Much appreciate the great work you have always been doing!
The motivation of why Farallon (aka. the investment manager of CHONS and the concert GBPO) has been consistently selling seems to be a continuous puzzle. Looks to me all the info we have about "Farallon's debt fund not allowed to hold equity so they are selling for non-fundamental reasons" has been guesswork, which has been proved wrong several times (about why Farallon "stopped" selling. The latest TR-1 disclosure looks like Farallon's selling is "unstoppable".
Curious if you have any smoking guns in that regard.
This is really, really interesting stuff. Lately, been spending a lot of time in midstream Oil and Gas as I like the value proposition there amongst increased consolidation like you mentioned. PANR looks like a good R/R here.
What do you think about increasing allocation to an Oil/Gas ETF? I like the capital cycle dynamics at the moment, but I don't believe that the situation around ESG will get any worse – these companies are hated by the public and policymakers, and seem like the typical "sin stocks".
I am replying to this post since I recently came across Berkshire’s 1983 letter to shareholders. In particular, I’d like to comment the following two paragraphs:
“ For years the traditional wisdom – long on tradition, short on wisdom – held that inflation protection was best provided by businesses laden with natural resources, plants and machinery, or other tangible assets ("In Goods We Trust"). It doesn’t work that way. Asset-heavy businesses generally earn low rates of return – rates that often barely provide enough capital to fund the inflationary needs of the existing business, with nothing left over for real growth, for distribution to owners, or for acquisition of new businesses.
In contrast, a disproportionate number of the great business fortunes built up during the inflationary years arose from ownership of operations that combined intangibles of lasting value with relatively minor requirements for tangible assets. In such cases earnings have bounded upward in nominal dollars, and these dollars have been largely available for the acquisition of additional businesses. This phenomenon has been particularly evident in the communications business. That business has required little in the way of tangible investment – yet its franchises have endured. During inflation, Goodwill is the gift that keeps giving.”
How does this statement fit with the thesis of buying asset-heavy businesses such as real estate/infrastructure in an inflationary environment and what do you think about it?
Have you looked at pipeline details? I believe it is at risk of shutting down due to insufficient volume at some point, but have not done the work to detail that risk.
Much appreciate the great work you have always been doing!
The motivation of why Farallon (aka. the investment manager of CHONS and the concert GBPO) has been consistently selling seems to be a continuous puzzle. Looks to me all the info we have about "Farallon's debt fund not allowed to hold equity so they are selling for non-fundamental reasons" has been guesswork, which has been proved wrong several times (about why Farallon "stopped" selling. The latest TR-1 disclosure looks like Farallon's selling is "unstoppable".
Curious if you have any smoking guns in that regard.
Thanks.
This is really, really interesting stuff. Lately, been spending a lot of time in midstream Oil and Gas as I like the value proposition there amongst increased consolidation like you mentioned. PANR looks like a good R/R here.
What do you think about increasing allocation to an Oil/Gas ETF? I like the capital cycle dynamics at the moment, but I don't believe that the situation around ESG will get any worse – these companies are hated by the public and policymakers, and seem like the typical "sin stocks".
Great commentary and analysis. Thanks Conor. I'll take a look at PANR. ZPHR may also be worth taking a look at. Cheers
Brilliant.
Hi Conor,
Love your work!
I am replying to this post since I recently came across Berkshire’s 1983 letter to shareholders. In particular, I’d like to comment the following two paragraphs:
“ For years the traditional wisdom – long on tradition, short on wisdom – held that inflation protection was best provided by businesses laden with natural resources, plants and machinery, or other tangible assets ("In Goods We Trust"). It doesn’t work that way. Asset-heavy businesses generally earn low rates of return – rates that often barely provide enough capital to fund the inflationary needs of the existing business, with nothing left over for real growth, for distribution to owners, or for acquisition of new businesses.
In contrast, a disproportionate number of the great business fortunes built up during the inflationary years arose from ownership of operations that combined intangibles of lasting value with relatively minor requirements for tangible assets. In such cases earnings have bounded upward in nominal dollars, and these dollars have been largely available for the acquisition of additional businesses. This phenomenon has been particularly evident in the communications business. That business has required little in the way of tangible investment – yet its franchises have endured. During inflation, Goodwill is the gift that keeps giving.”
How does this statement fit with the thesis of buying asset-heavy businesses such as real estate/infrastructure in an inflationary environment and what do you think about it?
Have you looked at pipeline details? I believe it is at risk of shutting down due to insufficient volume at some point, but have not done the work to detail that risk.
amazing work ... thanks for sharing!