Ask Alan: 5 September 2019

G’day everyone. Welcome to Ask Alan for this week, it's great to see you, thanks for joining me. And it's been a big week, wow. It's been incredible with the GDP yesterday, and house prices the other day. Lots going on with Brexit, so you wouldn't be dead for quids would you? It's great for journalists, it's very upsetting I suppose for investors. But this is what keeps us alive, keeps the blood pumping. So we've got a few questions today, which are great. Remember the live stream and my answers are general advice only. I can't possibly deal with personal advice because I don't know your circumstances, and even if I did I'm not licensed to provide personal advice so I couldn't do it.

And there actually was one question from Lynn I think, that was quite personal. I've taken it out because I can't really answer it Lynn, so I'm sorry about that. If you want to... I mean I might deal with it... Yeah, look, I just can't give personal advice. I'm sorry. But anyway, let's get stuck into the questions. If you've got any questions as we're going along, feel free to pop them in, and I will get to them before I finish.

Brian says, "Hi Alan, my wife has recently retired." This is a bit personal too actually. "My wife has recently retired, and I expect to retire mid next year. We will be entirely dependent on our self-managed super earnings, 90 per cent of which are in the share market. I can't help but feel and almighty correction is coming, but don't wish to panic. I'm considering liquidating about 30 per cent of my holdings to cash as a hedge against a major fall, and provide enough liquidity to buy in if it does happen, and give me some cash to live on. Do you think this is a reasonable strategy?"

Yes, I do think it's a reasonable strategy, Brian. Obviously again, I don't know your personal details, so this is not personal advice, but in the general sense I don't know whether 30 per cent is the right amount, but I think that some level of cash, perhaps 20, 25, I don't know, is a reasonable strategy at the moment. I think there probably will be a correction at some point. I don't think there'll be an almighty crash, at least not for a while. But look, anything's possible, I don't really know. I don't think anyone does know. As I've been writing in the briefing on the weekend, these are very different times.

They're weird, dangerous times and we don't know what's going to happen. There are lots of different theories, and a lot of people are saying it's going to be Armageddon, there's going to be a catastrophe. Others are saying it's going to be okay. Lots of people pretend to know what's going to happen. I can't even pretend, I'm sorry, to know what's going to happen. I think that we are in completely uncharted territory. And so, as I think I wrote the other day, that if somebody wanted to take all their money out of the market because they're worried, I'd say, "Well you know, that's not stupid."

I don't think you should do that. But I do think some level of cash is a reasonable idea, even if... What we're talking about is a 10 per cent correction in October or November, which is probably the least of what we're going to get. I mean those sorts of corrections happen all the time, and we're probably due for one I'd say. As to a 50 per cent correction, as there was in 2008, well I don't think so. But as I say, these are weird times. It's very difficult to say. So yeah, I think short answer is I think it's a reasonable strategy, Brian.

Jeff says, "Hi Alan. I note with the current trade war, you expect Trump will get a deal done so as to ensure that he has a better chance of winning the next US election. What are your thoughts about the contrarian view that the Chinese hold out, so that Trump loses the next election? It would appear to me that Xi does not have to get too concerned with time pressures as he is not operating in a democracy, and he then gets the win, gets rid of Trump and gets negotiating power. If this occurred, what's the likely impact on markets?"

Well, okay. So what I think is not so much that Trump will try to get a deal done. I think what I'm saying is that the whole thing from Trump's point of view is about re-election, and he will do whatever he thinks at the time will achieve his re-election. That may not be a deal. And I think he kind of flip flops a bit. Sometimes he thinks that the more popular thing is to be tough on China, and sometimes I think he reckons that the best thing would be if he does a deal.

So I'm not sure what Trump thinks. I don't think anyone does, probably even Trump himself doesn't know what he thinks. But what I'm saying is that it's not so much to do with... That getting a deal done is the best thing for Trump's re-election, it's that the whole thing is about Trump's re-election. And it's to do with what Trump thinks is going to be best for his re-election at the time, which could be either remaining tough and stringing out the trade war until next November, or getting a deal done at some point.

But you're right, it takes two to have a deal, and China has to come to the party. Trump continually says that China badly wants to do a deal. I don't think China really cares whether Trump's re-elected or not. I suppose on balance they'd prefer he wasn't. But I think they recognise that the actual trade war stuff is not really to do with trade war, it's to do with a much deeper issue, as I've been writing in the briefing. It's much deeper what's going on in America. What you might call the conservative political classes in America are determined to halt the rise of China, at least to show that, in my view, that communism is not successful.

I quoted Mike Pence, the Vice President, the other day, Saturday, where he was saying that after 1989, the Soviet Union collapsed, they were all in America optimistic that China would also collapse. Or the way they put it was, that the China would become free. That China would become democratic. And that there's no way, they thought, that an economically free capitalist country could remain undemocratic, and that was their view back then, this is in the 90s. It's now turned out that that's not the case. They're wrong. China is growing, continuing to grow, it's continuing to open up its economy to some extent, while remaining undemocratic.

It remains a dictatorship of the Communist Party. And so the conservative political classes, not just Trump, in America, have decided that enough is enough. They have to actually do something now. They've got to contain China. They've got to stop this spread, because otherwise their kind of ideology of free market capitalism looks to be under threat because the Chinese Communist Party governance model is successful. So that's really terrible.

So I think there are two levels to this. There's the trade war level, which has to do with the trade deficit, and they're kind of going at it with tariffs and so on, and there may be at some point a deal on that where China agrees to buy more soybeans, or buy more stuff from America. And to also open up its market a bit more and require less in the way of technology transfer and so on. There may be that kind of deal, but underlying it there's something deeper which will continue I think after Trump goes and maybe it won't be the same if a Democrat wins the presidency, but I don't think it's going to go away. So look, my view is that this is going to continue to be a problem for a while.

I don't think there's any short-term deal coming like this year. When the primaries get going early in the new year there may be a deal. I think that it's likely the deal won't hold. So I think that the trade situation, the US-China conflict, will continue to be a source of volatility in the markets for quite a while, for another year. I think that's what's likely to be the case. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe it all gets resolved and everything settles down, but I think it's more likely that it won't settle down, it won't get resolved, and it'll continue to be a problem.

So I've got a few questions now on Macquarie's share purchase plan, and Transurban's. Peter says, "What are your thoughts on the Macquarie SPP?" Chris says, "Do you think it's worth putting any money into the SPP?" And Sharon wants to know what my views are of the Transurban and Macquarie SPPs.

So Stephen Mayne, who writes about SPPs a lot, in his pieces for Eureka Report says, "If you're a shareholder of these businesses you should always take up the SPP, because they're always at a decent discount." And Macquarie's share purchase plan is at the lower of $120, or a 1 per cent discount from the five-day volume weighted average price.

So what that means is that it will always be in the money. It will always be at a discount. Either it's going to be... Because at the moment the Macquarie share price is $125, so the $120 is a discount of five bucks, and if that closes then it'll be at least... It'll be a minimum of 1 per cent. So you'll always get that 1 per cent, and the way Stephen approaches it is, that that's a gift from the company. You know, if you don't want to hang on to the year's, you can just sell them and take the money. It might be a couple of thousand bucks. It's just a gift from the company that you can just take as cash by selling the shares if you want to.

And so Stephen's approach is, and I agree with him, that if you're a Macquarie shareholder, you should definitely take it up and if you're a Transurban shareholder, the same applies. The pricing is slightly different. The discount is 2 per cent on the weighted average share price from the previous five days. The share price is currently $15 of Transurban. And for them it's 1470 or 2 per cent, which happens to be the same at the moment, 2 per cent is 30 cents, so it's basically the same. But that's a 30 cent discount. You might as well take it and if you don't want to hang on to the shares, sell them and take the cash.

Ian says, "Hi Alan, just read your Bega CEO interview. Honey and peanut butter sounds terrible." Come on, you're joking. Ian, look, I've been having honey and peanut butter since I was a wee baby and it's great. And Ian says, "Have you tried honey and Vegemite?" You've got to be joking, honey and Vegemite? That's sweet and sour. I suppose it's sweet and sour, you know? Maybe it's okay. I've never tried it though. "Or Vegemite and avocado." I have tried that, and as the Bega CEO said, "Vegemite and cheese is good too." Just saying. Anyway. "Why did you choose Josh Frydenberg for your book launch? Was it respect for the Office of the Treasurer, or was Wayne Swan not available?" God. "I found it quite surprising that you chose someone who seems to know nothing about how economies work, has played a hand in nobbling financial advice laws, and whose party seems determined to wreck universal superannuation in this country."

Well, okay. Let me explain. I know Josh, he's my local member and obviously I knew him before he was Treasurer. I think he's an okay Treasurer. I think he's learning, obviously he's got L plates on. I think he's learning fast, and I think there's a fair chance he'll be a really good treasurer if not a great treasurer in time. Wayne Swan was not a great treasurer, and I would never ask him to launch my book. But Josh I think was a very good choice. And I've got to say, he gave a great speech at the launch. He read the whole book from cover to cover and he talked about it, the whole thing, for half an hour intelligently. And really understood what I was on about. It was great.

I mean, it was one of the best book launches I've been to. Not that I've been to that many, but he was terrific and everyone at the event was so impressed. And my mate Chris, who can't stand the Liberal Party and couldn't stand Josh Frydenberg, he was horrified when I chose Frydenberg to launch the book and he thought about not coming for that reason. Came along, changed his mind completely. So Chris said to me afterwards that he thought Josh was great, and he's a convert. So there you go. As for... Look, I agree with you. I think their attitude towards superannuation is appalling. Couldn't agree more. I've attempted to talk Josh around on that subject and the Liberal Party has attempted to novel financial advice laws. I think they're on board now. They've seen the light as a result of the Royal Commission, so I do think that's kind of changed a bit. I don't think they are trying to novel financial advice laws anymore, but they certainly were and that is to their eternal shame that they did that. But there you go. So, I hope that satisfies you.

John says, "Hi, Alan. A friend of mine recently sent me a link to a YouTube video by Donald Amstad of Aberdeen Standard Investments in the UK. In this he refers to a lot of issues relating to the global economy which have been playing on my mind, but which consciously or subconsciously, I'm blindly ignoring. I'd really appreciate your views on his comments. Is Armageddon approaching or am I worrying unnecessarily? Thanks for all the efforts of you and your team. They are really, really appreciated. The video is at…” blah blah blah.

Now, for those who haven't seen the video, it's actually gone quite viral. There's a lot of people talking about this video. It's quite the thing this week, Mr Amstad. For those who haven't seen it, it'll be the first item in my research and diversions section in the briefing on Saturday, so check that out. Have a look at it there. I have looked at it. I have watched the video once. I need to view it once or twice more to just to take it in because there's a lot in it. It goes for about 18 minutes and he covers a lot of ground, but basically he is rounding up all of the reasons to be pessimistic.

Basically, the summary of it would be that it really is different this time. They usually say that those four words are the most dangerous four words in the investing language, that it's different this time. Well, it is different this time as he points out, we've got all this negative yielding debt, we've got bonds kind of at record lows. We've had and to some extent still have central banks printing money even though they'd said that they would never do it. This is something I've been on about for a while now, talking about how unusual, how weird and potentially how dangerous these times are.

I've also been saying that the central banks have kind of... The reason this is going on is because the central banks have kind of tried to abolish recessions, at least for the time being. So, it's certainly the case that central banks are on the side of investors and trying to prevent Armageddon and so far have succeeded. Now, what Donald Amstad says is that some kind of reset of the economy is inevitable in his view, which he says means that we're at the top of the roller coaster looking down. Because he reckons that a reset is going to be bad. Really bad.

Yeah. Look, to some extent I've sworn off making those kind of big statements. Partly because I did that at the end of 2011 and I said I'm getting out of equities. I announced in the Eureka Report that I was selling out of my shares. I was getting out because I thought there'd be a mother of all bear markets and I was wrong. The market took off the following year. 2012 was a great year and everyone who followed me, including me, was trying to scramble back into the market and cursing me. So, I got a lot of negative comments about that. I was ridiculed in the Financial Review, which fair enough, I deserved it. But what I missed was the way central banks basically rescued things, stopped there being a bear market through printing money and cutting interest rates and so on.

I mean, that's what happened in 2012. It was the central banks riding to the rescue and I never really thought they would. It didn't occur to me that that's what would happen. But it did happen, and really ever since then it's been money printing, interest rates coming down, European interest rates at -0.4, Japanese interest rates negative, Swiss interest rates negative. I mean, bond yields are negative, everything's gone negative.

Donald Amstad and a lot of people are saying, "Well, crikey, if there's another recession, they can't do anything because interest rates are already low." Well, I reckon of course they can do something. They can print some more money. The Fed hasn't been printing money for a couple of years. It could just start again and it could take the Fed funds rate to negative, because other countries have. The world hasn't come to an end. Sun comes up tomorrow morning. Europe has -0.4, what's to stop them having -2 or -5 per cent? I mean, it's like we're in totally uncharted territory. So, to some extent, I think Donald Amstad is kind of basing his views about the way things used to be and the old rules. But things have changed. It's different now. At some point, hopefully things will go back to normal. And I hope that things go back to normal smoothly without what Mr Amstad says is a reset. But look, I don't know.

So, when I rang the bell at the end of 2011, said everyone should get out or I said I was getting out of the market, the cost then was that you missed out on the updraft in 2012. And it was difficult because that was a good year for stocks and if you missed that, it was hard to get back in. It was not great. So, the question is, if you did that now because you were worried because you watch the Donald Amstad video and you went, "Oh crikey, I've got to get out," would there be a cost to that? Would you miss out on a 20 per cent updraft? And I think the answer is no. I might be wrong, might always be wrong, but I reckon there's not much danger. There's not much risk on the upside from where we stand now, seven years on. I think that most of the risk is on the downside.

So, although I'm not calling, I don't think there'll be a catastrophe, I think there'll probably be a correction at some point. But corrections are what always happen. I don't think there'll be, in the short term at least, a bear market or major crash. However, I don't think, nor do I think there'll be some sort of big blow off. It's hard to see that because the market's already quite expensive. Mind you, 1986, the market was expensive at the end of '86 and I remember people calling the market crash at the end of 1986. I remember that. People saying, "Oh, the market's gone too high. It's going to fall. There's going to be a crash." And what happened in '87? The market doubled from the beginning of '87 to the start of October. And then of course, we had market went down 30 per cent in basically two days in October '87. So, markets are very difficult to pick.

Gavin says, "Hi, Alan. Regarding super, what is the maximum amount you're allowed to put into super each year?"

I think it's 25,000. God, I can't remember. Sorry, Gavin, I'll ask if Greg's... Greg, could you Google this? Gavin, you can Google it. Crikey. It's easy to find. It's either 25,000 or 35,000. I can't remember what it is.

And what super fund would you suggest for growth?

Well, I think the winner of last year's superfund's top 10 stakes was QSuper. I think that's right. Hostplus has often won. I don't think it won last year, but it's close to it. I think Hostplus, QSuper, AustralianSuper are all double-digit return funds. But again, those things are published. The returns, the top 10 funds. Things are available on Google, so I'd suggest you have to check it out. Bearing in mind that what you find out there is the past returns. You find last year's return, which has really very little bearing on the future. I mean, I do say, although it's true, the past returns aren't a clear guide as to what's going to happen in future, they do tend to suggest a fund that knows what it's doing. That's really all you can do, I guess. You've got nothing else.

Gavin also says, "Also, 1414 Degrees. Can you check what is happening over there? Share price looks to be having a one way ticket down. The product looks to have huge potential, so I wonder if poor management is the issue."

Well, I interviewed Kevin Moriarty in July, so it's not that long ago. It's now September, so a couple months ago. So, if you go onto the website, search either 1414 Degrees or Moriarty, you'll find the interview with Kevin and you'll see it's up to date there. It is true that since the interview, shares have declined and it's been a bad 12 months for them. That is true.

The thing about things like 1414 Degrees, these are cash burners. It's burning about $700,000 a month, I think. At the end of June, it had $9.7 million in cash. It's obviously gone through a bit of cash since then. So, look, all these startup companies that have got a great product, that doesn't guarantee they've got a great business and as we've been observing around here, they've got to get through the valley of death. The valley of death is where you have a good product, but you've got to get to break even. And in the middle is this valley where you have to get cash to keep going to get to break even, and can you get the cash is the question?

Now, Kevin and his mob have got a bit of cash, as I say. They had $9.7 million, which is fine. That's nice. But they're going through $700,000 a month, so that's not going to last too long. It's going to last about a year and they'll need more. But look, I agree with you Gavin. It is a good product. I think it's a really interesting product. I personally have invested in really interesting products or businesses that have an interesting product that have gone bust because they haven't made it through the valley of death. And having a product with a huge potential, which clearly this company does, is not a guarantee that they're going to make it unfortunately. And so, I think the market's getting a bit worried.

I think in general, what's going on is the market's turning away from high risk propositions and obviously all cash burning startups are high risk by definition, particularly at the moment. So, that's, I suspect, what's going on. I mean, I couldn't really make a judgement of management. Kevin Moriarty sounds good. I haven't met him personally. I've spoken to him a few times on the phone. I've interviewed him at length. He sounds all right. I don't think poor management is the issue. I think cash is the issue as it always is with these businesses. It's all about cash. Can they make it? And I think the market's starting to get a bit worried about that.

David says, "You've spoken to someone about the Hostplus IFM infrastructure fund. Historical performance looks great. What is the risk that infrastructure as a class has run its race along with bonds and future returns will be subdued?"

There is clearly a risk of that because infrastructure is valued according to the risk free rate and as Donald Amstad points out, the risk free rate is kind of nowhere at the moment. There is no risk free rate and that means that infrastructure as it's fallen over the past decade, as bond yields have fallen, infrastructure has had a tailwind because the falling bond yields have led to higher and higher valuations of the infrastructure. And at some point that's going to go into reverse and as bond yields rise, the valuations of infrastructure will decline. So, that is true. The question is, when is it going to happen? I don't know.

I believe what we have is a bond bubble. Bubbles always lasts longer than you think, and then they kind of go bang and burst. What will cause that bond bubble to burst? Well, signs of inflation, I think. Signs that the economies are all going to recover and that inflation will start to rise. I think when that happens, bond yields will also rise.

However, against that, if the economy, if that's happening because the economy is recovering, the global economy, or the Australian or American economies, starting to do well, then so will the earnings of the infrastructure assets also do well. So you'll have a tension. You'll have on the one hand the valuations will come down, but on the other hand the earnings will rise. As to how that will unfold, I don't know. Possibly cancel each other out.

My view is that at least a part of everyone's portfolio should be in what I'd call real assets, if not a very large part of it. That is to say infrastructure, property, and various types of property. Things that are real, like toll roads, airports, buildings. This is defensive. Gold is also a defensive asset. A lot of people are putting money into gold and the thing’s taking off. Silver is taking off even more than gold, as we've been writing in the Eureka Report. And so real assets are where it's at, no doubt about it and I think that there's going to be increasing demand for infrastructure assets.

And the other thing about infrastructure is that in particular in America, but also here, there's a deficit of infrastructure. There needs to be more of it built. And so there's got to be opportunities to invest in good infrastructure, I think. So, I don't think, I certainly don't think the infrastructure as an asset class has run its race, but it is the case that if there is a bond correction and yields start to rise, then the valuations of infrastructure will come under pressure. That is true.

Mike says, this is a long question, "I've been a long time listener of The Money Cafe and a fan of your straight shooting analysis. I've asked for a copy of your book for Father's day." Well, I hope you got it. Father's Day the other day, so I hope you got the book. "I'm no financial expert, but I can see we are living in strange, unprecedented times. I have a fair bit of my wealth in cash at the moment, because I figure a crash must be around the corner, or will busts be a thing of the past? I'm still 15 to 20 years from retirement. Don't want to commit to invest in the market if it is near its top. I know you and James suggest time in the market rather than timing, but I wonder what the difference would be of putting a million in the market at the top in 2007 compared to February 2009? What would those investments be now? For the moment, I would drip feed money into shares and perversely hope for a big market correction. Does this strategy same sound?"

Yes, it does. That seems a very good strategy, Mike. Market tops and bottoms can only be seen in hindsight. You only can talk about the top in 2007 and the bottom in February, it's actually March 2009, because we can look back and see that that's what happened. But nobody knew what was going to happen and you don't know in the future what's going to happen. So the tops and bottoms are great if you can find them, but you can't. The truth is they're impossible to pick.

So you're absolutely right. Drip feeding into the market is the way to go. And 15 to 20 years is a long time. This is not retiring next year or the year after. If you're talking about 15 to 20 years, you can withstand a bit of volatility, in the meantime. It is true that, you know, it did take 12 years for the Australian market to regain its peak, 2007 peak. So, if you're buying... If you bought every... If you put your entire fund into the market at the top, before a crash, as happened in 2008, then you're in trouble. Absolutely. You're not going to get your money back for 15 years. That's true. It's a bad idea. So, don't do it. Don't put all your money in at a particular point in time. Take it easy. Drip feed it and perhaps even wait, because there probably will be a correction at some point in the next few months, in which case, that's when to buy.

"Any particular industries you think are good value now for long term investing?"

Yeah, I think I'd look for, I'd look at China. I think China's just on the runway. I think obviously China has grown a lot in the past 20 or 30 years, but I think there's a fair way to go there and China's middle classes are becoming richer and richer. So resources and other companies that are exporting to China and have a good window into China, such as Treasury Wine Estate, who have established a good business there.

I think food is an important industry. There aren't many opportunities to invest in food in Australia. There's a few but not enough, I think and a few of them are a bit sort of dodgy, I guess. So food, I think, is an important long term theme. Technology is difficult, but clearly we're in the middle of possibly even just the start of the fourth industrial revolution. And there's a long way to go with technology, whether you should invest in hardware or software, probably software, because there's the marginal cost of software is zero. So look for companies that have a long runway ahead of them, zero marginal cost, and a good solid corner of a particular market. That'd be where I'd look.

George says, "Hi Alan. Regarding the current IPO for Magellan High Conviction Trust where those investing in the IPO will get either seven and a half per cent or 2.5 per cent free additional shares. Doesn't this guarantee that the shares will actually list at a discount to NTA? That is the total dollars initially raised at a dollar fifty a share will be spread across the greater number of shares than actually subscribed for. So it wouldn't it be better to wait this out and buy on the market after the IPO on the assumption that the shares will trade closer to their NTA?"

Good question, George, and the answer is I think, no, that's not right, because the question of the discount or premium to NTA has to do with demand, and they'll only be a discount, not because of some mathematical thing about the bonuses that people are getting, the seven and a half per cent, two and a half per cent. I don't think that's relevant. I think that what's going to happen is the shares will trade at a discount or premium, according to the demand.

My view would be, this is just a relatively uninformed view, that I think the demand for these things will be quite high and I think that the seven and a half per cent bonus is probably a good thing. It is true that LICs in general trading on average at quite large discounts. There aren't many premiums at the moment in LICs. So it is possible that for that reason, because there are a lot of LICs around, the discount will close, or that there will be a discount.

So look, maybe the best thing to do is hedge your bets. If you say you wanted to own a thousand of these things, maybe take up 500 in the offer and wait and see if you can buy 500 afterwards, just to hedge yourself. That's all I’d possibly suggest.

Sharon says, "What is your view on iron ore given the global slowdown, in particular BHP, Rio, and Fortescue. Is this the right time to take some profits?"

Well, Sharon, I would say that the iron ore price has already come down an awful long way. It's down at 90 bucks. It was $122, so it's actually quite close to where it was. So I reckon the boat has been missed. BHP, Rio and Fortescue are also well down. Also, all of those stocks are no longer the kind of the pure play on iron ore that they used to be, because of the way they're going with dividends. They've been paying out so much in dividends, they've become income stocks.

And so it isn't the case anymore that they will rise and fall purely with iron ore, because they're being buttressed by their dividends. So look, as I say, I think you've already missed the peak of the iron ore price and the peak of their share prices. So, I don't think so. I think that it's not so much a global slowdown we're worried about. It's China in relation to iron ore, and there's no reason to think that they're going into recession in China. I think that the government there is well in control of what's going on, and they don’t want to have a recession, so they won't.

And there's a very long question from Winston here, which is quite interesting. I'll just read the first part of it, but I might actually put it into the briefing because it's quite interesting. He's got some stuff about investing for takeovers, which he's doing now. Winston is, and I think that's really good. But he says, "My name's Winston Anderson, a long term InvestSMART tragic." Well good on you, Winston. "I've only written fan mail about five or six times in my life. What has prompt me here is your magnificent and informative article, What a Month, et cetera. The first question is how many months did it take you to write it? I was particularly amazed at the advantage overall the article has given me an understanding of why Xi and Trump are behaving the way they are."

Now, thank you very much, Winston. That was very nice. It takes me a week to write these things. I start on Monday and do bits and pieces over the whole week and finish up on Friday. So I do put a lot of effort into it. I really, really enjoy doing the weekend briefing. I always have. I've been doing them how long? More than 10 years, and it's the most enjoyable thing I do, to be honest. Anyway, thanks for that. I appreciate the feedback and I'll put your note into my briefing this Saturday, just so everyone can read it. I think it's worth reading.

And finally, Mark says, "How are you protecting your wealth during these times of uncertainty? Gold miners, physical bullion, gold, ETFs, your thoughts?"

I own a bit of residential property. That's I think one of the best investments in the moment. I think bullion appears to be good. Gold miners, likewise. So yes, gold ETF, I think gold is a good idea, Mark. I'm not a big gold man and myself. I don't really get it but there you go. Clearly gold is still seen as a safe haven investment for money, and as an alternative to fiat currencies, which are all over the place. And so yes, that's one way to do it. I think in time, probably Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, some of them, not all of them, but a few cryptocurrencies will start to become that, because they are separate to the fiat currency system, but they're not there yet. Bitcoin's 10,000 bucks a pop. It's not nothing, and it's had a good year, that's for sure.

But yeah, in general, I would say real assets. Mark, this is what I'm talking about. Real assets, property, gold, infrastructure. Not paper, and certainly not cash burning businesses. That's not where you're going to protect your money. I'm saying you should... A good business, just because it's really burning cash doesn't mean it's a bad business, but it's certainly riskier. That's for sure. So those are my thoughts.

Thanks everyone for the questions. It's been a long go this time, three quarters of an hour, heavens above. It's time to get going. You've got things to do. Thanks for your company. I'll see you next week. And don't forget the live stream was general advice, not personal.