Welcome back to QAV, episode 619. Happy birthday to Fox, who turns nine years old today.
Wow, Happy Birthday Fox!
I can’t believe that he’s nine. Can you believe that?
Oh my god. And welcome back to Australia, Tony Kynaston. How was the big trip? I mean, we spoke to you a couple of weeks ago, but how was the last couple of weeks of your trip?
Yeah, really good. It was good having Alex and Jenny in Toronto with me. It was like a bit of a family holiday, which was lovely. And caught up with my friends over there, played a bit of golf with them. So, yeah, and, you know, it was like we’d never left Toronto. It’s such a nice place.
Was it cold?
Yeah. Unfortunately, like April is very variable. So, everyone there kept saying, “oh, you should have been here last week. It was 30 degrees.” But we were there, and it was eight degrees and raining.
Right? Urgh. And you played golf anyway?
We managed to dodge around it. Yeah.
Did you take wet weather gear, or did you borrow some? Buy some? What did you do?
I had wet weather gear with me because we got rained on in the US as well. Yeah. I always carry wet weather gear for golf. It’s an occupational hazard for an outdoor sport. Yeah, but no, it was good fun. It was good. Great having Jenny and Alex there, so that was really probably the highlight, was just, you know, whenever we had downtime, we’d go out for dinner or for lunch and chat. Like, we hadn’t seen each other for ages. So, it was good.
Yeah, that’s nice. Did Sean go as well?
No, he didn’t. I think he’s flying up this afternoon. He’s working with Jenny and he’s staying with us overnight, so I’ll catch up with him tonight.
Lovely. Well, say g’day to him for me, too. Well, it’s good to have you back. You know, be able to do a real show with you. A normal show. Chat GPT’s not quite there yet. Not quite up to the TK standard. I did get it to write a poem about you.
Oh no. Well, hopefully that friggin’ thing pronounces my name right. How’s it going to be the ruler of the world if it can’t pronounce my name right?
Well, I was gonna, actually, get it to, like, read the poem, put it through the tech. Well, it’s not Chat GPT that did the talking, right? I threw GPTs output into a text to speech generator that created all of that.
Because I was thinking that Chet GPT was really just like Stephen Hawking’s brain in a bottle somewhere, and then they hooked him up to the internet.
Well, I had a couple of goes trying to get it to write a poem about you last night that I could read, and I was thinking, oh, I’ll have to teach it the text to speech generator how to pronounce your name. I did tell it at one point, “Kynaston rhymes with tie-Aston,” and it then put the words “tie Aston” into the poem. I was like, no. That’s the best that I came up with. It did a long poem, which was kind of nice, but you know, it’s like, “in realms of wealth and name well-known, Tony Kynaston’s strength has shown, value’s champion, steadfast, wise, seeking truth with keen sharp eyes, hidden value he uncovers, market secrets he discovers, patients skilled in long term gains, fortunes built, his wisdom reigns. Guiding others on their quest, sharing knowledge, he’s the best. Fostering growth both far and wide, mentor, leader by his side,” which doesn’t make any sense, “navigating markets storms, graceful as his shape transforms, riding waves of change and strife, skilful hands at helm of life. In the halls of wealthy stands, firm upon investing lands, built on principles of truth, legacy that shapes our youth,” again, what? Okay.
It’s concentrating on the rhymes rather than the content, I think.
Then I told it to write a limerick and I ended up with: “there once was an investor named Tony, whose methods made profits not phoney. He’d buy when stocks dipped, and then when they flipped, Kynaston’s returns were quite stony.”
Stoney. Stoney returns.
Yeah, well, the first time it said the returns were quite brawny. I said brawny doesn’t even rhyme with phoney, so it gave me stony. Anyway. I actually was playing around with it last night. And I said to it — I was throwing logical problems at it — I said, “if it takes five hours to dry five pieces of clothing hung outside, how long would it take to dry thirty pieces of clothing?” And it gave me, you know, all of this arithmetic and said, you know, “concluded thirty hours”.
Yeah, and I asked it again. I’ve gotten into the habit of saying “review that and improve upon it,” and it went “no, it’s still thirty hours.” I said, “alright, your job is now to check the logic of the former answer.” And it came back and went, “oh, yeah, right. Okay. Well, it wouldn’t be a linear denominator for that.” But it said, “I don’t know enough about the humidity, how much room there is to put out the clothes,” you know, “the density of the clothes, how wet they are? I really don’t have enough information to answer that question.” I thought that was a good way of getting out of it. Fair enough.
It is kind of human like in that it just jumps in with the wrong answer rather than ask the questions to get to the right one.
Well, actually, that’s part of what I’ve been learning to do. You know, as a good prompt engineer, you have to say, “here’s the question, ask me for more information if you need more information to work it out step by step.” And you have to kind of treat it like a teenager, in a lot of cases, to get it to think in the way that you want it to think. There’s a lot of work involved. I saw a study the other day that said if you just throw in a question, you have an 81% chance of getting a correct answer. But if you finesse it a little bit… It’s like a woman, Tony, you know, if you just tell her what you want you’ve got an 81% chance of getting it, but if you finesse it a little bit, take it out to dinner, but it some flowers…
Well, apologies to all our female listeners, and Happy Mother’s Day on Sunday.
I’m kidding, I’m kidding. Lucky Chrissy doesn’t listen to this and she’s not home right now, I’d get a booting.
Well, my daughter will transcribe this, so feel free to mangle that section, Alex.
**Alex here. It’s okay. I’ll just leave it there for posterity…**
Yes. Let’s do a portfolio update before I get myself into more trouble. Did my weekly update today. I tell ya, it’s been a rough trot on the old All Ords, man. I had a look earlier. I think in the last three months we’re down, the All Ords is, down in the last three months. It’s up over a six-month period, but not by much. Year to date it’s up, but last three months has been pretty grim. Secret rate rises coming in from your friends at the RBA last week.
You know, I had a thought about them. I really think they need an AFSL licence before they start telling people what to do.
Do they have one? That’s a good question.
No! But they can stand in front of a microphone and affect everyone’s personal finances.
That’s not right. There’s some flaw in that, I think. Anyway, our QAV portfolio report, the dummy report. Since inception, which for new listeners is the beginning of September 2019, is coming up to four years. According to Navexa, we’re tracking a 17.13% per annum CAGR over that period, versus the benchmark STW which is tracking at about 7.3, I think. We’re doing a little bit less than two and a half times the benchmark over that period, let’s say three and a half years roughly. We’re up 12.38% for the financial year, per annum, again, CAGR, versus the STW, which is up 16.11. So, we’ve been catching up there, but it got ahead of us a little bit in the last week thanks to OML, which we’ll talk about later.
Well, I kind of find it strange that with everything going on in the world, the All Ords are still up 16%.
I know, right?
So, that’s amazing.
But you’ve said to be before, like, it’s all at the top end, you think, in this last year?
Yeah. I think from memory, you know, some of the big iron ore miners came back. What else has happened? Oh, the banks. CommBank did okay in the first half of the year, I think it’s come off a little bit since then. So yeah, it’s the big end, for sure.
For the quarter, which obviously started the first of April — so, we’re a month and a bit into the quarter — we were way ahead of the STW until OML kicked in, and now we’re sort of neck-and-neck. We’re up 1.4, it’s up 1.4. So yes, OML. We lost 23% on OML last week. It just crashed and burned, and we’ll talk about that a little bit later on when we get into the rest of the show. That was disappointing, but there you go. Interest rates are up, Tony.
Everyone needs to put the rights up in the spreadsheet again.
Yes, correct. That’s right. I haven’t done a mortgage rate survey yet, but I’ll do that in a week or so when it flows through and see if we have to update that cell in the spreadsheet as well for our test against yield. But yeah, people should update their spreadsheets for our IV calculations using the benchmark rate, the cash rate.
I will do an updated version of the TK and AF sheet with the latest rates at some stage in the next day or so.
Interesting that they did raise rates, though, I thought. They paused them the month before, and I think every bond trader and every economist in Australia was thinking they continued to be paused, so everyone was blindsided. Listening to Alan Koehler and a few other commentators, they think it may have been political because the Reserve Bank Review came out and criticised the current lot. So, it might have been a bit of revenge going on there. But anyway, who knows? Strange Days.
Wow. That’s a big call.
I love a good conspiracy theory.
I know you do. Well, speaking of conspiracy theories: I think Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger were replaced with digital versions of themselves run by a game engine, because I refuse to believe that two guys in their nineties — Buffett’s about, what ninety-two/ninety-three now, Charlie’s ninety-nine — could do a six hour and forty-four minute Q&A at the Berkshire AGM this week,
I mean, they’re probably Muppets. They’re Statler and Waldorf from the Muppet Show.
Well, I don’t know whose hand is up their ass, but they did a really good job.
Ajit Jain and Greg Able, who are waiting to take over.
But they were sitting at the table too. Well, Greg was anyway. That’s just the power of See’s Candy, I guess. Seriously. Like, I’ve got a lot of friends, well one less since Father Bob died, but I’ve got a lot of friends in their nineties who are relatively cogent, but there’s no way they could sit there and do a Q&A for nearly seven hours on investing and whatever. That’s seriously, insanely impressive, those two guys. I mean, Charlie doesn’t talk much, but when he does its good stuff.
Yeah, I mean, it’s been covered a lot in the press, but I’m still amazed by them. They still make a whole heap of sense. They’re funny, they’re witty, they field all sorts of questions. It’s just amazing. It’s a great show. I think one of our listeners was over there, so when they get back, we should have a chat with them and get their impressions.
Yeah, that’s right. I don’t remember who that was. Brett, Brent, somebody? Anyway, they’ll let us know. Well, I’ve got some clips here, some highlights. I might play a couple of clips for people that haven’t watched the whole seven hours. Have you watched the whole seven hours yet?
I haven’t. I’ve just been picking the clips out as well.
Yeah. I watched a bit, I tried to get through as much of it as I could, but I just don’t have seven hours to kill. But here’s talking about the impact of AI and robotics.
Warren Buffett 12:39
“…And I thank you for asking Charlie that question.”
Charlie Munger 12:45
“If you went into BYD’s factories in China, you would see robotics going on at an unbelievable rate. So, we’re gonna see a lot more robotics in the world. I am personally sceptical of some of the hype that has gone into artificial intelligence. I think old fashioned intelligence works pretty well.”
Warren Buffett 13:13
There won’t be anything in AI that replaces the jig. I state that unqualifiedly. They can do amazing things. Bill Gates brought me out the latest, maybe not the latest version, but one he thought maybe I could handle. They have to be careful with me in terms of leading me too fast. And it did these remarkable things…”
It sounds like Bill Gates and Buffett have the same relationship as you and I, Tony. I don’t want to ask you to do too much on the technology side of things. It’s slowly, slowly, incrementally.
Yeah, well, I’m waiting for Chat GPT to improve so I can take a holiday again. You’ve truncated the Buffett clip there. There’s a punch line to it you’ve missed.
Yeah, yeah, I just paused it.
I’m getting back to it.
Warren Buffett 14:08
“It couldn’t tell jokes. Bill told me that ahead of time…”
See, I can tell jokes, which is why I had to pause it.
Warren Buffett 14:14
“It just isn’t there. But you know, things like checking all the legal opinions since the beginning of time and everything, and eliminating all… I mean, it can do all kinds of things. And when something can do all kinds of things, I get a little bit worried, because I know we won’t be able to uninvent it and we did invent for a very, very good reason, the atom bomb, in World War Two, and it was enormously important that we did so. But is it good for the next two-hundred years of the world? The ability to do so has been unleashed. We didn’t have a choice. But when you start something… Well, Einstein said after the atom bomb, he said, ‘this changes everything in the world except how men think.’ And I will say the same thing may… Not the same thing. I don’t mean that. But I mean with AI, it can change everything in the world except how men think and behave. And that’s a big step to take. A good question.”
He has another bit on AI and investing later on that I’m going to jump to, because there’s a great quote in this.
Charlie Munger 15:40
“I’m going to take that one. I think value investors are gonna have a harder time now that there’s so many of them competing for a diminished bunch of opportunities. So, my advice to value investors is to get used to making less.”
Warren Buffett 15:59
“And Charlie has been telling me the same thing almost the whole time we’ve known each other. We get along wonderfully because…”
Charlie Munger 16:06
“Well, we are making less.”
Warren Buffett 16:07
“Yeah, well, but that’s mostly I think is because…”
Charlie Munger 16:11
“We were younger…”
Warren Buffett 16:13
“We never thought we could manage 508 billion. But I would argue that there’re gonna be plenty of opportunities. And part of the reason there’re going to be plenty of opportunities… The tech doesn’t make any difference or any of that. I mean, if you look at how the world’s changed in the years since 1942 when I started, you’d say, ‘Well, how does a kid that doesn’t know anything about aeroplanes, doesn’t know anything about engines and cars and doesn’t know anything about electricity and all that.’ But that really isn’t the… the world changing doesn’t… or, new things coming on don’t take away the opportunities. What gives you opportunities is other people doing dumb things. I would say that in, well, the fifty-eight years we’ve been running Berkshire, I would say there’s been a great increase in the number of people doing dumb things, and they do big dumb things. And the reason they do it to some extent is because they can get money from other people so much easier than when we started. So, you could start ten or fifteen dumb insurance companies in the last ten years, and you could become rich if you were adroit at it whether the business succeeded or not, and the underwriters got paid and the lawyers got paid. And that creates, if that’s done on a large scale — which it couldn’t be done fifty-eight years ago, you couldn’t get the money to do some of the dumb things that we wanted to do, fortunately. And so, I think that investing has disappeared so much from this huge, capitalistic market that anybody can play in, but that the big money is in selling other people ideas. It isn’t outperforming, in outperforming. And I think if you don’t run too much money — which we do — but if you’re running small amounts of money, I think the opportunities will be greater. But then Charlie and I always differed on this subject. He likes to tell me how gloomy the world is and I like to tell him, ‘we’ll find something.’ And so far, we’ve both been kind of right.”
Other people doing dumb things.
A great quote, isn’t it? And the other great quote was, you know, people making money from selling ideas, not performing well.
Not outperforming, yeah. Just in the, you know, three or four years we’ve been doing this show, I guess I’ve had a big education just seeing people doing some dumb things; getting sucked in by hype and propaganda around investing opportunities rather than just doing the basics. People hate doing the basics, don’t they? It’s because it’s kind of boring.
Yeah. Go for a walk, eat your veggies. Problem solved. Rather than, go to the shop, you know, browse the vitamin counter, buy a shake. I mean, I’m really proud that we have on our front page our portfolio and how it’s performed. We don’t try and hide it. We always talk about it every week; we don’t talk about it just when it’s outperforming. We’re just doing the basics, week after week after week.
Yeah, and look, I think AI is going to be an incredible tool for us. I do think it’s going to speed up and simplify a lot of the research that we do when it’s ready. It’s not quite ready to do that yet, but it’s moving really quickly. But people will use it to do dumb things as well, and to invest in dumb things, just like they always have. People have said to us over the last few years, aren’t you worried that people will take what you’re doing, and then everyone will be doing it and there won’t be any opportunities left. And we always point out, well, Warren Buffett’s been telling people how to do this stuff for fifty years, and most of us still aren’t doing it. So, if Buffett can’t convince people to do this, then as much as I think we’re pretty good at teaching this, I don’t think we’re Warren Buffett yet.
Yeah, that’s right. We’ve got another fifty years to go, probably. Well, we can’t. We could never approach Warren Buffett status, but he has a lot of experience behind him. I mean, you’re right. I mean, you know, someone’s gonna work out how to game Chat GPT to always spit out their fund name when someone asks Chat GPT “where should I invest?” Right, and they’re going to get very rich. That’s just the way society works. I think the real issue with Chat GPT is it’s just going to increase tribalism. I mean, after travelling through the US, it’s just so tribal now. Everyone’s dug into their foxholes. They’re tossing hand grenades. No one’s willing to talk with anyone else outside of their tribe. And, you know, part of that is due to-it’s all media driven. You know, you can watch Fox News and see one side of the story, watch CNN see the other side of the story. It’s going to get worse with Chet GPT, because it’s coming across as an objective arbiter. But you could probably ask it two versions of the same question and get the right way answer and the left-wing answer.
Well, what I predict will happen is there will be one AI that you will ask and it’ll give you the right wing answer, and you’ll ask another one and it’ll give you the left wing answer. And then the left wing one will tell you the right wing one is lying, the right wing one will tell you the left wing one is lying. So, you know, it is, it is going to create a lot of problems. I mean, it’d be nice to think that there’d just be one that was completely neutral and gave you the facts. But I remember thirty years ago when we thought the internet was going to democratise information, too, and I don’t know what happened to that. It just got gamed, right?
Yeah. And this is this is the internet on steroids, so it’s going to get gamed, too, and make it even harder to see through what’s going on. Which is unfortunate. And to your comment about at the moment, what was it? 81% of answers are correct. I read an article about a lawyer who said, “I love Chat GPT. It’s going to increase lawyers’ billable hours, because I’ve now got to employ someone to check the output from Chat GPT before I can present it in court.” So, everyone’s saying, “oh, they’re gonna intermediate lawyers and other white-collar professionals.” Well, not yet.
Not yet. But, you know, I don’t think it’s going to stay at 81% accuracy for long. I mean, still got to remember this thing wasn’t even in the public eye six months ago. So, as I keep telling people, it’s buggy. It’s a beta tool. You’ve got to think of it as a beta tool. But where it will be a year from now, or five years from now, these tools, who knows? Anyhow, moving right along.
You didn’t play the bit of Warren Buffett’s video that I thought you were going to play when he talks about when Bill Gates brought him Chat GPT, or an early version of it, and he said he wanted to ask it, “how are you going to get rid of the human race?”
Oh, I didn’t hear it.
Buffett wants to see what it says and pull the plug out before it does it.
I didn’t see that bit. No, I just heard the bit about it doesn’t tell jokes. There are a lot of clips, we can’t spend all day on it, but there was another clip where he talked about being a non-emotional person when it comes to investing. Be emotional in other parts of your life but be non-emotional when it comes to investing. And obviously that’s one of the things that QAV does for us, is it helps us be non-emotional. And that was going to lead me to my next point. Steve wrote on Facebook, one of our QAV club members, the other day: “this post is for anyone that needs a reminder to not hold on to losers and to follow the rules. Have a look at what is happening with SRX and OML today. The takeaway here is that they can keep dropping before they find a new base.” I’ve had a few people, few of our members recently tell me their own experiences with that, that they let something go through the rule one or the 3PTL line and they were like, “I think it’s going to come back and I don’t think I should sell it just yet.” And then it just kept dropping and kept dropping and kept dropping, and they got to the point where they’re like-even Taylor did that. I think for Taylor, it was just he took his eye off the ball and didn’t check his alerts. But yeah. Then it drops 20/30% and people get into the whole, wow, it’s dropped so much now, what do I do? I just might as well hold on to it and hope it comes back eventually.
On the odd occasion when I have missed my alerts for whatever reason. If you turn up one day and it’s down 20 or 30%, you gotta sell it. It’s down that low for a reason. It’s probably not going to get better in a long time.
Well, speaking of a reason. OML, oOh!media for people that don’t follow OML. We held it in a portfolio, a couple of portfolios, actually. It was in the dummy and in the light, and on the Third of May, yeah, as we said earlier, it dropped by 23% in one day. Everyone was scratching their head on the day trying to figure it out and asking questions. Could we have used Renko charts to get out earlier? But it looks like it all came down to this presentation they gave at a Macquarie Conference. I saw a copy of the presentation on the day, and I flicked through it and it didn’t look that bad to me, but it’s obviously seemed to coincide with the drop. Now if you go on Stock Doctor and look at the communications tab under OML, it’ll show you that there was a 23% drop associated with that presentation on the day. So, did you learn anything more about why OML tanked as quickly as it did?
Yeah, I’m not sure where I read it, but I read a couple of days later, or maybe a day later. Yeah, so I mean, the Macquarie conference is, you know, a concentrated Shark Tank of all the brokers sitting in a room. And one of the things that was part of the presentation was that Oohm!Media wasn’t growing as fast as people thought, and so the numbers got re-crunched on the spot and the company was devalued. So, it had a bit to do with the fact that outdoor media was growing during COVID at the expense of other media, and-no, sorry, the reverse, it was shrinking during COVID because no one was going outdoors, and then the year after COVID it had a huge increase year on year. And that slowed down a lot, and so people readjusted their numbers. And there was also something about market share being taken by a competitor as well in one of the categories which was important. So, yeah, it didn’t take long for the brokers to sense blood in the water and sell.
Yeah, that was dramatic.
It was, wasn’t it. It’s unusual. You don’t normally see that.
It dropped from $1.63 on the close of the day before down, like, literally in the morning it dropped immediately down to $1.23. And then it kept dropping down to $1.15 — a $1.14, even. It did recover a bit since then. I think it’s back up to about $1.24 now, but still a long way down from where it was. And going back on the 27th of April, it was $1.71. So, yeah, that’s a massive drop. It lost a third of its share price, I guess, since 27th of April. And it didn’t happen slowly. It happened, boom, one hit, one day. So, yeah.
Very unusual, but it can happen.
Now, I still don’t know how to drive a Renko chart properly, Tony. I doubt, though, you know… If this was a result of their presentation at the conference, unlikely that any Renko chart would have tipped us off.
Yeah, I agree. Well, I haven’t got the Renko chart in front of me, but oOh!media was going up, so it would have been green bars going up as well. But it’d be a red bar now because it’s dropped so much, but I doubt if Renko would have predicted this at all. Renko charts are basically a trailing stop loss as Brett pointed out to us as well. If the stocks going up, it’s not going to cross it’s stop loss.
Yeah, I just pulled up the Renko charts for it. So, what am I doing wrong here? The Renko bars finish in 2021.
Oh, no, there’s two companies. Just to make sure you’ve got the right one. There’s oOh!media, OML, and there’s OOH, which I think it might have been a former incantation of the company that was delisted.
Yeah, I’m looking at OML.
I got nothing after 2021 in terms of Renko, though. If I go to the line chart that goes all the way to today.
Yeah, I got the same. Yeah, don’t know.
There you go. Renko charts would not have helped us because there are no Renko charts for the last couple of years on it.
Well, I’m gonna guess, and this is only a guess, is that that last bar actually spans a number of years. So, Renko charts aren’t like looking at a line chart. You don’t get an equal gap between the time periods necessarily.
Yeah, they just they just tell you when they change. So, if a stock goes up for a long time, or sideways for a long time, it maybe can only have one bar on the chart.
THIS SECTION CONTAINS CONTENT WHICH IS VISIBLE TO QAV CLUB SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
The QAV Podcast is a production of Spacecraft Publishing Proprietary 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.