QAVUS 001 — Rule-Based Investing

QAV U.S. 001 Audio

​[00:00:00]

Cameron: Wel­come to QAV U. S. edi­tion, 001, 001, to the Mar­ket. is Cameron Reil­ly, my co host Tony Kynas­ton, a. k. a. TK. How are you, TK?

TK: Very well, thanks, Cam. Am I sup­posed to speak in anoth­er dialect? Hi y’all!

Cameron: we’ll do some Amer­i­can accents. Uh, we’ll, we’ll, we’ll phase in and out. so for peo­ple who are lis­ten­ing to this for the first time, wel­come.  For Amer­i­can lis­ten­ers who haven’t lis­tened to the Aus­tralian show, just a quick back­ground.

So Tony and I have been doing, uh, this invest­ing show for five or six years in Aus­tralia. Basi­cal­ly, we teach a method of val­ue invest­ing that Tony has devel­oped over the [00:01:00] last 30 odd years we call QAV, which stands for qual­i­ty at val­ue, basi­cal­ly iden­ti­fy­ing qual­i­ty stocks. and buy­ing them when we can get them at the right val­ue or a dis­count to intrin­sic val­u­a­tion.

Tony over many decades devel­oped this sys­tem for him­self we’ve been teach­ing it on a pod­cast, as I said, for five or six years, focus­ing on the Aus­tralian mar­ket because that’s where we both live. But over the last cou­ple of years, we’ve had Lis­ten­ers in the Unit­ed States say to us, Hey, we’d real­ly like to have you talk about the Amer­i­can mar­ket so we can apply it to that.

so about a year ago, I did devel­op a ver­sion of our check­list for the Amer­i­can mar­ket. I built a test port­fo­lio and it’s done rea­son­ably well [00:02:00] com­pared to the S& P 500 over the last year, year and a half. And so we thought it was prob­a­bly time to start a US ver­sion of the show. Now if you want to know the details about Tony’s back­ground or the QAV sys­tem or the check­list, we’re not going to cov­er that.

Today, because we have a cou­ple of ded­i­cat­ed episodes that goes over that in great detail. If you go into our archives, find episode 301, 303, and 305. You can hear us talk about those things for a few hours and get a good sense of how it all works. we tend to do in our week­ly shows is we about the port­fo­lio, any big move­ments in the port­fo­lio.

We talk about what’s going on in the mar­kets, any big news sto­ries, either involv­ing the mar­ket in gen­er­al, or the, the stocks that we have an inter­est in in the mar­ket. Get a sense for what’s going on out there. And I [00:03:00] think that’s where we’re going to start. And I quite hon­est­ly. Because we haven’t real­ly played a great deal in the U.

1. mar­ket, even though Tony lived in Toron­to for, what, about five years, Tony?

TK: Yep,

Cameron: And that was, what, about ten years ago? How long

TK: I’ve been back six years.

Cameron: Oh, right. Um, but even when you were over there, you did­n’t real­ly invest in the North

TK: No,

Cameron: right? You

TK: no,

Cameron: invest­ed in Aus­tralia.

TK: yeah, that’s right.

Cameron: But, Tony, you devel­oped this sys­tem.

Uh, by clas­sic val­ue investors, many of whom are or were, uh, Amer­i­cans, guys like Buf­fett,

TK: Mhm,

Cameron: Peter Lynch, et cetera, et cetera, and, and then of tak­ing bits and pieces of their teach­ings and build­ing your own sys­tem around that. And of course, the the­o­ry behind val­ue invest­ing should [00:04:00] be applic­a­ble regard­less of the mar­ket you’re in.

Basi­cal­ly, we’re

TK: mhm.

Cameron: well run busi­ness­es that are gen­er­at­ing a lot of cash, have got a good track record of being well run, but for what­ev­er rea­son, they’re under­val­ued by the mar­ket. At the giv­en point in time, we try and iden­ti­fy them at that point in time buy them and then Wait until the mar­ket real­izes that they’re under­val­ued and the share price goes up and it’s hap­py

TK: Yeah, no, that’s, that’s val­ue invest­ing in a nut­shell. Um, adapt­ed a lit­tle bit, um, from, know, pure Buf­fett and Munger. Uh, large­ly, large­ly I think because I, did­n’t have the time or the apti­tude to drill into finan­cial state­ments in the way they do, and, uh, or their, you know, busi­ness expe­ri­ence.

I’ve run a cou­ple of com­pa­nies in my cor­po­rate career, for some [00:05:00] big com­pa­nies, so I have a good knowl­edge of finances and busi­ness, but, uh, you know, my, I guess my cir­cle of com­pe­tence was in retail, We invest in all sorts of oth­er dif­fer­ent com­pa­nies and that, that led me to devel­op­ing some­thing based on the num­bers that I could quick­ly scan the mar­ket for com­pa­nies that met, but it scored well on a check­list and then go from there, for my invest­ment port­fo­lio.

Cameron: Yeah, and I you know for me Com­ing into this not know­ing much about invest­ing five or six years ago one of the things that I’ve real­ly appre­ci­at­ed about QAV is I’ve built my own port­fo­lios over the Time that we’ve been doing. This is that don’t need to become an expert on any par­tic­u­lar busi­ness or sec­tor.

I just had to become good at being able to read the num­bers, under­stand­ing the num­bers, let­ting the sys­tem tell me what to buy, when to buy it, what to sell, when to sell it and mak­ing the deci­sions for [00:06:00] me because the deci­sions are based whol­ly on and chart­ing. Real­ly,

TK: Yeah, num­bers and rules.

Cameron: Num­bers and rules.

Yeah. It removes the emo­tion from the process. And, um, as we’ve talked about many times over the years on the show, emo­tions, uh, prob­a­bly what mess up many investors pro­tect, par­tic­u­lar­ly novice investors, they either get caught up in the hype cycle buy things that they should­n’t be buy­ing.

Because they get swept up in the fear of miss­ing out or the hype about what’s going on. And con­verse­ly, they will then sell when there’s a lot of neg­a­tiv­i­ty in the mar­ket­place. Uh, and they might sell at times when they should­n’t be sell­ing because they’re not sell­ing for the right rea­sons. So they buy for the wrong rea­sons.

They sell for the wrong rea­sons. And one of the great [00:07:00] things about hav­ing a sys­tem. A check­list that tells you what to do and when to do it is you sort of avoid the emo­tion­al mis­takes that novice investors tend to make.

TK: Yeah, if I could just add to that too, I think it’s, uh, it also, I mean, peo­ple should real­ize that that check­list does­n’t mean we avoid every mis­take. It’s, there’s a sta­tis­ti­cal ele­ment to this that it improves our chances of mak­ing good deci­sions. Cer­tain­ly. Cer­tain­ly. I’ve fall­en into the camp, as you’ve described, of buy­ing at the wrong time and sell­ing at the wrong time.

I think it hap­pens to every investor. uh, hav­ing a frame­work to do it improves our rods of get­ting, you know, 6 out of 10 right, as War­ren Buf­fett says he gets.

Cameron: and that was, I mean, I think that’s a great prin­ci­ple is you only need to get six out of 10 right over a long enough peri­od of time a big dif­fer­ence. And the oth­er [00:08:00] thing that peo­ple should under­stand if they’re new to QAV is we’re not try­ing to shoot the lights out. This isn’t a short. term, get rich quick invest­ing strat­e­gy.

It’s the oppo­site of that. It’s

TK: Mmm.

Cameron: a set of core prin­ci­ples that you fol­low over the long haul will give you good on aver­age, good returns ver­sus the mar­ket. We aim for dou­ble mar­ket over a long term, uh, not, you know, try­ing to do a hun­dred times the mar­ket or a thou­sand times the mar­ket, uh, in six weeks or your mon­ey back.

It’s a set of prin­ci­ples that we fol­low day in, day out, week in, week out, year in, year out, does­n’t

TK: Mmm.

Cameron: where the econ­o­my’s at, where the cycle’s at, if it’s a boom, if it’s a bust, does­n’t mat­ter what’s going on. In fact, it’s kind of bor­ing because we’re always just fol­low the rules, get up in the morn­ing, fol­low the [00:09:00] rules, and it will keep you rel­a­tive­ly safe.

TK: Keep you, keep you safe, um, ide­al­ly not be too, uh, Too much of a drain on your time. That was one of the things I was always care­ful to try and engi­neer into it. I mean, I still, you know, read the finan­cial press every day, but I often­times won’t look at my port­fo­lio for weeks on end. Um, I set some alerts and based on rules and wait for those to be trig­gered.

And then maybe after, you know, well, it’s six month­ly reports in Aus­tralia, quar­ter­ly reports in the U S I might go in and update my rules or, um, have to do some­thing because that’s gen­er­al­ly when the port­fo­lio its biggest moves is when new num­bers are announced.

Cameron: And as a result of the val­ue invest­ing sys­tem, the way that it’s con­struct­ed, we tend not to be involved in high risk, high reward [00:10:00] stocks. We’re not buy­ing cryp­to, we’re not buy­ing the mag sev­en, we’re not buy­ing any­thing that could sud­den­ly, usu­al­ly. There can be results come out and a stock can take a hit, but gen­er­al­ly speak­ing, we’re not high fly­ing com­pa­nies that are run­ning on mas­sive PEs and mas­sive future promis­es.

One of your favorite say­ings is, if I want­ed to hear a sto­ry, I’d buy a book. we don’t

TK: Mm hmm. If you like this video, and if you, for any rea­son, don’t, make sure to sub­scribe to my chan­nel.

Cameron: basis. So I track it via. Stock­o­pe­dia ser­vice where we [00:11:00] get our num­bers from for the U. S. mar­ket. I start­ed our U. S. port­fo­lio, oh, almost two years ago now. was in March of 20, hold on, no, goes back even longer than that.

Sep­tem­ber 2023 it was, not two years, year and a half. And over that peri­od of time, it’s grown about 83 per­cent ver­sus the S& P 500, which is up about 34 per­cent over that peri­od of time. So not quite triple the S& P 500, but not far off triple. Now, that’s pret­ty good from where we sit. Uh, I would­n’t expect it to do that long haul, long term.

think, uh, dou­ble. Is prob­a­bly a more real­is­tic expec­ta­tion long term. It obvi­ous­ly does­n’t com­pare with some of the growth that the mag sev­en stocks have had in [00:12:00] the last cou­ple of years. But again, we’re not try­ing to com­pete with the mag sev­ens. We’re just try­ing to get good returns. The way I nor­mal­ly talk about it, it’s rel­a­tive­ly low effort.

Rel­a­tive­ly low risk, rel­a­tive­ly con­ser­v­a­tive and try­ing to get pret­ty good returns for those things. Not try­ing to the best returns in the mar­ket­place, but just pret­ty good returns. Dou­ble mar­ket’s pret­ty good with rel­a­tive­ly low risk in a rel­a­tive­ly low time and anx­i­ety lev­el.

TK: Yeah,

Cameron: Mix.

TK: yeah, I mean, just to add to that, from my expe­ri­ence, uh, look, it’s, you know, It can be hard being a val­ue investor when stocks are going up in the growth sec­tor, but it’s great being a val­ue investor when they come down. So we’ve just gone through the Aus­tralian report­ing sea­son and some of the stocks I hold have dropped 10 15 per­cent on sup­pos­ed­ly bad num­bers and they’ve [00:13:00] recov­ered quick­ly, but I know from expe­ri­ence if it was a growth com­pa­ny on a PE of 70 or 80 times and deliv­ered a sim­i­lar bad num­ber, they don’t drop.

10, 15%, they drop 30, 40, 50%. So it’s, um, when the P is low­er, there’s less, less com­pres­sion that can occur with a bad miss or with a miss. Um, so that’s, you know, I think that’s impor­tant to remem­ber. We give up, uh, well, I don’t think we give up any of the good, any of the upside. I think over the long term. Val­ue and growth tra­di­tion­al­ly have, depend­ing on the cycles, um, been rea­son­ably sim­i­lar in long term returns. It’s just that one’s more volatile than the oth­er, real­ly.

Cameron: Yeah. And gets more head­lines than the oth­er.

TK: And gets more head­lines, yeah.

Cameron: Yeah. And, you know, we, uh, you know, I often talk when I’m talk­ing to peo­ple out­side of the pod­cast, just at par­ties, um, which I’m nev­er real­ly a big hit at, but I will, I’m either talk­ing [00:14:00] about ancient his­to­ry or, uh, cold war or invest­ing. I talk about the dif­fer­ence that I’ve learned from you over the years of doing this between.

Being an investor and being a spec­u­la­tor

TK: Hmm. Hmm.

Cameron: like a lot of these high PE stocks have a high PE because peo­ple are spec­u­lat­ing on what their future returns be on future of arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence or the future of dot coms or the future of daf­fodils or what­ev­er it is that the bub­ble is in, uh, at the time.

And some of those spec­u­la­tions will pay off, many won’t. His­tor­i­cal­ly, we can go back and read about how these spec­u­la­tive bub­bles play out. usu­al­ly are a cou­ple of com­pa­nies that do quite well and sur­vive some­how dur­ing the con­sol­i­da­tion and col­lapse phase. Being able to [00:15:00] pick Ahead of time, which ones are going to sur­vive and which ones aren’t is inor­di­nate­ly dif­fi­cult.

Even the peo­ple that spe­cial­ize in these sec­tors like ven­ture cap­i­tal­ists who do it for a liv­ing not to have a great track record of being able to pick the win­ners and losers, which is why they invest in a thou­sand of them and hope that one out of those does well and they can

TK: why,

Cameron: 999.

TK: that’s why they use oth­er peo­ple’s mon­ey to do it too.

Cameron: Yes.

TK: the tick­et. Yeah.

Cameron: Yeah. Uh, and the com­pa­nies that we tend to invest in tend to be com­pa­nies again, that are rel­a­tive­ly bor­ing. been around a long time. gen­er­ate cash rather steadi­ly. They, they’re pret­ty well run for what­ev­er rea­son, their price isn’t real­ly being appre­ci­at­ed at the moment in the mar­ket­place.

try and pick them up when they’re You said on a very ear­ly one of our shows, buy stocks the same way you’d buy [00:16:00] any­thing else when it’s on sale.

TK: cor­rect. Yeah. some­times those, the com­pa­nies we invest in are, are cheap because of the fact that peo­ple don’t see them as being sexy and, and high growth and all that kind of stuff. But they still chug along and, and you know, we use the cof­fee shop exam­ples. Um. Every­one can relate to their local cof­fee shop and, it’s not too hard to know if that busi­ness is doing well or not, and not too hard to under­stand, you know, if you were offered the chance to buy it, whether it’s, it’s a, it’s a or whether it’s a bad price. gen­er­al­ly, um, if the own­er is sell­ing you the busi­ness and they’re telling you about all the won­der­ful plans they have for the future, the place is emp­ty, it’s, it’s, it’s a bad price. and, and that’s the same sort of con­ver­sa­tions I have at par­ties when I talk to peo­ple about invest­ing and they tell me how great their port­fo­lio is going. I just ask them some ques­tions. What, you know, what’s under what cir­cum­stance are you a sell­er? And usu­al­ly it’s, Oh, yeah. to the moon, I’m not going to sell. I can say [00:17:00] okay, well that’s the first thing you’ve got to work out because no tree grows to the sky and even­tu­al­ly you’re going to have to sell and you’ve got to work out what cir­cum­stances because those high fly­ing com­pa­nies can drop all the way back down to pret­ty much where they start­ed from which is was my expe­ri­ence in the dot com bub­ble when it burst in the GFC when I was invest­ing, but those com­pa­nies dropped very, very heav­i­ly up the stairs and down the ele­va­tor shaft is the is the sign for com­pa­nies like that. So the first ques­tion is, when do you when do you sell? And the sec­ond ques­tion is, um, where’s your crys­tal ball? Because if you’re bas­ing your whole invest­ment the­sis on what the com­pa­ny’s going to do, uh, it’s good luck to you because it’s all pre­dic­tion and, you know, I ask peo­ple what the odds are of their pre­dic­tion com­ing. Sure, when they’ve got no idea, so then is, well, how do you know how much mon­ey to put into it if you don’t know what the odds are of the pre­dic­tion com­ing true are? And we saw that with all of the, um, uh, Buy Now, Pay Lat­er com­pa­nies, which was prob­a­bly one of the exam­ples of our [00:18:00] lat­est booms Aus­tralia, and it did go into the U.

1. as well, where, uh, peo­ple with stars in their eyes were talk­ing about, you know, Used to be called eye­balls in the dot com boom, but now it was called the address­able mar­ket. days, how many peo­ple out there with cred­it cards that were going to cut up their cred­it card and replace it with four equal pay­ments, uh, on a basi­cal­ly an elec­tron­ic lay by sys­tem and how big that mar­ket was. and all those num­bers were Right. What was wrong was the pre­dic­tion that the buy now pay lat­er com­pa­nies were going to take it over. had great pen­e­tra­tion, but they haven’t had com­plete sat­u­ra­tion as most of the pre­dic­tions were, um, were say­ing. And so, yeah, like if you’re bas­ing some­thing on the sto­ry of what’s going to hap­pen, you’ve got to treat it like any oth­er sto­ry.

It’s a work of fic­tion. Um, hope­ful­ly it has a hap­py end­ing, but that’s, you won’t know until you get to the back page. That can be, that can be cost­ly going on that jour­ney.

Cameron: Well, speak­ing of, uh, [00:19:00] why and when you’re going to sell, we have a cou­ple of we call cell trig­gers in

TK: hmm.

Cameron: uh, where we think the sen­ti­ment a par­tic­u­lar stock Is head­ing based on draw­ing some three point trend lines, and I had to sell two stocks out of our U.

6. Port­fo­lio yes­ter­day because they had both breached their three point trend line for a cell trig­ger. of those was lands end L E, which we had held for a lit­tle over a year. I bought it Novem­ber. 2023 at 6. 92, had to sell it yes­ter­day at 11. 78. we got out of that with a 70 [00:20:00] per­cent return over, uh, what’s that?

14 months, give or take, which was quite good. Land’s End, uh, inter­est­ing com­pa­ny, uh, peo­ple

TK: hmm.

Cameron: have been around for a long time, but, uh, The three point trend line sort of tracks where the sort of low points are in their share price over five year, when we look at the end of month prices over five years, and it gave me a sell trig­ger for it yes­ter­day.

So I decid­ed to let it go. And again, that’s sort of a no brain­er for us because I don’t need to drill too deeply into their finan­cials. I don’t need to think about the retail sec­tor or impact of inter­est rates or the impact of [00:21:00] tar­iffs, or I don’t have to cal­cu­late any of that kind of stuff. I just.

Tells me that, uh, I should sell it, and so I did sell it, for right­ly or for wrong­ly, we’ll, we’ll, nev­er know, but, uh, because we’ll move on and buy some­thing

TK: don’t look back, yeah,

Cameron: Yeah, it’s the ex girl­friend rule, nev­er look up your ex

TK: yeah,

Cameron: see what they’re doing now.

TK: yeah.

Cameron: Com­pa­ny I had to sell yes­ter­day was GSL Glob­al Ship Lease, which is a Unit­ed King­dom based con­tain­er ship own­er.

We’d held that for a short­er peri­od of time. I think I bought that in Jan­u­ary of 2024 sold it at 21. 83. So it was only a 6 per­cent return for us over a year, which is going to any­one’s day, but, uh, we got out of it so I’m not com­plain­ing, but I should. Point out for peo­ple that are won­der­ing why our port­fo­lio has done so well over [00:22:00] the last

TK: pro­vid­ed by Tran­scrip­tion Out­sourc­ing, LLC.

Cameron: com­pa­ny W L F C is what it sounds like. It’s a finance cor­po­ra­tion, a lessor and ser­vicer of com­mer­cial air­craft and air­craft engines. Um, It’s up 326 per­cent since we bought it. Uh, let me see. When did we buy it? Uh, Novem­ber, 2023 47.

TK: [00:23:00] Hm.

Cameron: of Latin Amer­i­ca, it’s up 69 per­cent since we bought it. ENVA and Nova Inter­na­tion­al is up 67%, RM Region­al Man­age­men­t’s up 38%, OPHC, Opti­mum Bank Hold­ings is up 28%, and then we’ve got a hand­ful of oth­ers.

ESEA up 20, CPSS up 13, KT up 11, UBS up 11. So, like, they’re not all gang­busters, but there’s a hand­ful there that have done very well for us over the last months. So that’s real­ly helped our returns. I mean, you don’t get a stock like Willis lease finance come along very often that does 300 per­cent over 18 Nice to have when you get them.

TK: Hm. No, exact­ly.

Cameron: And what we tend to like in [00:24:00] my short peri­od of doing QAV and look­ing at your results over the last 30 years, the way it tends to work, I think, is we tend to have a real­ly, real­ly good year. we get real­ly out­sized returns. And then we’ll have a cou­ple of real­ly bad years or very, very aver­age years where we under­per­form the mar­ket.

And then a bunch of years in the mid­dle where we’ll do sort of mar­ket lev­el returns a bit bet­ter. Bit worse, you know, they sort of are some­where neu­tral­ized in the mid­dle there. And over a long peri­od, and I’m talk­ing 5, 10, 15, 20 years, this sort of bal­ances out to where you end up doing about dou­ble mar­ket over the long haul.

TK: Yeah, that’s, that’s a fair assump­tion and, and you can see that in the Aus­tralian in. dum­my port­fo­lio that we set up when we start­ed doing the [00:25:00] pod­cast here five or six years ago. It out­per­formed incred­i­bly when we first start­ed before COVID hit and then we got out of the mar­ket as COVID was break­ing and then got back in on the way up.

So we locked in our out­per­for­mance, and then prob­a­bly in the last cou­ple of years, last three or four even maybe, we’ve kind of just gone along mar­ket, but not as strong­ly as it was at the start. And that’s, yeah, that’s pret­ty much, that’s a good tem­plate, I think, for how out­per­for­mance nor­mal­ly occurs longer term.

I will.

Cameron: ear­ly 2021. Uh, cause we, again, I think large­ly because our sys­tem told us to start invest­ing, we like to stay ful­ly invest­ed when the sys­tem allows us to be. And we did that pret­ty quick­ly. Um, when the impact of COVID Aus­tralian econ­o­my was­n’t as dire as ear­ly pre­dic­tions thought it might [00:26:00] be when the gov­ern­ment came in with a res­cue pack­age pret­ty quick­ly.

And, uh, we got all of the growth that came off the bot­tom after the mar­ket plum­met­ed ear­ly on in COVID real­ly out­per­formed and then locked in that out­per­for­mance and have kind of just gone back to being basi­cal­ly dou­ble mar­ket over the last five or six years in Aus­tralia. So that’s a quick rough sum­ma­ry.

And by the way, I sold those two and I added one stock, which was inte­grat­ed ship­ping ser­vices, which I. I think you’re gonna talk a lit­tle bit about, we, we like to do a seg­ment every episode, we call it Pulled Pork, some rea­son, I’m not sure why we start­ed call­ing it that, but Tony was gonna do a deep dive, pulling it apart,

TK: Ooh,

Cameron: my

TK: a pull apart.

Cameron: who comes from Utah, loves pulled pork and makes pulled pork on a reg­u­lar basis.

I think I said we’re going to pull it apart like a pulled pork [00:27:00] and it became the pulled pork seg­ment. By the way, when you said a cof­fee shop anal­o­gy before I was like, Chris­sy’s fam­i­ly in Utah don’t under­stand the cof­fee shop anal­o­gy because Mor­mons don’t drink cof­fee.

TK: Nah, okay.

Cameron: if you’re in Utah, think of it as a soda shop, uh, anal­o­gy, maybe.

Yeah, or a

TK: store near­by. A very sim­ple busi­ness to val­ue.

Cameron: ice shop, uh, near­by, uh, shout out to all the nice folks in Utah. So, um, before we get into Zim, Tony, I just, I was look­ing through news sto­ries for what we could talk about in the U. S. mar­ket. Peo­ple may be won­der­ing what do two Aus­tralians know about the U. S. mar­ket? The answer is noth­ing real­ly.

Um, you know, we’re com­ing into it. I mean, we read the news, we pay atten­tion, but, uh, we’re def­i­nite­ly not experts on it. But I think one of the things QAV has demon­strat­ed to me over the last five or six years, [00:28:00] you don’t need to be an expert on any­thing, real­ly, you under­stand how to read the num­bers and fol­low a sys­tem, which is good.

TK: I think it’s impor­tant to say that a lot of our Aus­tralian lis­ten­ers use us as a start­ing basis to devel­op their own. invest­ment style or sys­tem fol­low­ing, I guess, the frame­work of QAV and using some of our tools our buy list and our sen­ti­ment check­er and things like that, but, but doing their own thing, which is entire­ly what we’re try­ing to do. It’s to edu­cate peo­ple. Um, we don’t, we don’t get any­thing out of whether you buy or sell a share. So, um, it’s, it’s not about that. It’s about here’s what I’ve done. And, um, Cam­den and I talked about it, and I start­ed to teach him, and then we put a pod­cast togeth­er, and then peo­ple got inter­est­ed. And, uh, yeah, it’s, it’s kind of a giv­ing back for me, um, on what I’ve learnt over the years.

But, uh, but yeah, I mean, don’t We’re not try­ing to push [00:29:00] a sys­tem for slav­ish­ly fol­low­ing, it’s, it’s, it’s a frame­work. Um, we like it when peo­ple mod­i­fy it and come back and tell us what they’ve done and how it’s worked or it has­n’t or what­ev­er, so, it’s more of a hive mind, I think, with what we’ve been doing in Aus­tralia over the last five or six years, which has been great.

Cameron: And it’s evolved over that peri­od of well. You know, you’ve mod­i­fied things, changed things as we get feed­back and we’re con­tin­u­al regres­sion test­ing and using AI to test things more and more and sort of at ways that we can opti­mize it, tight­en it up, improve it. So, uh, the only news sto­ry that I real­ly had to talk about today, Tony, I got in the New York Times, uh, yes­ter­day.

Stocks dropped in

TK: [00:30:00] So, uh,

Cameron: mar­ket. The pull­back was dri­ven in part by renewed con­cerns about the infla­tion­ary effects of sweep­ing tar­iffs, which Mr. Trump already imposed on Chi­na has said he will broad­en to Cana­da and Mex­i­co next week, recent­ly as late 2024.

Investors had expect­ed the Fed­er­al Reserve to cut inter­est rates sev­er­al times this year. Moves that would be pos­i­tive for stocks and the econ­o­my, but that view has shift­ed quick­ly amid con­cerns that infla­tion will linger longer than expect­ed. With rates set to remain ele­vat­ed, wor­ries have extend­ed to the broad­er impact on the econ­o­my.

Recent eco­nom­ic sur­veys showed a sharp decline in con­sumer sen­ti­ment, in part because of pes­simism about employ­ment [00:31:00] prospects, as well as expec­ta­tions that prices could start to climb have fuelled cau­tion among investors too. Now, some investors, when they read sto­ries like this and read indi­ca­tions about the future of the econ­o­my may be wor­ried about whether or not they should be invest­ing or how they should invest, but I know from expe­ri­ence when you read sto­ries like this, you just go, and so what?

and

TK: I don’t read them. Yeah, well, sto­ries like this can dri­ve the mar­ket, um, but it is report­ing what hap­pened in the mar­ket. And that there’s some legit­i­ma­cy to that. if I was there. Some­body who knew an awful lot about the auto­mo­bile indus­try, I might be con­cerned about the effect of tar­iffs on Cana­da or Mex­i­co, which is what the mar­ket got the wob­bles for last night as we were record­ing on the 4th of March in Aus­tralia. [00:32:00] Uh, but I don’t know enough about the auto­mo­tive indus­try to pre­dict what’s going to hap­pen because of tar­iffs, so I’ll wait and see Auto­mo­bile man­u­fac­tur­ers come, come onto our by list now because they’ve been beat­en up by per­cep­tion of tar­iffs, even though they’re prob­a­bly still very good under­ly­ing busi­ness­es, but we’ll make an assess­ment on that.

So yeah, it’s more about deal­ing in the facts and deal­ing in the spec­u­la­tion that I wor­ry about. I do read the finan­cial press. I think it’s still impor­tant to know what’s going on. But real­ly what I get. inter­est­ed in the finan­cial press is if there’s a sto­ry about one of the com­pa­nies I own and, and, you know, maybe about their results that they just released or some­thing like that, that’s what I’ll pay atten­tion to. Not nec­es­sar­i­ly the big macro pic­ture of what’s going on.

Cameron: Macro­eco­nom­ic fore­casts. It does­n’t real­ly mat­ter because at the end of the day we’re buy­ing based on the num­bers and the num­bers of the num­bers in good times and bad times. There’s [00:33:00]always some­thing to buy and there’s always busi­ness­es, at least in my expe­ri­ence so far. There’s very, there’s been very rare peri­ods where there has­n’t been any­thing to buy.

There may be a week or two where I strug­gle to find stuff to buy. But gen­er­al­ly speak­ing, there’s always some­thing to buy. you know, there are busi­ness­es that do well in cer­tain parts of the eco­nom­ic cycle. There are oth­er busi­ness­es that do well in oth­er parts of the eco­nom­ic cycle. We’re just try­ing to find those and, uh, buy the ones that we think are under­val­ued today based on their num­bers, right?

TK: Yeah, and it’s often the case, in terms of macro cycles, we don’t, I don’t real­ly see what the macro cycle is, indus­try by indus­try, until I turn around after six months and say, huh, huh, I’ve got, I’ve got a few banks in my port­fo­lio, or I’ve, I’ve got a few air­lines in my port­fo­lio, or what­ev­er. And you real­ize that that’s because that indus­try was. bombed out and we bought the com­pa­nies that were in it because they’d been around for a long time and they’re still good [00:34:00] qual­i­ty and then of course they start­ed to regress to the mean again and what­ev­er head­winds they were fac­ing even­tu­al­ly blew out and then they came good again.

Cameron: Alright, well that’s all that I want­ed to cov­er off on today, just as an exam­ple of how we think about macro­eco­nom­ic fore­casts. Uh, do you want to do a bit of a pull pork on

TK: will. Yeah. So this is a new one in the, in your dum­my port­fo­lio. Um, it’s, I, I guess I want to say before we get into it, that we very rarely focus on the sto­ry or, any sort of. fil­ter­ing over the par­tic­u­lar com­pa­ny, and we’ve cov­ered and ana­lyzed and bought and sold coal com­pa­nies and oil com­pa­nies and got their own fil­ter or their own red line, as I like to say, on com­pa­nies that they don’t want to buy.

And that’s com­plete­ly up to the indi­vid­ual lis­ten­er and investor. And so I’ll say that at the start, we’ll still cov­er [00:35:00] these com­pa­nies and you can make it up. You can make it your deci­sion as to whether your list or off your list, but the num­bers for this com­pa­ny are on the list. And the rea­son why I’ve giv­en that pre­am­ble to this com­pa­ny is because it’s based in Israel and that I’m not going to have a per­spec­tive at all on.

Um, on that, on the Mid­dle East, what I’m going to do is talk about the num­bers for this par­tic­u­lar com­pa­ny. if it is of inter­est to the lis­ten­ers, they can go and do their own research and then, um, decide whether or not, uh, they want to get involved or, or look on. Um, this com­pa­ny Zim is a glob­al ship­ping com­pa­ny.

It is based on the New York Stock Exchange, even though it’s, um, it’s from Israel. been around 75 plus years. Um, Uh, from when, from when Israel was found­ed after World War ii, and in fact, the first boat that was bought by the com­pa­ny was to bring peo­ple from post-war Europe to the Mid­dle East. So it’s, it’s fol­lowed, it’s tracked the his­to­ry of Israel all the way through its his­to­ry. Uh, [00:36:00] 1953, they start­ed to expand, uh, more inter­na­tion­al­ly. And they acquired 36 car­go, boat, car­ri­er, and con­tain­er ships. They launched a range of pas­sen­ger and car­go ser­vices. They can con­tin­ued to do that, but dis­con­tin­ued the pas­sen­ger ser­vice in the last, in the late 1960s as air trav­el became more pop­u­lar and more wide­ly acces­si­ble. So they moved at that stage com­plete­ly into inter­na­tion­al car­go ship­ping, and they’ve been doing that ever since. By the time their 25th anniver­sary came around in 1970, the com­pa­ny owned 77 ships, char­tered 70 ships, and oper­at­ed 19 major car­go lines car­ry­ing 4. 3 mil­lion tons of car­go annu­al­ly. After that, they were a pio­neer in the area of con­tainer­ized ship­ping, which is now one of the first car­ri­ers in the world to adopt the tech­nol­o­gy was new at the time. I’ve got to say, I think con­tainer­ized ship­ping [00:37:00] is one of the unsung heroes of the 20th cen­tu­ry. Uh, in terms of the impact it’s had on our lives and our, our eco­nom­ics that prob­a­bly peo­ple over­look every day, but just the, the mere fact that used to be shipped piece by piece, um, pel­let by pel­let, by bag, and then unloaded and repack­aged and put on a truck or a train and then unloaded and repack­aged and reassem­bled in ware­hous­es and then uh, Tak­en by small trucks to local shops and then tak­en home by you and your car. Um, to move to the fact that every­thing is now moved in a stan­dard­ised con­tain­er that can be picked off a ship by a crane, dropped onto a flatbed rail truck, shipped around inter­nal­ly in the coun­try, tak­en off the train at a sid­ing, put on the back of a semi trail­er, um, with­out ever hav­ing to have the con­tain­er opened and repack­aged is just amaz­ing.

And it’s just, you know, Um, allowed for pro­duc­tiv­i­ty increas­es world­wide and, and prob­a­bly dri­ven [00:38:00] the whole back­bone of inter­na­tion­al com­merce for the last sort of 50 years. So Zim­mer being in the mid­dle of that and were a pio­neer for that. In 2004, they became a pri­vate com­pa­ny. So they had, uh, been, uh, part­ly owned by the Israeli gov­ern­ment up until then. then in 2021, they IPO’d on the New York Stock Exchange. So a long his­to­ry. Um, now ful­ly pub­licly owned, uh, if I look at their lat­est results, which is the quar­ter three results. So from, uh, end of Sep­tem­ber, 2024, uh, total rev­enues for the nine months of the year, uh, were, well, 6. 2 bil­lion com­pared to 6.

3, 3. 9 bil­lion the year before. So sig­nif­i­cant increase in, in rev­enue. Uh, the com­pa­ny called out that that was dri­ven both by increas­es in freight rates as well as by car­ried vol­ume. Uh, they car­ried, uh, 2, 768, 000 TEUs, they’re called, [00:39:00] which is their ter­mi­nol­o­gy for 20 foot equiv­a­lent units. Again, these con­tain­ers that we’re talk­ing about. They car­ried 2, 768, 000 TEUs in the first nine months of 2024, com­pared to 2, 496 in the first nine months of 2023. Uh, the. freight rate for that per TEU was 1, 889 for the first nine months and 24 com­pared to 1, 235 for the first nine months of 23. So num­bers are up across the board for this com­pa­ny. They declared a spe­cial div­i­dend top of their reg­u­lar div­i­dend. So a spe­cial div­i­dend because they did have a very good quar­ter. So all in all, good results. If I run through what we call the QAV num­bers. Now, um, this is to go to, I’m going to go through our check­list and look at their scor­ing this com­pa­ny based on the things that we, um, we find use­ful. All these num­bers are in US dol­lars, by the way, if any­one from [00:40:00] Aus­tralia is lis­ten­ing in or any­where else in the world. Uh, it, Zim has just become a buy on the sen­ti­ment check­er, but it’s cur­rent­ly what we call a Josephine. So, um, a cou­ple of. Con­cepts to explain there, uh, and I haven’t used the ter­mi­nal, uh, the term, um, the, um, term yet, Bret­ta­la­tor, but it’s what we call our sen­ti­ment check­er because it was cod­ed by, one of our lis­ten­ers called Brett, so we call it the Bret­ta­la­tor. basi­cal­ly, it’s, uh, I’m not a fan of chart­ing, um, I’ve, tried to use it in the past and nev­er found it to be a use­ful tool in and of itself. But what I did find was that as like a lot of val­ue investors, I was a buy and hold investor the GFC came along. And I watched, um, my, uh, my port­fo­lio dwin­dle by a lot, um, in the GFC.

And I thought there has to be a bet­ter way of doing than to see that hap­pen and have that kind of hit to your port­fo­lio [00:41:00] and I guess came up with a, um, did some read­ing, a lot of, there’s a lot of research out there about mov­ing trend lines and peo­ple might be famil­iar with that if they’re lis­ten­ing in about 30 day aver­ages over 90 day aver­ages and things like that.

And this is what we use as kind of a refine­ment of that. Very sim­ple con­cept. I use a five month. five year month­ly graph. So there’s a, it’s real­ly a high lev­el trend line. It does­n’t move around as much as a week­ly or a dai­ly or a year­ly graph does. So we take a bit of volatil­i­ty out of the graph­ing. And if you look at any stock on that kind of peri­od, you’ll prob­a­bly find that it moves in a chan­nel. and down. So they still wig­gle around and zigzag, but if it goes, if it’s doing well, it goes from the bot­tom left to the top right. And if it’s doing poor­ly, it goes from the top left to the bot­tom right. it may go up and down in that process, but gen­er­al­ly it fol­lows a chan­nel. And you can draw a line across the bot­tom of those troughs [00:42:00] and across the peaks of those highs they become the break­out indi­ca­tors.

And so we’ve cod­ed that process. recent­ly went through its buy, so it, um, it reversed the down­ward trend. accord­ing to that sort of five year month­ly graph. but it’s cur­rent­ly what we call a Josephine, as in not tonight Josephine. So even though it’s a, it’s, it’s bro­ken out of its long term down­trend, it’s got a short term down­trend, large­ly I think due to the mar­ket sell off in the last day or so. Um, but it’s one to watch and, uh, it ris­es again in the short term, it might be of inter­est to peo­ple. So we’re look­ing at both the long term trend for sen­ti­ment and the short term trend for sen­ti­ment. when we start­ed talk­ing about this, it was a buy on both of those. It’s cur­rent­ly a buy on long term and a and a wait on the short term, but any­way, um, that, that may change before peo­ple lis­ten to this. Uh, one of the oth­er terms I wan­na explain, one of the key per­for­mance indi­ca­tors in our [00:43:00] check­list is a thing we call prop calf or price to oper­ate in cash flow. And that’s the heavy mover. uh, on our check­list, the price to oper­at­ing cash flow for this com­pa­ny is, is 88 times. In oth­er words, if you think about PE ratios, this is sim­i­lar in con­cept, but we’re talk­ing about the oper­at­ing cash flow, uh, that’s been thrown off by this com­pa­ny. So we can buy this com­pa­ny at a share price, which is less than the cash it makes in a year. which is a very cheap met­ric, um, for val­ue, uh, a, a good indi­ca­tor of val­ue in the com­pa­ny. we gen­er­al­ly like com­pa­nies that we can buy for less than sev­en times oper­at­ing cash flow. So this is way under that thresh­old and puts it very high up on our buy list, uh, of stocks to have a look at. Uh, now a cou­ple of con­cepts to explain there, um, why oper­at­ing cash flow, uh, A lot of ana­lysts will focus on free cash flow and I’ve [00:44:00] got no prob­lem if you’re Um, skilled enough and detailed enough to wade through the finan­cial state­ments to get there. start­ed off as an investor 25 30 years ago look­ing at PEU ratios. one of the things I’ve learned from my expe­ri­ence was that the earn­ings of a com­pa­ny can be manip­u­lat­ed by the, uh, by the execu­tors of the com­pa­ny. Not nec­es­sar­i­ly for nefar­i­ous rea­sons, but they are always hav­ing to make calls on how much to pro­vide for things. Cap­i­tal in the future, how much to amor­tize equip­ment, how much to depre­ci­ate office fur­ni­ture, uh, How much to pro­vide for future bad debts that they may have trou­ble col­lect­ing, et cetera, et cetera.

There’s all sorts of guess­es and assign­ments that man­agers need to make in the accounts to, I guess, pro­tect the busi­ness for future risk. But it does give them a fair bit of [00:45:00] lee­way to affect the earn­ings of the com­pa­ny based on those kinds of things. The oper­at­ing cash flow is very high up in the, in the account­ing state­ments.

There’s, not much in the way of pro­vi­sion­ing that can be done to affect it. So it’s basi­cal­ly the rev­enue that comes in less the cost of col­lect­ing it. And, uh, that’s a very sim­ple met­ric, um, and the way to val­ue the busi­ness. So grant peo­ple that, uh, it’s a, it’s a quick and dirty. Um, and if you want to your own analy­sis on how much APEX a com­pa­ny like this might need for the future and make your own assess­ments on that, then go ahead, but found, uh, cash flow to be a real­ly good met­ric as one of the deter­mi­nants of val­ue that we use.

So this com­pa­ny scores very, very well on that basis. Uh, the, uh, It also, inter­est­ing­ly enough, scores well on the price to free cash flow, and I’m using Stock­o­pe­dia to give [00:46:00] me that num­ber. We don’t put it through our spread­sheet, but the Stock­o­pe­dia ratio for free cash flow is 0. 9, so it’s the same as, pret­ty much the same as Prop­Caf, so it’s very low as well in this par­tic­u­lar case any­way. use Stock­o­pe­dia to give us the health rat­ings. for these com­pa­nies because the Q and QAV is we’re try­ing to find qual­i­ty stocks to buy at val­ue because basi­cal­ly val­ue stocks fall into two camps. Um, one, one is they’re cheap because they’re going through their, their day in the shad­ow rather than a day in the sun and they’ll come good again. the oth­er one is because they’re bombed out and they’re going back­wards and even­tu­al­ly they’ll prob­a­bly go broke. So. Qual­i­ty is a focus for us in invest­ing, and we use Stock­o­pe­dia to give us a rank­ing for that. And Stock­o­pe­dia ranks Zim as 82 out of 100 for qual­i­ty, which is not, not their high­est, but it’s in the top two deciles, so it’s pret­ty good. They use sys­tem called the F Score for finan­cial health and [00:47:00] Peo­ple can go and look that up on their web­site, but the F score is fair­ly well known in, in, um, account­ing cir­cles or ana­lyt­i­cal cir­cles. And it’s basi­cal­ly a check­list, which checks off to see the com­pa­ny’s mak­ing mon­ey, that the com­pa­ny can pay its debts, all that kind of thing. Um, and it gives her the score and the F score for this com­pa­ny for finan­cial health is eight out of nine. So the F score for XIM is very high. So I’ve got some com­fort that it’s not going to go broke. in the, in the near term at least. Um, and so there­fore, uh, I can focus on the val­ue know­ing that it’s a qual­i­ty com­pa­ny and it’s, it’s doing well from, from that kind of per­spec­tive. Uh, we don’t use return on equi­ty as a met­ric. I don’t use it, but ZIM is high at 44%. So I’ll point that out for any lis­ten­ers who are inter­est­ed in ROE. And again, one of the rea­sons why I don’t use ROE, even though it’s a key met­ric for ana­lysts of stocks is because My expe­ri­ence is that when some­thing becomes focused on by the, by the bro­ken com­mu­ni­ty or the [00:48:00] fund man­age­ment com­mu­ni­ty, it gets gained by the unscrupu­lous oper­a­tors who run com­pa­nies who try and make their ROE look high­er than what it prob­a­bly was intend­ed to look like.

And there are some ways to do that. For exam­ple, by tack­ing on debt, which reduces the equi­ty in the com­pa­ny. And so a fair­ly ordi­nary com­pa­ny will start to look good from an ROE per­spec­tive because they’ve used up all their equi­ty and extra bor­row­ings. And they put them­selves on shaky finan­cial foot­ing just to max­i­mize their ROE. As an exam­ple, uh, Stock­o­pe­dia, um, have a cou­ple of, um, ways of rank­ing com­pa­nies and they do pro­vide an over­all rank­ing as well. So for any­one who’s not famil­iar with Stock­o­pe­dia, go and have a look. They’re what’s called a fac­tor ser­vice. So. done a lot of research over the years on var­i­ous fac­tors of as ways to invest, and one of them is val­ue invest­ing.

One of them is momen­tum invest­ing, of them is qual­i­ty invest­ing. So they kind of put all those three togeth­er. If [00:49:00] you give a com­pa­ny a rank­ing out of 100. for all the com­pa­nies that they’ve looked at, and then com­bine that rank­ing for an over­all rank­ing. And that’s, it’s, it’s a, it’s a pret­ty good ser­vice.

And we need a ser­vice like that to be able to down­load data from the mar­ket to run through our check­list. And we use some of the, the, their tools as well. Um, for this com­pa­ny, Stock­o­pe­dia ranks them as, uh, 99 out of 100 over­all, so it’s very high on their list, but that’s large­ly, um, dri­ven by their val­ue rank­ing, um, for this com­pa­ny.

So they’re also see­ing val­ue in it, like we are. Uh, I’m using a stock price of 20. 22 at the time of record­ing for, for my analy­sis. a cou­ple of things that we look at is, can I buy this com­pa­ny for book val­ue? And the book val­ue is 42. 39, which means I can, I can buy it for a lot less than book val­ue.

So not only can I buy it in an attrac­tive cash­flow basis, I can buy it for less than the equi­ty in [00:50:00]the com­pa­ny and also the net tan­gi­ble assets. Uh, one thing that we track as whether the com­pa­nies that we look at have qual­i­fied audits, because we rely on the audi­tors to tell us if the qual­i­ty of these com­pa­nies can be sus­pect for any way. We don’t get too many qual­i­fied audits, pos­si­bly not enough, but, um, don’t, we don’t have one in this case. earn­ings per share growth is 25%, which is very high. We put that over the P. E. ratio, and so we find that, um, over P. E., as you said before, from P to Lynch is a good way to look at, uh, the com­pa­ny’s grow­ing and whether we want to pay for that growth.

And the hur­dle we look at is growth over P. E. of more than 1. 5. com­pa­ny is grow­ing at 25%. P. E. ratio is at 1. 5. just over five, so it’s well above the 1. 5. One thing we look at is yield and this com­pa­ny has a low yield of 1. 1 per­cent, which is fine, but too low for us to score. One of the rea­sons I focus on yield and look for a high yield [00:51:00] is because it’s a sign that man­age­ment have some con­fi­dence in the future earn­ings of the com­pa­ny because man­age­ment very low. Boards are very low to cut div­i­dend pay­ments. It’s often seen as being a last resort in tough times. uh, and a cut in the div­i­dend is a, is a red flag for, uh, whether we invest in the com­pa­ny or not. Uh, so if a com­pa­ny has a high div­i­dend yield, it means man­age­ment, um, are quite con­fi­dent of being able to main­tain that, which is a, a vote of con­fi­dence in the com­pa­ny. Addi­tion­al­ly, uh, from time to time, I have bor­rowed against my House to invest in my stock port­fo­lio hav­ing com­pa­nies with a high yield, um, allows me to ser­vice the mort­gage on that debt. And so that was anoth­er rea­son for rank­ing com­pa­nies based on yield. so this com­pa­ny does­n’t score on our check­list for yield.

It’s, it’s too low, but just that’s by, um, way of, uh, as [00:52:00] explain­ing why we do. score things for yield. any­way, for this com­pa­ny, we give us this com­pa­ny a total QAB score of 0. 98, which is very, very high on our buy list. Puts it num­ber two on the buy list at the moment. So, um, that’s ZIM. Have a look at it.

And it’s recent­ly come onto our buy list. I don’t own it. Cam does­n’t own it, I’m pret­ty sure. we’ll always declare if we own stocks when we talk about them. Um, I don’t own any US stocks at the moment, so it’s prob­a­bly going to be a, an easy thing for me to main­tain.

Cameron: Yeah,

TK: my word for it.

Go and have a look at it your­self.

Cameron: we hold it in the QAV US port­fo­lio, but I should spec­i­fy that’s just a port­fo­lio. It’s a

TK: Yeah.

Cameron: It’s not real cash It’s just we cre­at­ed these dum­my port­fo­lios in Aus­tralia in the US as a trans­par­ent Exper­i­ment to show how the sys­tem works in [00:53:00] real time over a peri­od of time Peo­ple can see the full list of trades what we’ve bought when we bought it What we sold when we sold it and can see how the num­bers work over time.

So it’s not a mag­ic, it’s not the­o­ry. We’re actu­al­ly apply­ing the sys­tem in a trans­par­ent way and peo­ple can see how it’s panned out over time. And as we move for­ward with the U. S. show, I’ll pro­vide full, uh, trad­ing his­to­ry updates that’ll be avail­able to our lis­ten­ers. They’ll be able to look at it on the web­site and see every­thing that we’ve bought and sold in the U.

1. port­fo­lio to see if the num­bers that we say it’s returned actu­al­ly make sense. And you’ll be able to go back and see the full his­to­ry of that so it’s not, uh, it’s not, uh, opaque.

TK: Hmm, it’s ful­ly trans­par­ent.

Cameron: Yeah. Well, thank you for that, Tony. And I noticed that when you did that pulled pork on Zim, you real­ly did­n’t get [00:54:00] into the ins and outs of the future of the, uh, ship­ping indus­try or the future of, you know, Israeli ship­ping, or you did­n’t real­ly talk about the prog­nos­ti­ca­tions of ship­ping at all.

TK: I did­n’t know because I don’t know about ship­ping at all. As Paul Keat­ing used to say, an Aus­tralian fed­er­al trea­sur­er, it’s a beau­ti­ful set of num­bers. That’s, that’s what I’m, our check­list is aimed at find­ing whether it’s in that indus­try or any oth­er indus­try. They all have to apply the same account­ing stan­dards and pro­duce the same account­ing reports for us to look at.

Cameron: Yeah. Well, thank you, Tony. And, uh, I guess that’s where we’ll wrap it up. That was a longer episode than I antic­i­pat­ed for our first episode in the U. S., but that’s QAV U. S. Episode 1. As we always say at the end of our episodes, QAV a good week, and hap­py share market.[00:55:00]

TK: Yeah, we also say hap­py ASX usu­al­ly, so we’ll say hap­py MYSE

Cameron: And NASDAQ. Uh,

TK: yeah.

Cameron: Yeah.

TK: if we’ll ever keep buy­ing on the NASDAQ, but we’ll see. I could be wrong. I’m ter­ri­ble at pre­dict­ing, so we’ll see.

Cameron: Yeah. we don’t pre­dict.

TK: No.[00:56:00]