QAV PORTFOLIO REPORT
We’re still outperforming the STW by ~2.5 times since inception (02/09/2019).
You can always check out the live version of the portfolio chart here.
According to Navexa, we finished the FY up 9.55% pa vs the STW which was up 14.5%, but, as you’ll hear on today’s episode, TK isn’t sure about how Navexa reports this. He says:
“If I plug the numbers into Excel I get a neck and neck performance:”
Here’s how Navexa reports it:
As we all know, the market has been pretty unsteady over the last couple of years. Depending on what your starting point is, it’s either had a great run (if you start it from the low point of 20 June 2022) or a terrible run (if you start it at, say, Aug 2021, Jan 2022, or April 2022, the first three high points on the below chart).
Of course, what we really want to focus on is the long term trend. If history is our guide, the chart ten years from now will look similar – low on the left, and high on the right, and everything in between it will be a mere roadbump.
Anyway, I’ll stick with Navexa for the moment because it’s what I’ve got. For what it’s worth, we beat the STW for the last quarter.
No trades in the last week.
STOCKS OF THE WEEK
During the last week, we did trade some stocks in our portfolios. Details here.
** As always, please check our work, DYOR, and consult a financial advisor before making any investing decisions.
Each week we produce a buy list that we share with our members. The intended primary purpose of this buy list is for club members to use as a reference for comparing their own buy list. In theory, all of our buy lists should look pretty similar each week.
THIS SECTION CONTAINS CONTENT WHICH IS VISIBLE TO QAV CLUB SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
LAST WEEK’S EPISODE
THIS SECTION CONTAINS CONTENT WHICH IS VISIBLE TO QAV CLUB SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
THIS SECTION CONTAINS CONTENT WHICH IS VISIBLE TO QAV CLUB SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
Welcome back to QAV, Tony. This is episode 626 for people that are counting. We’re recording this on the 27th of June 2023, two o’clock in the afternoon. And boy oh boy, Tony, boy oh boy. You know, we were joking around last week about the fact that it had been a good week and that it probably wouldn’t last. And we were right.
It’s worse than the pulled pork curse, calling an episode “a good week”.
Yeah, I know. You’re right. I brought it upon myself. The All Ordinaries acted like a toddler with an ice cream cone. One minutes all smiles and enjoying the sweet taste of success, the next face down on the ground melting into a puddle.
Well, we should rename it the Very All Ordinaries, or the All-Very Ordinaries.
It was very ordinary. What caused the market to crash last week, Tony?
Well, same thing that’s been causing it for the last twelve months.
Apart from me calling the episode “a good week.”
Just more divining of the tea leaves when Jerome Powell speaks. The market got ahead of itself, thought there might be no more interest rate rises, we get out of a recession, blah, blah, blah. And then Jerome Powell came out and said, clean up that ice cream, get off the floor.
They also thought there might no longer be Vladimir Putin running Russia for a few days there.
Well that happened on the weekend though, I think. I don’t know how much of that got into the market last week. Yeah, the March on Moscow.
We can talk about it and after hours if you’d like, but it’s just been fascinating watching different news sources and how they report it
It has been. Tony somebody on TikTok, one of my videos on the QAV TikTok channel today told me that success in investing is mostly about luck.
Are we on TikTok?
We’re on all the Toks, Tony. TikToks, the toktoks, the fin toks.
So we’re, what do you call them? Finfluencers?
We’re trying to be Finfluencers, Tony, we’ve got a long way to go.
We’ll have to get back to get Taylor to manage us, get a few brand deals going. I caught up with him last week.
He said that, yeah. He called me as soon as he got out and said that it was really great. I’m sure he spent most of the time just talking about what a dipshit his father is.
A little bit of that.
It’s his favourite pastime.
Yeah. Anyway, the conversation goes something like, “I told him, he just went ‘Ah,’ so I went ‘ah!'”
Pretty much the tenor of our conversations. He’s right, there, he’s on the money. So, luck. Getting back to that. Somebody on TikTok was trying to convince me that success and investing is all about luck. How would you respond to that, Tony?
Well, do you think it’s luck the stock market’s gone up on an average of 10% a year for the last hundred years or more? It’s hardly luck, is it?
No. But what about your success in investing? Is that luck?
There’s an outside chance it is, but no, it’s distilling, you know, things I’ve learned over the years and applying them and refining them and cutting out things that don’t work. That’s the scientific method. It’s not luck.
My reply was, you know, if it was one person that applied the value investing principles and was successful with it over the long term, then maybe you could say it was luck. If it was two people, hmm. But when there’s like lots and lots of people, you know, Buffett and Munger and all of the people that they’ve brought up around them, you’ve learned from them and others, and people have learned from you. Our dummy portfolio is still performing 2.3 times the STW, not the XAO — we’ll talk about that later. Yeah, so like, when you see people, lots and lots of people, person after person after person, applying the same basic principles and getting similar results, I think it’s hard to put it down to luck.
Well, and to use the words of the master… Well, I shouldn’t say, use the words. My favourite Buffett writing I think just about ever is a book, or an article he penned called “the Super investors of Graham and Doddsville.” And this is back in, I think, the 80s/90s maybe, when a guy called Eugene Fama was all the rage and the market was efficient, and you weren’t able to ever reap long term returns or beat the index because as soon as you had an edge, it would be built into the share price and everyone would jump on it, blah, blah, blah. And Buffett turned around and said, hey, wait a minute, wait a minute. How come I’ve done all this for the last twenty or thirty years and I know fifteen-twenty other people I grew up with, I went to Columbia University with, and they’re all doing the same thing, and we’re all beating the market? And someone said it was just like, and so he wrote a paper called “The Super investors of Graham and Doddsville”, which is spoke not just about himself, but about other fund managers he knew that had put Ben Graham’s work into practice, and were beating the market consistently. So, it’s not luck.
I tend to agree. Let me talk about the portfolio updates, Tony. So yes, the All Ords crashed late last week. We’re still, as I said, outperforming the STW by about two and a half times. Financial year report: we’re behind the STW still, but we’re still up by about 9.5% for the financial year, so can’t really complain too much about that. And, you know, I’ve had a couple of Zoom calls recently, and people have been talking about their performance in the last twelve months, or the financial year I should say, and, you know, some of them are underwater. But it depends a lot on when you started. Like, if your portfolio wasn’t full and you’ve had to do a lot of trying to get established in the last eighteen to twenty-four months, it’s been a really tough period. And yeah, you’re gonna have to rule one a bunch of things as the market tanks, and it’s hard to get established. Dummy portfolio obviously has been established since 2019. And we’ve had to trade a little bit, but not as much, and it’s, you know, it’s coasted along relatively unhampered during this period of turbulence. There’re still times when you have to sell stuff, because of 3PTLs or whatever and then if you try and replace it, you can get rule oned endlessly for a period of time, and that hurts. But I do think it’s not luck. It’s just the length of market cycles, right? If you start, you’re serious investing in the middle of a downturn, or the beginning of a downturn, or just before a downturn as we did with the first light portfolio, yeah, you’re gonna suffer for a couple of years while the market is turbulent, but it’ll turn around again, and you’ll get back up on top and it’ll all even out in the mix. Guessing right there that it’s all gonna be okay.
Yeah, well, I mean, two points. First of all, I think people have to just disavow themselves of this idea that every year the market or their portfolio’s gonna go up. And again, to quote Munger, if you can’t stand losing 50% of your paper portfolio, then don’t start investing, because it’s going to happen at some stage. Like it did to me during the GFC. So, yeah, you’ve just got to push through these times. And the reason why I say that is because a) I don’t know what’s going to happen next week. So, I don’t know if the market will be up or down, so I therefore can’t do anything particularly different to position the portfolio. And b) no one rings a bell at the top of the market or the bottom of the market. So, if I’m out of the market because I think it’s gonna go down and someone assassinates Vlad Putin and Jerome Powell with the same bullet and the share market just goes on a tear, you’re out of the market, and you’ve missed it. So, I know it’s difficult, but that’s the business we’re in, right? We’ve opened the business, and sales are a bit slow this month, or this year. The better example is, you bought a house, and then the RBA comes out and raises rates, and every Monday in the Fin Review, you read an article about how housing prices are dropping. What do you do? Do you sell your house? Or you just go, no, I’m gonna keep living here. It’ll turn around, it’ll come good. That’s the same thing with a share portfolio.
Yeah. The house one’s a good analogy. And you know, the reason, apart from, you know, the fact that I trust you, rightly or wrongly…
Don’t trust me. Go and read Buffett and Munger and those guys.
And I know how history works. I studied history for a living for a long time. You know, I saw it in our own dummy portfolio. We launched, there was the COVID crash not long after we, you know, completed our portfolio. It halved, or whatever, very, very quickly, in a couple of months.
You were like, what’s going on Kynaston? This is all rubbish. Argh. No, you weren’t.
And then the market turned around relatively quickly. We were up at one point, we were up like 40%, over the STW. And then the market turned down and, you know, our lead is narrowed. Now we’re down to, you know, whatever, we’re at. Sort of, like, 15-16% year on year. But we’re two and a half times the STW still, and I know that when the market turns around, we’ll probably get a bigger lead on the STW for a while. I remember when we were like, what were we doing? Like seven times better than the STW at one point, and you said to me, don’t get too excited. It’s not gonna last. It won’t be like this forever. In the back of my head, I was like, you don’t know what you’re talking about, Kynaston. We’re gonna kill this thing.
Well, we should have rung a bell and sold at the top of the market.
Yeah, we should have got out and gone to the Bahamas.
Yeah, it’s actually, it’s funny, because that’s probably the more endearing memory I have of the share market. There’s been, you know, I don’t know how many times, half a dozen a dozen times, where I’ve sat back and gone, geez, I’m doing well. That’s a bit unusual. And they’re always the times I should have sold out.
Okay, well maybe we should add that to the checklist. If Tony’s feeling buoyant or bullish, sell now. Just finishing my report. So, for the financial year, we’re up but not as up as much as the STW. And for the quarter report, were sort of slightly behind, I think. We’re down 1.4%, and the STW is down 0.4% for the quarter, sucky quarter. Last seven days, you know, it’s a sea of red: more red than a Communist’s wardrobe during the Cold War. More red than a stop sign at a Ferrari convention. More red than Dracula’s wine cellar after a buy one get one free special. I’ve got a whole list of these from Chat GPT. Yeah, a lot of red, a lot of red in our portfolio. Now just talking about XAO. You know, we compare ourselves, we benchmark against the STW, which was, you know, another one of Steve Mabb’s brilliant ideas. As we know, it’s like the top two hundred accumulation index.
I think, isn’t the STW an ETF that cracks the top two hundred?
Yes. That’s what it is. Yeah, same thing. And, you know, as you’ve said a couple of times, I think over the last few months, a lot of the action, a lot of the growth in the ASX in the last year in has been the top two hundred. If you look at the rest of the market, there’s not as much. And you know, we obviously invest mostly in a lot of smaller cap stocks. So, we’re not necessarily very reflective of the top two hundred. We’ve got a few stocks in there, FMG and those sorts of things from time to time, QAN. But normally, we’re down in the lower end of the market, I think. So, I had this bright idea of trying to benchmark us against the XAO today. I thought oh! Navexa, we can benchmark ourselves against the XAO. I did that and the dummy portfolio was back to seven times performance of the XAO. I was like, oh, look at that, that’s a better number. And then you reminded me that’s not an accumulation index. Dividends aren’t factored in. I had to reverse it all, that was so depressing. But I still can’t find, it’s really hard to find the XAOI index out there. Why is that do you think?
You don’t recall this conversation from a couple of years ago? This is this is how we landed on STW, because we couldn’t get a feed for XAOI.
I know that happened after you reminded me. Why? Why is it so hard to get an XAOI index? I googled it again today, and there’s just the one. I think it’s the Dow Jones website, S&Ps website, where you can go in there and play with it and somehow and get a figure. But people don’t report on it for some reason. No one reports on it. Not even the ASX seems to report on it.
Yeah, it’s strange, isn’t it? I mean, I think it’s a better benchmark than the All Ords, but they don’t. And also, too, I think in these kinds of markets, dividends matter. The dividends that the companies are throwing off are probably more important than the growth in the underlying stock prices in terms of performance at the moment.
Certainly, in our portfolio over the last year or two. Dividends have been a big component of our performance. Strip the dividends and it’s, you know, just on capital gain alone it’s not looking great.
Yeah. Getting back to your comment before about whether it’s big versus small in the market. I mean, I invest in the big end of the market, so I’m not having much more luck than the dummy portfolio is at the moment. So, I don’t think it’s big versus small. It’s possibly more value versus, well, I was going to say growth, but not growth. No, I think a lot of the gains in the ASX have been some of the mining stocks, coal for a while, bank stocks, etc. And if they’re just too expensive for us to buy, they can go up still, but we’re just not going to look at them.
`Well anyway. Bottom line is I’m still benchmarking us against the STW.
That’s fine. Nothing wrong with that.
Okay, fine. I’ll stop it then. “It’s time to ban penny stocks from Australia’s flagship share index,” Tony, according to Tom Richardson of the Financial Review. “If you want to attract and win the trust of serious overseas investors including sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and asset managers, you don’t want a flagship index pockmarked by penny stocks.” He says that “penny stocks are rearing their ugly heads on Australia’s flagship S&P ASX 200,” speak of the devil, “with alarming regularity and a reflection of the markets deteriorating quality as the ASX shrinks for the first time in eighteen years. Last week, Australia’s flagship index resembled a penny stock casino with shares in lithium explore Lake Resources crashing 38% to 29.5 cents after it revealed a six year delay to its Argentinian lithium project. Speculative biotech Imugene finished the week just 8.9 cents, with tech hopeful Brainship losing 13.8% over the week, up to 34.5 cents.” So much for lithium boom stocks.
That’s what I was thinking, too.
Is this Lake Resources the same as Silverlake Resources? SLR?
That’s not confusing. So, he goes on to say here that like these are obviously stocks trading for less than a buck. He said, “in the US, penny stocks are defined as those that trade less than US $1.” And they’re banned in the US from the index apparently, I didn’t know that. He says they’re viewed as ripe for manipulation. “A 10-cent stock only needs ten bids higher to 20 cents to soar 100% and double and manipulate it’s money.” And he’s saying that the Australian index should remove stocks under a buck. I thought I’d get your thoughts on all that, Tony.
Well, it’s news to me. I don’t think, I can’t recall seeing any stock manipulation going on in the penny end of the market. Not saying it can’t or it won’t, but it doesn’t make much sense to me. Because the companies you spoke about there, I think even though their share prices are in the cents on the dollar, they’re still a large market cap. I don’t know what Silverlake is, or sorry, Lake Resources is, or Imagen, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the market cap is still in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So, they’re substantial companies. I don’t buy into the argument that if the shares are 10 cents and they can easily be manipulated to get to 20 cents. I guess they could if no one else traded except for small parcels. But if I owned a million dollars’ worth of, I don’t know, Lake Resources, and I saw the share price double because only small trades have been going through, and I tried to sell my million dollars’ worth of shares, it doesn’t matter what the share price is. It’d drop again because, you know, the volume would just be too big. So, yeah, I’m not really buying the argument. I haven’t seen any evidence of it in Australia. I would also think, too, if they did ban stocks less than $1 from the ASX, I wouldn’t be surprised if companies like Lake Resources just did a consolidation to get their share price up to $1 again. It seems like a sort of meaningless exercise to me.
Lake Resources, share code LKE, by the way, market cap 408 million according to Stock Doctor.
Yeah. So, it’s still substantial. I would guess it’s had lots of capital raisings which would have diluted the share price down each time.
That’s typically how large companies find themselves with cents to the dollars for their shares. They’ve raised money a number of times. It’s a bit of a trap if you’re a shareholder, because you’re being diluted down to a smaller and smaller holding in the company. But I’m not sure that’s the reason to exclude them from the index, because their market cap is still large. So, yeah, I’m not necessarily buying into that.
He says, “Lake Resources entered the ASX 200 index in June 2022 and its shares have plunged more than 80% since then.”
Okay. So, that means they’re now making up a much smaller part of the ASX, so what’s the problem? The index is working like it should work.
Right. Well, he says, “if you want to attract and win the trust of serious overseas investors, including sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and asset managers, you don’t want a flagship index pockmarked by penny stocks.”
We don’t have a flagship index pockmarked by penny stocks. Our flagship index consists of miners and bankers and supermarkets, really. That’s what you’re buying. I don’t know why, I’m not even sure why you want to attract people to buy the ASX index anyways. Is he just saying that more buyers push the price up, and that’s probably a good thing for shareholders here. So, maybe it is an attractive thing to do. And look, if we’re out of step with international rules around these things, it’s probably worthwhile reviewing and bringing ourselves back into line, but I’m not seeing any evidence of market manipulation from penny stocks.
He says, “the ASX 200 should exclude businesses that have zero revenue and stock prices under $1 to protect index buyers and other market participants.” You can have zero revenue and be one of the top two hundred stocks in Australia? Wow.
Well, I mean, that’s going to potentially eliminate a lot of companies from the index, because that’s one of the things they do; they raise capital through the stock market before they have a workable business. It’s one of the things we try and warn people against, is investing in those companies. But, you know, I mean, one stage Fortescue Metals Group would have been in that. You know, I’ve got a tenement here I could put an iron ore mine on, but I need to raise capital to do it. So, I don’t get it, I don’t buy into that argument.
It can still be listed; he’s just saying they shouldn’t be part of the top two hundred.
Well, okay, if that’s different to the way it works around the world and you need to line the rules with them, that’s fine. But there are, of course, other rules in the index besides just the market cap. You do have to have liquidity, etc. I don’t have an opinion on whether it’s a good or a bad thing, it’s never worried me before. But if we’re out of sync with the rest of the world, sure, review the rules.
The other article I wanted to ask you about, this is also from the fin. This is yesterday, Chanticleer. “The $2.1 trillion reason it’s time to worry about oil. Wilson’s James Karakatsanis says oil demand is as robust as it was twenty years ago, but the poor outlook for supply risks bad news for economies and good news for investors.” Then it says, “for the last five years, James Karakatsanis has been on the inside of Big Oil helping to assess new exploration prospects at Exxon Mobil. But now the geoscientist who has just joined Wilson’s as the financial advisory firm’s energy analyst has delivered a stark warning about what awaits the sector. Most don’t think twice when we drive the car or open the fridge to grab food that’s been grown, made and transported with energy dense processes. But Karakatsanis says the world could soon face upheaval as the stubborn reality of supply and demand in the oil market sets in. Global demand for crude oil is more robust today than it was twenty years ago, he argues, as economic development propels non-OECD countries into the role of the world’s major oil customers, shifting from 45% of global consumption two decades ago to 55% today. Even on the most conservative estimates, assuming no population growth and consumption levels rising towards those seen in the US and Australia, demand from China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil will lift global consumption by 41% from today’s levels.” He says there’s a supply issue. And he also goes to say that the shale revolution in the US is almost over. They’ve gone from being self-sufficient with oil two years ago to got nothing. They’re gonna have to buy oil from Saudi Arabia and Russia again.
Yeah, you can stay in power, just sign this contract with us.
We’ll replace you with Prigozhin. That’d be very good thing for the world. Putin’s chef takes over Russia. So, all of this, you know, I don’t understand the oil market. You follow the oil market a lot more closely than I do, Tony. What are your forecasts on the oil business, Tony?
Well, for my two cents worth, I think the articles 100% right. I hadn’t heard the shale oil argument about the US. So, that’s news to me. I think there might be a little bit more to run with the shale oil deposits in the US. I know they were getting costlier to extract the oil. So, they tend to shut down when the oil prices low and then reopen when the oil price is high. So, I think that will continue. Because I agree, I think the oil price will go up, just as I think the coal price will go up. Because, you know, there’s a lot of pressure on, in this case, oil companies to limit their financing, to limit their ability to find new fields, because there’s a lot of people in the world who think we shouldn’t be mining oil because of climate change concerns, and I get that. So, there’s a tension going on at the moment on the supply side, because there’s not enough new fields being found, but demand is still increasing. So, I think yeah, it’s gotta force the price up. However, that’s a general thematic, and long-term thematic, or medium to long-term thematic. There’re going to be lots of ups and downs in the oil price along the way, and that’s, I guess, what we pay more attention to, rather than just buying Woodside and waiting twenty years to see if we were right or not.
Alright. What else? Cosmin, shout out to Cosmin, long time club member, Cosmin. He’s taken some time off, gone back to his house in Thailand. And he’s working hard, and he’s come up with a number of good breakthroughs. He’s posted these on our Facebook group, and for people who haven’t seen them, he’s worked out that stock history… You know, with our buy lists we use the Microsoft stock history function to update prices so you can open it any day of the week and get the latest prices. But some people don’t have Office 365 and they haven’t been able to use that, so we’ve been providing a static version of it as well in a different sheet. But he worked out that you can open it up in Microsoft 365 online with a free account and you can see all of the stock history stuff updated. So, that was great. He also did some analysis on his own portfolio, and he readily admits that early on in his QAV career, he didn’t follow rule one very assiduously, is that the right word? Diligently, let’s go with that. Very diligently. So, he has got two portfolios in Stock Doctor that he showed me. His actual portfolio, what he has done, and where it would be if he had followed rule one religiously. He did his own regression testing on his portfolio, and he worked out that his performance would be twice as good if he had followed rule one diligently over that period. So, I thought that was interesting. I know a lot of people out there struggle with rule 1.
Correct. Yeah. That is a discipline that people tend to forego the soonest. But yeah, it’s also, I mean, apropos to our conversation last week about the rule one death spiral that I’ve been having over the last twelve months and whether rule one should be 10% or something different. So, it’s good to get feedback like that from other users to reinforce the rules are important. Having said that, I have asked our analysts to look at comparing a 10% rule one to a 20% rule one over the life of our data. So, the three or four years the podcast has been going and we’ve been producing buy lists, and just see the difference it makes. Because, I mean, even today, it’s such a choppy market, even today. I sold out of Collins Food I think last week or the week before, and they’ve come out with, you know, an upgrade and the share price bumped up 12%. So, it still would have been happily in my portfolio. I don’t actually know if Collin’s Food was a rule one. It might have been a 3PTL sell, I’m not sure. But anyway, it does seem like we’ve been going up and down a lot in the last twelve months, and that’s just the way the markets going. But thanks, Cosmin, that’s great work. Good on ya, mate.
Yeah. One of our listeners, Max, he was quoting some guy called The Chartist, Nick Radge, who does like 15-20% for his equivalent of rule one. For new listeners, rule one is basically where we sell a stock if it drops 10% below what we paid for it. It’s just sort of a stop loss mechanism that we use. And from memory, it’s a bit of an arbitrary figure. It was what it was going to cost you to buy insurance, wasn’t it?
Correct, it was. That’s right. Yeah. And just on that Nick Radge issue if Max is listening, I did have a look at it. Interesting site, thank you. The difference between what The Chartist was doing and what we’re doing is he was using 15-20% stop losses for any sort of retreat on the stock price. Whereas we use a 10% below our buy price. So, we’re just trying to preserve our original capital, and this other guy is just using it as a general stoploss for locking profits.
As opposed to our 3PTL?
Yeah. I think he did have his versions of 3PTLs, and there was a lot of discussion of Bollinger Bands and breakouts and things. So, you know, that’s, you know, his way of doing it, it’s different to mine. But yeah, that 15-20% was a different application of the rule. But however, it’s a valid point. I’ve never gone back and tried to work out optimally what the stop loss should be. So, I’ve got Ryan out there crunching some numbers for me, which is great.
Well anyway, that’s Cosmin’s feedback anyway. If he had rule oned at 10% his portfolio would be twice as good. Also, Cosmin did some detective work on URW. So, we were talking about this last week. A couple of people have reported that they couldn’t buy you URW, I think maybe Paul was one of those. When they tried to buy it, their broker said, nup, can’t buy it. Cosmin reached out to one of the brokers, I don’t remember which one, and got this reply back that said Stake — oh, that’s who it was, Stake — “has decided not to allow trading of URW due to the complexity of CDIs and the foreign French financial transaction tax fee associated, as this is not an ordinary ASX listed company. Trading on this security will result in clients paying significant fees when trading the security in Australia. As such, we have made the decision not to list URW as a tradable instrument on Stake. For reference, the French government taxes the purchase of stock in French companies with market capitalization greater than 1 billion euros. Transfer tax in euros equals 0.3%, times acquisition price, times Unibail-Rodamco proportion, times applicable foreign exchange rate.” So, have you ever seen that before?
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.
That’s it for today!
QAV A GOOD WEEK.
Got a question?