General Markets Talk

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

glenn2479 said:
Hope so, I’m down 15% at the moment, even after the 14% gain today. Think it’s undervalued too. I’m in for the long term.
Click to expand...
The delays on gold assay results really is not doing CNB any favours

With the low SOI on the stock, the price will fly with each and every good piece of news.
 
My US markets performed relatively 'well' (well, less bad), but my AUS markets were a complete trainwreck.

This is because:
1) Many of my bonds are in USD because they aren't available in AUD
2) Most of my shares are, despite being in AUD, are not HEDGED to the AUD, which went up against the USD today.
 
My AUS performance is around the mean today, maybe slightly below.

My US stock performance, however, was (not to brag) particularly noteworthy:
- KR collapsed (losing 3.19% despite supposedly being a min vol stock)
- HZNP rose (2.25%, but that would most likely be a combination of BTFD and some security-seeking since its a min vol healthcare stock)
- NEE rose (1.11%, see HZNP, only it's a utilities stock with renewables elements)

You might think that those losses and gains totalled together don't really add up to much, right? Well, VRTX's stock exploded by 9.66% (in USD, no less) overnight, because they made a medical breakthrough that didn't relate to cystic fibrosis.

This is important because their gross stock market underperformance over the past 6-12 months has related to failed attempts to diversify away from cystic fibrosis.

I'm familiar with the safety of following the herd, but when I bought one of their stocks in mid-September, their price seemed artificially low by any reasonable metric:
- They were a healthcare company and so IMO would do reasonably well in the (upcoming) disinflationary/deflationary environment that was being obscured by the then-energy crisis
- They had a massive competitive advantage in their field (cystic fibrosis) and IMO had the financial clout to (eventually) successfully diversify without going out of business, which was holding back most investors from sinking money into them
- Most of their medicines are sold in the US, affording them increased USD revenues if the US dollar rose (how long this remains so is to be seen)
- Betashares listed them as a 'quality' company, and 'quality' companies outperform in most environments, including this unstable one
- They are a 'biotech' company, which Viktor Shvets listed as one of the industries of the future, so they'd likely grow over time
- They're not a 'meme stock' as such, because they have a meaningful competitive advantage
- Zacks listed them as a #2 (Buy) stock
- Although this is almost irrelevant, Goldman Sachs did select them as a potential outperformer over the period from August 2021-2022

I have also read that their treatments on Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes patients have been positive, but that's from a sample of 1. If that goes further, their price will go through the roof.

Too bad I only bought the one stock (due to affordability and volatility). It's reduced my volatility, but also means that I'll have to cut my 'Five Year Plan' for VRTX stock if their share price tanks. You live and learn, I guess.

EDIT: So what's the lesson here? Well, where possible, when buying shares:
- Buy according to macro trends (inflationary/disinflationary environment)
- Buy according to factors you suspect will be in play (usually quality, but sometimes value/min vol)
- Buy companies that are listed as quality by VanEck or Betashares, or at least not complete junk (QMIX by SPDR)
- In a volatile environment, buying Min Vol companies (as designated by Vanguard or iShares) is a good idea.
- Buy companies with a lasting competitive advantage (moat)! They outperform over a long period of time because emulating said advantage is difficult.
- Buy shares in different industries, but again in accordance with macro trends (staples/healthcare/utiliies/telcos tend to perform better in disinflationary/unstable macroenvironments)
- If volatility is an issue, buy around 50-65% of what you would for an ETF
- In volatile markets, don't put more than 5% of your portfolio in shares because IMO it just makes your portfolio too volatile.
 
Last edited:
The Spark Infrastructure buyout means I'll need a find couple more steady long term holds.
Considering South32 for their exposure to metals used in renewables. May top up on WAM or consider their microcap offshoot as well, and top up on a speccie hold.
 
BuddysBiggestFan said:
Massive volume yesterday. Went down to 0.7c briefly which is not a good sign and rebounded to 0.9c. What do you make of it?
Click to expand...
NFI mate. Too many variables with micro caps. Market manipulation to buy in cheaper? Dump on bad news that's been leaked to large holders? People playing around with options conversions?

Does seem posutive to need a few days to halt for an announcement about a joint venture project, so fingers crossed its good news and needs to be prepared carefully.
 
Ordovician said:
NVX down 26.58% from a 12.00 open to 8.92 at 1.32pm, whereupon they magically stopped trading. An hour or so later a trading halt announcement came out pending an announcement.

I wonder what that could be be?

And who says there is no insider trading?

For the record I have no holdings but have been kicking myself for not taking a position from 2.60 in May through: 3.00, 4.00, 6.00, 8.00, 9.70 on flat Spots in their relentless 400% ruse up until yesterday.

Isn’t hindsight wonderful I a truly gut wrenching way?

Well I suppose that’s life in a negative real interest rate mega bubble on this decade’s super highway to perdition.
Click to expand...

Reeks bad doesn’t it!
 
One article in AFR, and NVX shits the bed.
Probably overdue, it was way overpriced, and people just FOMO into it like crazy over the last month. I didn't expect a fall like that though.
Might be a worthwhile time to make a quick buck, as i would expect a jump on Monday morning before a slow drop till next year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Was it the same article as they one they were talking about AEF? The article was critical of both and yet AEF hasn’t budged. Or was it something else ?
 
MirosWife said:
Was it the same article as they one they were talking about AEF? The article was critical of both and yet AEF hasn’t budged. Or was it something else ?
Click to expand...

Yeah the same article.
The writer wasn't wrong about AEF. They shouldn't be trading at $13 with a yearly profit of 11 million, but the market quite often doesn't behave rationally.
Why it survived today's bloodbath i am not sure, but NVX was parabolic recently and a pullback was always coming, but no one could have expected what happened today.
 
Pancakes said:
Yeah the same article.
The writer wasn't wrong about AEF. They shouldn't be trading at $13 with a yearly profit of 11 million, but the market quite often doesn't behave rationally.
Why it survived today's bloodbath i am not sure, but NVX was parabolic recently and a pullback was always coming, but no one could have expected what happened today.
Click to expand...

Don’t have any facts to back this but AEF superannuation skews much younger than the norm. super is about as sticky as you can get with customers so you got a much longer runway of new funds coming each month.

Sure they are Expensive but So is PME and XRO. You pay a high price for stickiness
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top