for me as well. So, that’s possible. But we normally talk in years as a number of periods. You can do an RRI or a CAGR calculation for months, but unless you’re starting out it kind of becomes meaningless after the first year.

Cameron  56:29

Right. NPV being Net Present Value.

Tony  56:34

Yeah, yep. And so RRI, that formula that Alice was talking about has the reverse in Excel called IRR, Internal Rate of Return. It’s a bit more complicated, but it does allow you to put in a whole series of inputs as you’re adding money to the portfolio and get a calculated number, which smooths those out.

Cameron  56:56

Right. Thank you, Alice. Alice also had a late question, Tony, that I threw in via Facebook. She said, “can you please check again about stocks that have a DPR of greater than 100%? When I asked about this last year, the response was that it was a red flag because the company could be paying more in dividends than they are earning, possibly borrowing to fund dividends or taking it from cash reserves. IGL is a case in point.” Remember talking about this previously?

Tony  57:25

Yeah, I do. Yeah, it normally is a red flag because the company is desperate to maintain its dividend level. It can be a short-term problem, because the company might think that things will turn around next year and there’s a one-off reason why they’re doing it. But, I don’t know why IGL would be doing that. I’m just going to have a look at it now.

Cameron  57:44

Where do we find the DPR?

Tony  57:47

Well, we don’t, but we can do a quick calculation. In Stock Doctor on the Financial Statements page, there’s, at the bottom there’s “income”, so we’ve got dividend per share. So, the most recent dividend per share for IGL is 15.5 cents, and the earnings per share… oh okay, sorry, let me just go back. Dividend per share was 14 cents in its most recent reports, which was back in September, but they only had an earnings per share of 9 cents. So, they funded the extra 5 from retained earnings or borrowings. And that can be a real problem.

Cameron  58:30

Right.

Tony  58:31

Particularly if it goes ahead. So, if you look at the…

Cameron  58:33

Oh actually, you can see it right underneath DPS on that page, Dividend Payout Ratio.

Tony  58:37

Oh, yeah it is too. It’s there now, you’re right. So, 105%, yeah. Whereas if you look at it historically, it’s been 28% the period before they cut their dividend, the period before 36, has been as high as 75 before that. So, yeah.

Cameron  58:53

But we don’t really look at this in the checklist, right? DPR is not in our checklist.

Tony  58:58

No, we don’t. It possibly should be there, but we don’t look at it.

Cameron  59:03

So, it’s a red flag. What would you do if you did happen to notice this and you were thinking about investing in IGL – which, by the way, has been a great performer for me recently. After sitting there and doing nothing for six months, and nearly even rule 1ing it at one stage, it just shot up recently. But, what would you do in an instance like this? What would you be looking at? How would it influence your decisions?

Tony  59:31

I may do some more research onto why it’s occurred and I’d probably have to go and read the results presentation or even the annual report to see why they were doing. I’m just going to go back and look at the prior DPS’. So, yeah okay, dividends have been up and down a lot. So, it’s, as I said before, management is often loath to cut dividends, but they’re usually not stupid. They won’t, they can’t fund a high dividend payout ratio for a long time, so it may drop next half or management may feel comfortable they can replenish wherever they used to fund a dividend, either their retained earnings or borrowings with a better half that they’re forecasting. So, I’d be looking to see if they have a reason. But, if they made a continuous, you know, if there was two or three halves of this, I would consider not investing. But at the moment, you know, IGL meets all their other metrics, so I’d still buy into it.

Cameron  1:00:28

Well, looking at their profit and loss over the last few years, they’ve had a tough couple of years. Their total operating revenue has been going backwards since June ’19, by the looks of it. You know, probably COVID related, no doubt. They’re like a marketing business, aren’t they?

Tony  1:00:47

They are.

Cameron  1:00:47

Marketing and, you know, the printing and all that kind of stuff.

Tony  1:00:51

Correct.

Cameron  1:00:52

Been a tough few years for them in terms of revenue anyway. So, maybe they’re just trying to prop it up, prop up their dividends until they recover.

Tony  1:01:04

Yeah, I mean, it’s, I’m kind of skimming over this. But other things which might be a problem is if, for example, they’re paying the directors-the directors want dividends because they need them for personal reasons. So, again, I’m not that familiar with IGL. Not sure what the holdings are, let me just have a quick look at what the…

Cameron  1:01:24

But look at their, look at their earnings per share over the last few years too. It goes 22, 21, 21, 21, 21, 24, 9.

Tony  1:01:35

Yeah right. So, it’s likely to be a temporary thing, I would think. But yeah, if you look at the shareholders, there’s a couple of people there with 9% of the company which is a good thing. But they may well be banking on getting a dividend of a certain amount this year for whatever reason, and that’s why they’re dipping into retained earnings or borrowings to fund it.

Cameron  1:01:59

Those private yachts aren’t going to pay for themselves.

Tony  1:02:02

Correct.

Cameron  1:02:04

All right. Thank you, Tony. Thank you, Alice. That’s it. After hours, Tony. I’ve got a sir. Oh…

Tony  1:02:13

Sorry. Before we get to after hours, I did want to, I just remembered now you asked before what I wanted to talk about with Navexa. I now recall what it was. I think it may have been Alice who asked the question a couple of weeks ago about what the average holding period was in my experience. So, what I did after getting that question, I just recently ran the Navexa dummy portfolio download so I could download the transactions into a spreadsheet, so I could check the performance calculations. But also, then went and looked at the transactions in the portfolio and found that on average, over the last two and a half years, the average half time for a share is six months. So, the whole portfolio was being turned over on a six-monthly basis. Although, it does get better for the shares that we currently hold, which is an average holding period of nine months. The longest shareholding was two and a half years, which was PRU, Perseus energy. We did sell that recently though, so the longest holding for the current portfolio is Schaffer (SFC),which is 2.1 years. So, I’m thinking what’s been happening is there’s been a lot of rule 1s hitting us during the COVID cough and even recently, and that they’ve been, sort of, turning over stocks more than average. But, once they do settle into the portfolio, they do stay longer with us. But yeah, it’s probably a little bit more frequent than what I thought and what my portfolio does, but it’s not a bad, you know – it’s a dummy portfolio, so it’s a good proxy for the last couple of years for us.

Cameron  1:03:53

Yeah, and you know, we started it as people know just a few months before the COVID cough hit so not surprising it’s been a little bit more turbulent. My own portfolio over the last few years which I would’ve started in around about the same time is very much the same; a lot of real 1s for a period there but then it all settled in and now it’s just kind of rocking on.

Tony  1:04:17

Yeah, so once they do, sort of, take hold they tend to stay a lot longer. But yeah, so this is suggesting six months on average. My portfolio is suggesting more like half the portfolio turning over in six months, so somewhere in between those two is probably going to be the average.

Cameron  1:27:02

QAV Podcast is a production of space craft publishing propriety limited authorised representative of AFSL 520442 AFS representative number 001292718. Please don’t make any investment decisions based solely on listening to this podcast. This is presented as general advice only not personal financial advice. We don’t know your personal financial circumstances. Please see a financial planner before making any investing decisions.