Asymmetric Edge portfolio update: up 6.50% in November, 76.33% since launch (in 8 months)

November portfolio update came a bit later than normal due to my sick leave, apologies for that.

November was quite a ride with a solid performance by the end of the month. The combined portfolio hit a 6.50% return (compared to S&P500 3.05%)

It shows that the different positions are complementing each other quite well. By looking at everything together, we can see where the real strengths are and in my opinion this approach will help guide smarter moves going forward.

This cumulative performance of the Asymmetric Edge portfolio to 76.33% since launch on April 10, 2025.

It is more than double the S&P500 performance (30.01%) in the same period.

So, portfolio continues to perform and in less than 8 months, the portfolio has already more than doubled what many investors would hope to see in a strong year.

Long stock positions still make up the largest share of the portfolio, while the short option positions come from the Milk the Watchlist service.

My long positions continue to lean heavily into Energy, Health Care and Basic Materials, reflecting my conviction in these sectors.

This is how the performance of individual holdings looks like (with dividend reinvestment and currency fluctuations included):

Paid subscribers: scroll down for the summary with full information

Transactions

• No new purchases in November

• I closed out ATKR 0.00%↑ at $66.89. Originally I was assigned into this position at $65.00 and I made DCA, so my total return was 7.41%, which is pretty OK especially considering the fact that the stock was around $55 in August.

• I moderately traded PUT options in November. 1 option expired and 1 new transaction was made, which will expire in December.

Update on the positions - 2025 November

Kinross Gold (KGC) — November update

Performance

• Share price move:

  • 31 October: $23.24

  • 28 November: $28.11

• Change: +$4.87 per share

• Return: roughly +21% for November.

This is a very strong move for a single month, especially in a large, established gold producer. The stock has materially outperformed most broad equity indices and roughly matched or outpaced the move in gold miners generally.

What happened in November?

At a high level, the November strength in KGC can be broken down into three main drivers:

1. Macro & gold price tailwinds

   • Expectations for future Fed rate cuts or at least an extended pause have generally been supportive of gold.

   • Real yields have eased off their peaks, which historically supports both gold and gold miners.

   • Risk sentiment has been mixed, but any concerns about growth, geopolitics, or financial stability tend to favor defensive, hard-asset plays like gold producers.

   KGC, as a senior producer with solid leverage to the gold price, naturally benefits when:

   • spot gold is firm or rising and

   • the market starts to price in a friendlier long‑term rate and inflation backdrop.

2. Company-specific factors
   While exact news flow can vary week to week, KGC’s November performance generally reflects:

   • Improving sentiment toward its asset base (stable, diversified production profile and clearer growth/optimization path at key operations).

   • Operational execution: the market has more confidence that KGC can meet or modestly beat its production and cost guidance and continue to enhance margins if gold prices stay firm.

   • Balance sheet & capital returns: investors tend to reward:

     • Lower leverage / improving net debt profile.

     • Stable or improving free cash flow.

     • The potential for higher dividends, share buybacks, or both over time as cash flows grow.

3. Positioning & technicals

   • After prior underperformance relative to gold and some peers, KGC entered November with a reasonable valuation and less crowded positioning.

   • As gold sentiment improved and flows moved back into miners, KGC’s beta to the group plus its earlier discount helped drive an outsized move.

   • From a technical standpoint, the break above recent resistance levels likely triggered trend and momentum buyers.

Overall, November’s rally looks more like:

• A repricing upward to reflect a better gold tape, improved sentiment and more appreciation for KGC’s free cash flow potential,
  instead of a one-off idiosyncratic spike.

Is the thesis unchanged?

Core thesis: largely unchanged, but validated and somewhat de-risked.

My KGC thesis was something along the following lines:

• Leverage to gold with:

  • A diversified, improving portfolio of mines,

  • A solid balance sheet,

  • Growing or at least stable production and reserves,

  • Execution improvements and cost control, and

  • Upside to free cash flow and capital returns in a supportive gold price environment,

then November’s move supports that thesis rather than invalidating it.

Key elements still intact:

1. Leverage to gold:
   KGC continues to offer attractive torque to higher gold prices. As long as spot gold remains firm and/or trends higher, KGC’s earnings and FCF outlook improves disproportionately.

2. Operational profile:
   There’s no major negative change to the mine portfolio, production guidance or cost outlook implied by November’s price action. If anything, a strong performance window typically indicates:

   • Market confidence in operational delivery and

   • Greater willingness to pay for KGC’s long-lived asset base.

3. Balance Sheet / FCF / Capital returns:
   The fundamental story of:

   • Deleveraging or maintaining a conservative balance sheet,

   • Converting higher margins into free cash flow and

   • Potentially returning more capital to shareholders
     still underpins the equity case.

4. Valuation vs. quality:
   After a ~21% move in a month, the short-term upside is naturally more limited, but the long-term thesis hasn’t changed. The stock has simply moved closer to “fair value” or to the high end of your prior fair value range.

How to think about KGC now

• If you’re a long-term holder (mid-cycle gold exposure, 2–5+ year horizon):

  • The recent move does not break the thesis.

  • You might simply:

    • Revisit your target price / fair value range.

    • Decide whether the risk/reward at ~$28 vs. $23 still meets your hurdle.

    • Consider trimming only if position size or portfolio concentration has grown too large.

• If you’re more tactical / trading-oriented:

  • After a 20%+ monthly run, short-term risk of:

    • A pullback,

    • Consolidation, or

    • Rotation within the gold complex
      is higher.

  • Support/resistance zones, volume and gold price momentum become more important for timing.

---

SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) - November update

Performance

• GLD on 31 October: $368.12

• GLD on 28 November: $387.88

That is a move of about +5.4% in less than a month.

For context, spot gold in November was up roughly 5% globally, sitting just below new all‑time highs around the equivalent of $4,200+ per ounce by the end of the month, after a year of extraordinary gains of close to 60% year to date by late November.

So, GLD basically did what it should do: track the gold price with a small tracking error.

What drove gold (and GLD) in November?

Here’s the simplified story of why gold ripped higher and dragged GLD with it.

a) Fed rate‑cut expectations ramped up

By late November, markets were pricing a very high probability of a Fed rate cut in December. Several Fed officials, including New York Fed President John Williams and Fed Governor Christopher Waller, openly signaled that ongoing labor market weakness and softer data could justify a cut, which pushed expectations toward an easing bias.

Why this matters:

• Lower policy rates → lower real yields

• Lower real yields → reduced opportunity cost of holding gold

• That is usually bullish for gold and therefore for GLD.

In my opinion, this was the single biggest macro driver in November.

b) Ongoing government shutdown and weak confidence = safe‑haven bid 😬

The long U.S. government shutdown and the messy fiscal backdrop kept risk sentiment fragile. At the same time:

• Labor data was mixed, with signs of weakening jobs momentum.

• Consumer confidence fell to its lowest level since April, with the Conference Board noting ten straight months of declines.

So, investors saw:

• Slowing growth risk,

• Political dysfunction,

• and a Fed that might be forced to cut.

That combination usually supports safe‑haven assets, especially when equity markets look frothy after a long AI-driven run.

I think this is part of why dips in gold were quickly bought in November.

c) Dollar softness and technical momentum in gold

The U.S. dollar softened in November as rate‑cut odds rose. Gold, priced in dollars, tends to benefit when the dollar eases and that pattern repeated here.

Technically:

• Gold staged a sharp rebound from late‑October lows, rallying more than 6% and testing key resistance zones in November.

• The trend was firmly up and momentum indicators were overbought but still pointing higher.

Momentum plus macro is a very powerful mix. Once gold broke back above key levels, trend followers and quant strategies likely added fuel, which GLD captured.

d) Structural demand: central banks and ETF flows

At the bigger-picture level, 2025 has been one of gold’s strongest years since the 1970s, driven by:

• Heavy central bank buying,

• Geopolitical stress (Eastern Europe, Middle East),

• A weaker dollar and

• Persistent worries about U.S. debt and fiscal policy.

ETF demand (including GLD and peers) has seen large net inflows over the year, adding hundreds of tonnes of gold holdings globally, though still below past cycle peaks.

My take: November’s move in GLD was not some random spike. It sat on top of a very strong existing bull market in gold.

What happened with the gold price itself in November?

Zooming in on the month:

• Gold started November just above $4,000 (global spot prices, post‑Q4 pullback).

• It retested the $4,200+ area by late November, coming close to October’s record highs around $4,250.

• By 28 November, it had logged about a 5% gain for the month, with four consecutive up months in a row and was hovering near record territory again.

Key micro‑drivers during the month:

• Mid‑November: gold made a strong push to around $4,240, after the shutdown ended and as the market leaned harder into Fed cuts.

• Late‑month data: A stronger‑than‑expected U.S. jobs release briefly hit gold, but weakness in other indicators plus dovish Fed commentary quickly restored the bullish trend.

There was also a rare CME outage that temporarily disrupted futures trading, widened spreads, and added a bit of short‑term volatility, but it did not change the underlying trend.

So, from a GLD holder’s point of view:

• The metal itself was strong.

• GLD simply rode that wave higher.

Is the GLD / gold thesis unchanged, stronger or broken?

Here’s my honest view, speaking as a long‑time investor:

The core thesis for GLD

Most people own GLD for some mix of:

1. Hedge against macro and geopolitical risk

2. Hedge against currency debasement / fiscal risk

3. Diversifier vs equities and bonds

Has anything in November changed that? In my opinion, no, if anything it has reinforced the thesis.

Why I think the thesis is still intact (and arguably stronger):

• The world in November looked more fragile, not less,

  • Government shutdown,

  • Weakening confidence data,

  • Persistent geopolitical tension.

• The Fed is moving from “higher for longer” towards an easing stance, which historically is supportive of gold.

• Central banks remain net buyers and gold is still being treated as a strategic reserve asset.

All of that is aligned with the original thesis.

Is it still good value, or becoming a “value trap” at high prices?

This is the key question.

A “value trap” in gold / GLD terms would mean:

• You are buying after a big run,

• The macro environment normalizes quickly (higher real yields, stronger dollar, less geopolitical stress),

• And inflows reverse, pushing gold down while you sit on losses.

Today, we have to admit:

• Gold has had an extraordinary year, with returns north of 60% and many new all‑time highs.

• Positioning is crowded, sentiment is bullish and technicals are somewhat overbought.

So, my view, keeping it practical:

• Short term (next few months):

  • I would not be surprised by a sharp correction of 10–15% in gold if:

    • The Fed disappoints on cuts,

    • The dollar bounces, or

    • There is a “good news” wave on growth or geopolitics.

  • Buying heavily after this big move is risky and position sizing matters a lot.

• Medium term (12–24 months):

  • As long as:

    • Real rates stay low or grind lower,

    • Fiscal worries remain,

    • And geopolitical risk is high,

  • I think the upside / protection case is still valid.

  • Even the World Gold Council’s base case sees a supportive environment unless you get a very clean “reflation + strong dollar” scenario.

So, I wouldn’t call GLD a value trap here. I would call it a strong asset late in a very powerful run, where new money should be a bit more cautious, and existing holders should think about risk management.

---

VanEck Gold Miners ETF (GDX) - November update

Performance in November 📈

• Price on 31 October: $72.06

• Price on 28 November: $83.23

That is a move of about +15.5% in less than a month. For an ETF full of miners, that is a strong month, but not unusual when things line up for the sector.

So, if you held through November, you basically captured a classic “beta to gold” move, where miners amplified what was happening in the metal.

What drove the move? What actually happened

Here’s how I would break it down in simple terms:

a) Gold price and macro backdrop

GDX lives and dies by the gold price and the macro backdrop.

In November, the narrative was roughly:

• Markets started to price in a friendlier Fed path (more confident about cuts / no more hikes).

• Real yields eased from the peak levels we saw earlier in the year.

• The dollar wasn’t screaming higher every day.

All of that is good for gold. When real yields calm down, the opportunity cost of holding gold drops, and money rotates into the metal and the miners. Miners typically react faster and more violently than the metal itself.

My take: The November rally in GDX was mainly macro + gold price driven, not suddenly amazing company-specific news. Which is fine, that is exactly what this ETF is supposed to give you.

b) Risk sentiment and “hedge buying”

We also saw:

• Ongoing geopolitical tension and uncertainty.

• Growing worries about the economic slowdown.

• Equities still at elevated valuations in many sectors.

That backdrop keeps gold in play as a portfolio hedge. Some capital that was sitting on the sidelines or hiding in cash, started to look again at precious metals and miners.

When flows come back into the space, GDX tends to catch them quickly, since it is one of the most liquid gold miner ETFs with large assets under management and high volume, as you can also see from up-to-date profiles like.

c) Company news under the surface

Under the hood, November also had:

• Ongoing Q3 earnings digestion for many large gold miners.

• A generally positive message on cost control and free cash flow at current or slightly higher gold prices.

• No major disaster at a top-weight holding that would derail the whole ETF.

There was no single “killer” headline, like a huge M&A deal or blow-up, that explained the move. It was more a combination of macro tailwinds, a stable set of fundamentals and flows coming back.

Does the thesis still hold or is this a value trap? 🎯

Let’s revisit the basic GDX thesis in plain English:

Own a basket of global gold miners that should outperform gold in a bullish or even mildly supportive gold environment, thanks to operational leverage.

Now, after a 15.5% monthly jump, is that still attractive? Here’s how I see it.

a) The core thesis: unchanged

The structural case is still there:

1. Operational leverage to gold
   When gold goes up 10%, miners can still move 20–30%, because:

   • Most of their costs are relatively fixed in the short term.

   • Extra gold price mostly falls to the bottom line.

2. Production profiles and projects
   The ETF holds the larger, more established miners. These names:

   • Generally have multi-year reserves and ongoing development projects.

   • Are still positioned to benefit if gold stays strong or grinds higher into 2026, which aligns with the ongoing gold bull thesis seen in commentary across the space.

3. Valuation vs history
   After this move, miners are no longer “guess what, everything is on clearance” cheap, but:

   • They still do not look as expensive as they were in prior peaks when gold spiked and enthusiasm went crazy.

   • You are not paying bubble multiples for most of the underlying companies.

In my opinion, the long-term thesis for GDX is intact: if you believe gold will stay elevated or trend higher over the next few years, owning miners via GDX still makes sense.

b) Where you need to be realistic

This is where investors get trapped:

• Miners are very volatile. A month like November can easily be followed by:

  • A 10–15% pullback on no major news.

  • Or a sharp correction if gold has a quick drop.

• Cost inflation is not “gone.”
  Energy, labor and materials costs still matter. Margin expansion is not automatic, even with higher gold.

• Gold itself is driven by macro mood swings.
  If markets suddenly price in:

  • Higher for longer rates again, or

  • A much stronger dollar,

  then the GDX rally can retrace quite fast.

So, I would not treat November’s move as “proof the trade can only go up now.” That’s how GDX becomes a psychological value trap for many people: they buy after a squeeze, then panic on the next 12% dip.

c) Is it a value trap right now?

For me, a real value trap would require:

• Structurally broken business models for the underlying miners, or

• A long period where gold is weak and costs stay high, crushing margins, or

• Massive equity dilution and poor capital allocation that permanently destroys shareholder value.

We are not seeing that on a broad ETF level. Yes, there are weaker companies in the basket, but on aggregate:

• The sector is generating real cash flow at current gold prices.

• Balance sheets at many large miners are stronger than in past cycles.

• Capital discipline has, so far at least, been decent compared to previous booms.

So, my take: GDX is not a value trap here. It is a high-beta, high-volatility way to express a bullish view on gold and on miners’ cash flows. That is risky, but it is not the same as “cheap for a reason and will stay cheap forever.”

---

iShares Silver Trust (SLV) - November update

Performance in November

From 31 October to 28 November:

• Start: $44.01

• End: $51.21

• Move: +$7.20, which is roughly +16.4% in less than a month

For an ETF backed by physical silver, that is a very strong monthly move. It tells you two things:

1. Silver is in a powerful bull phase.

2. Flows into SLV and the broader silver complex are still very much alive.

In my opinion, this kind of move in such a short time is not “normal noise”. It reflects a real repricing of silver as a strategic asset, not just a quick speculative spike.

What happened in November and why SLV moved

SLV simply tracks silver, so the “story” is really the silver market:

a) Silver ripping higher to record levels
By late November, silver prices were trading above $55/oz, hitting new all‑time highs and massively outperforming gold and equities year to date. SLV’s own write‑ups and market commentary show:

• Silver up around 70–80% YTD into late November.

• SLV price up over 80% YTD, with total return in that ballpark as well.

• Silver is now clearly outperforming gold in this precious metals bull leg.

b) Macro tailwinds: weaker dollar, rate‑cut expectations and inflation worries

Across November, markets leaned harder into a story of:

• Fed likely to cut rates in the coming months, which lowers real yields and makes non‑yielding assets like silver more attractive.

• Persistent inflation, especially core inflation stubbornly above target, keeps the “hard‑asset hedge” narrative alive.

• A softer US dollar, which tends to support all dollar‑denominated commodities, including silver.

So, big picture, SLV is riding:

• Lower expected real rates

• Ongoing inflation fears

• A weaker dollar

• Heavy investor demand for safe‑haven and “debasement‑hedge” assets

c) Structural story: silver as both “money” and critical industrial metal

This is, in my view, the core of the long‑term thesis and very relevant to November’s strength:

1. Chronic supply deficits

   • The silver market has been in multi‑year structural deficit, with annual deficits stacked up over several years, leading to a cumulative shortfall of hundreds of millions of ounces.

   • A lot of silver supply is by‑product from other metals, so miners cannot just “turn on the tap” when prices spike.

2. Industrial demand from green and tech sectors

   • Solar / PV, EVs, power electronics, 5G, data centers.

   • Industrial demand is now over 50% of total silver demand, increasingly driven by green technologies.

   • Some projections say solar alone could absorb a huge chunk of global reserves over coming decades if current tech and installation trends continue.

3. Safe‑haven and monetary demand

   • At the same time, investors are buying silver as a hedge against inflation, debt and geopolitical risk.

   • ETF holdings, including SLV, have seen strong inflows as investors seek exposure without holding physical bars and coins.

So, November’s move is not in isolation. It is another step in a bigger repricing of silver’s role in the global system.

News and events specifically relevant to SLV

SLV itself is a passive, physically backed trust, so there is no management “execution” story like with a company. The key SLV‑specific points are:

• NAV and price followed silver higher.

• Market commentary highlights strong inflows and high trading volumes in SLV as the go‑to vehicle for large and small investors who want silver exposure without storage and insurance hassle.

• The gold‑to‑silver ratio compressed further, marking silver’s outperformance and pushing more “ratio traders” into silver, often via SLV.

We did not get any negative structural news on SLV itself in November, like:

• Custodian issues

• Structure changes

• Fee hikes

So the ETF vehicle is doing what it is supposed to do: track the metal tightly and provide liquid access.

Is the thesis unchanged, stronger, or turning into a trap?

• The macro piece (inflation, dovish Fed tilt, weak dollar, geopolitical risk) is not just intact, it is being reinforced.

• The industrial demand story is being highlighted more and more in mainstream coverage, not less. That is usually what happens in the early and middle parts of a structural bull, not at the very end.

• The structural deficit argument is holding up, with no clear sign that supply is catching up quickly.

So, in my opinion, the core SLV thesis is not broken at all; it is actually playing out.

---

Aberdeen Standard Physical Platinum Shares ETF (PPLT) - November update

Performance in November

• 31 October: $143.54

• 28 November: $152.59

That is a +6.3% move in November. For a single month in a niche metal ETF, that is a pretty decent run.

PPLT tracks the spot price of physical platinum, so this move is essentially the platinum price moving higher, minus tiny noise from fees and spreads.

Volatility was still there intramonth, but the direction was clearly up.

What moved PPLT in November?

PPLT is just stored platinum in a vault, so the story is all about:

• industrial demand (autos, especially catalytic converters),

• clean energy themes (fuel cells, hydrogen),

• and supply constraints (South Africa in particular).

From what we’ve seen in late 2025, platinum has been outperforming other metals because of a mix of:

1. Industrial and green demand

   • Ongoing demand from internal-combustion and hybrid vehicles (platinum in catalytic converters).

   • Structural story around hydrogen and fuel cells using platinum as a key catalyst.

   • Investors looking for “green metals” exposure beyond copper and silver, and platinum is slowly moving back on the radar.

2. Supply constraints and concentration risk

   • Around 70% of global platinum supply comes from South Africa, which regularly faces issues with power, labor and infrastructure.

   • Any hint of disruption or cost pressure at South African miners tends to be supportive for prices.

3. Relative value vs gold and silver

   • Gold and silver had already run a lot earlier in 2025, and some investors started rotating into platinum as the “cheaper” precious metal with more industrial upside.

   • In 2025 PPLT has actually been outshining both GLD and SLV on the year.

   • November looks like a continuation of that theme: “if I missed gold, what else can I buy that is still not at all‑time highs?”

4. Macro backdrop

   • Mixed growth data, but still solid enough that industrial metals are not being dumped.

   • Inflation and geopolitical noise are keeping precious metals as a whole in demand.

   • Dollar wobbles and shifting rate expectations tend to help anything priced in USD, including platinum.

So, the November move in PPLT is not about company earnings or management decisions, it is simply platinum catching a bid from:

• slightly better sentiment,

• ongoing tight-ish supply,

• and investors hunting for under‑owned assets.

Is the thesis unchanged, better or broken?

Let’s recap the usual PPLT / platinum thesis in simple terms:

1. You get pure exposure to physical platinum

   • PPLT holds allocated physical platinum bars in London, no futures, no miners, no leverage.

2. Platinum is still well below its 2008 all‑time high

   • Unlike gold, which has been not far from records, platinum is still trading at a big discount to those levels.

   • So, the long‑term thesis is usually: “this is a cyclical, industrial precious metal that is cheap versus history and versus gold.”

3. Industrial + green energy angle

   • Auto catalysts, chemical industry, electronics.

   • Hydrogen / fuel cell applications as a long‑term kicker, which several articles have flagged as a structural driver for platinum demand.

My view, after this November move:

• The thesis is intact, maybe even slightly stronger.
  A +6% month, driven by fundamental themes we already liked (industrial demand, supply constraints, relative value), reinforces the idea that platinum can rerate as more investors pay attention.

• This is not “too much too fast” yet.
  A single strong month does not make it overpriced, especially given:

  • the historical high is still far away,

  • and this is a metal that can move 10–20% in relatively short periods.

• Key risks are unchanged:

  • If global growth slows more than expected, industrial demand could soften, and platinum can give back gains quickly.

  • Platinum is more thinly traded than gold, so flows in and out of ETFs like PPLT can exaggerate moves.

  • Auto sector shifts faster than expected towards technologies that use less platinum, or substitute metals.

So, in my opinion:

PPLT is still more “potential value” than “value trap” at this stage.
November’s performance looks like a healthy leg higher within a still‑underappreciated long‑term story, not a blow‑off top.

---

Teekay Tankers (TNK) — November update

Performance

TNK drifted down over November even though it briefly hit a fresh high mid‑month. So the pattern was basically:

• Strong run into early/mid‑November, new 52‑week high around 63–64 USD.

• Then some profit‑taking and a pullback into the high‑50s by the end of the month.

• 31 October: 61.00 USD

• 28 November: 57.67 USD

That is a monthly drop of about 5.5%, in a stock that is still up strongly on a 12‑month view and sitting not too far below its new 52‑week high of 63.71 USD set on 20 November.

So, what happened in November, and is the thesis still intact or turning into a value trap? Here’s my take.

Given how cheap the stock still looks on current earnings multiples (about 5–6x trailing EPS, with net margin ~31% and ROE ~18%), this move looks sentiment‑driven, not “business broke” driven.

In my opinion, this was a classic “strong results already priced in, market locks in profits” month.

What actually happened: fundamentals vs market mood

a) Q3 results still fresh in investors’ minds

Teekay reported Q3 2025 at the very end of October, so November trading was essentially the market digesting that report. Q3 was objectively strong:

• Net income up sharply versus Q2, supported by both strong crude tanker rates and gains on vessel sales.

• Teekay sold three older Suezmax tankers for about 97 million USD, booking a sizeable gain, and bought a 2017 Suezmax plus the remaining 50% of a VLCC JV for roughly 127 million USD.

• The CEO called it their “best quarterly results so far this year”, helped by strong spot tanker rates as seaborne crude volumes increased after OPEC+ production cuts were unwound.

Operationally, they also:

• Locked in some attractive time‑charters (e.g. Suezmax at ~42,500 USD/day, Aframax in the low‑30k/day range).

• Entered Q4 with roughly half of available days already fixed at very healthy spot levels (mid‑40k/day for Suezmax, mid‑30k/day for Aframax/LR2).

• Ended Q3 with ~976 million USD liquidity, most of that in cash and undrawn credit, which is big for a ~1.8–1.9 billion USD market cap company.

So the key point: November price weakness did not come from bad news. If anything, the fundamentals exiting Q3 were very solid.

b) Dividend, capital returns and balance sheet

The board once again declared a 0.25 USD quarterly dividend for Q3 2025, payable in November to shareholders of record in early November. Earlier in the year they had also paid a special dividend (Q1 2025), showing a willingness to share excess cash with shareholders.

Balance sheet:

• Debt is low, liquidity high and management keeps stressing “low cash‑flow break‑even levels” and strong optionality for fleet renewal, buybacks or more special dividends going forward.

• Sector‑wide, many tanker peers still have more leverage than Teekay, which to me is a quiet competitive advantage if rates soften.

So, from a capital allocation angle, nothing in November suggests a thesis break. If anything, the story of “earn well, keep leverage modest, pay out a decent chunk” stayed intact.

c) Macro and sector noise in November

November looked like a “macro wobble” month more than a TNK‑specific month:

• Crude price expectations, OPEC+ headlines, and interest‑rate noise all moved sentiment around cyclicals.

• Tanker equities had already re‑rated higher in 2025, so some investors likely rotated out of shipping and into more beaten‑down sectors after a strong run.

Is the thesis unchanged, better or broken?

Let’s break the TNK thesis into simple pieces and see if anything changed in November.

Thesis pillar 1: Tight crude tanker market and structurally longer trade routes

• The rate backdrop remains strong. Q3 saw “counter‑seasonally” high spot rates, mainly because crude flows have been re‑routed after sanctions and OPEC+ changes, which lengthen voyage distances and absorb tonnage.

• Teekay explicitly guided that Q4 spot rates had strengthened further into early Q4.

In my opinion, nothing in November data suggests that the crude tanker cycle suddenly turned down. The market knows rates are high, which is why the stock re‑rated earlier this year, but structurally the cycle still looks favorable.

Verdict: Thesis intact, arguably strengthened.

Thesis pillar 2: Capital allocation and disciplined balance sheet

• Regular 0.25 USD quarterly dividend continues.

• History of special dividends when cash builds.

• Actively selling older ships at good prices and re‑cycling into newer tonnage and strategic assets (like the remaining 50% of the VLCC JV).

• Massive liquidity for the size of the company, so plenty of flexibility.

What I think: this is what you want from a shipping name in a good market. Take money off the table, de‑risk the fleet, keep leverage in check, and pay shareholders. November did not bring any negative surprise here.

Verdict: Thesis intact.

Thesis pillar 3: Valuation?

Some quick, rounded numbers from current data:

• EPS (TTM): ~9.3 USD

• Price (late Nov): 57.67 USD

• P/E (trailing): around 6x

• ROE: roughly 17–18%

• Net margin: about 31%

So the stock is:

• cheap versus the broader market,

• cheap versus its own returns on equity,

• and still generating strong cash flows in a firm rate environment.

Right now:

• Forward visibility on Q4 is solid because a big chunk of days are already fixed at high levels.

• Fleet renewal and disciplined leverage reduce the blow if the cycle turns.

• TNK is not chasing ultra‑aggressive growth, which helps avoid the classic shipping mistake of destroying the cycle by ordering too much steel.

My take: still looks like good value, provided you accept that this is a cyclical name and that earnings will not stay at peak levels forever. You have to size it knowing volatility is part of the deal.

---

Permian Resources (PR) — November update

Performance

From 31 October to 28 November, PR moved from $12.56 to $14.49, a gain of about 15.4% in under a month.

For an established producer, that is a very strong move in a short period. It tells me three things:

1. The market is getting more comfortable with the story again after previous volatility and the secondary offering earlier in the year.

2. The latest fundamentals and guidance are being priced in, not just the oil price.

3. Energy is slowly coming back on the radar as an “under-owned but cash-generative” sector.

So, this was not just a random bounce in my view, it was a re-rating move backed by solid news flow.

What happened in November?

November was busy for PR and most of it was positive.

a) Strong Q3 2025 results and guidance bump

On 5 November, Permian Resources reported strong Q3 2025 results and increased full‑year guidance for 2025 production, while keeping a tight handle on costs and capex:

• Oil production continued to grow, with Q3 oil volumes up mid‑single digits quarter‑on‑quarter.

• Full‑year production guidance was raised again, showing ongoing well outperformance.

• Capital efficiency stayed good, which means they are getting more barrels out of each dollar they invest.

• EBITDA and cash generation came in strong, supporting dividends and buybacks.

Here’s my take: markets love when an E&P raises volumes and doesn’t blow up the capex budget. PR is doing exactly that, quarter after quarter, which is why it keeps getting treated as a “consolidator / quality operator” in the Delaware Basin.

b) Dividend confirmation supports the income story

The board also declared a quarterly base dividend of $0.15 per share (annualised $0.60), consistent with the prior quarters. At current prices that’s roughly a 4% dividend yield.

In my opinion, holding the line on the dividend does two important things:

• Signals confidence in cash flow visibility.

• Makes PR interesting not just for growth investors, but for income‑oriented investors looking for yield plus upside.

c) Bolt‑on acquisition story still a tailwind

Over 2025 PR has been executing a “bolt‑on acquisition” strategy in the Delaware Basin, including closing an APA asset deal in June and other Northern Delaware deals earlier in the year. The company’s own news section highlights these deals and their integration progress.

Why this matters in November: Q3 and updated guidance clearly show those assets are bedding in well, and the market is now giving them credit for scale, inventory depth, and operational synergies, rather than worrying about integration risk.

My read: investors initially punished the secondary offering and acquisition headlines, but as the numbers come through, the market is shifting from “dilution fear” to “this is actually accretive.”

d) Sector and macro backdrop

Energy sentiment also helped:

• Oil has stayed in a range that is very healthy for low‑cost Permian producers.

• The broader market is starting to revisit energy as a hedge against inflation and geopolitical risk, and PR tends to be on the “buy list” in that group because of its combination of yield, growth, and scale.

Thesis check

November reinforced the thesis:

• Guidance raised again, which supports the growth leg.

• Dividend reaffirmed, which supports the income leg.

• Balance sheet metrics and leverage remain reasonable, and PR continues to work towards investment‑grade credibility.

• Analysts remain broadly positive, with a “Strong Buy” consensus and price targets in the high‑teens, around $18–19. That implies meaningful upside from mid‑teens.

For a low‑cost Permian operator with scale, strong margins and a clear capital return framework, I think that valuation is not stretched. It is no longer “deep value,” but I would not call it a value trap either. It looks like a quality compounder in an unfashionable sector that is gradually getting re‑rated.

---

New Hope Corporation (ASX: NHC) — November update

Performance

• From 31 October to 28 November, New Hope slipped from A$4.14 to A$3.82.

  That is a move of roughly:

  • Performance: about −7.7% over the period

  • Versus the 12‑month context, the stock is still well above its 52‑week low around the mid‑3s and below the high near A$5, so we are in the middle of the range, not a disaster zone.

  So, November was a down month for NHC, but not a thesis‑breaking one in my view.

  What happened and why the stock drifted lower

  There were no blow‑up type events, but a few things were in play in November:

  1. Coal price softness / sentiment

     • New Hope is still effectively a leveraged play on thermal coal prices.

     • Through November, coal sentiment remained mixed, with prices off the crazy peaks of 2022–23 and investors increasingly rotating into “safer” or more fashionable sectors.

     • When coal prices drift or investors worry about long‑term demand, high‑dividend coal names like NHC get de‑rated a bit, which is what I think we’re seeing in that 7–8% slide.

  2. Recent context: strong results but market looking ahead

     • Recent reports (Q results and FY25 numbers) showed:

       • solid production growth and good cash generation,

       • attractive dividends,

       • low forward P/E versus the market and sector.

     • The catch: the market is forward‑looking. If investors think earnings have peaked with coal prices and might trend down or flat, they often compress the multiple even if the latest numbers look fine.

  3. AGM and corporate news flow
     Around November there were a few notable items (timing slightly around your period, but important for sentiment):

     • Quarterly Activities Report (August–October)

       • Released 17 November 2025, it showed:

         • quarterly coal production up 7.1%,

         • realised coal price about A$136.6 per tonne,

         • underlying EBITDA A$107.9m,

         • some logistical challenges at New Acland and Bengalla,

         • exit from oil & gas via sale of Bridgeport Energy,

         • a fully‑franked final dividend of A$126.4m with cash still A$544.3m after paying it.

       My take: operationally solid, slightly noisy on logistics, and strategically cleaner after exiting oil & gas. The market probably focused more on realised coal price and the idea that the “earnings supercycle” is normalising.

     • AGM on 20 November

       • All resolutions passed with strong support, including board re‑elections and constitution changes, pointing to shareholder confidence in strategy and governance.

       • The AGM itself is not a negative. If anything it confirms that large holders are aligned with current direction.

  4. ESG and capital‑flow headwind (ongoing)

     • Large super funds continue to restrict or blacklist thermal coal, as seen earlier in 2024 with moves by funds like ART against thermal coal holdings, which we can see echoed in sentiment around the sector.

     • That does not change NHC’s cash generation in the short term, but it shrinks the pool of natural buyers, which can cap the valuation multiple even when fundamentals look good.

  Overall, November’s price decline looks more like sentiment and sector headwinds than a company‑specific blow‑up.

  Is the thesis unchanged?

  Let’s break it into the key pillars most investors have for NHC:

  1. Cash cow with big, franked dividends

     • NHC is still throwing off solid free cash flow at today’s coal prices.

     • Recent data has it on an 8–9% dividend yield

     • Even after paying large dividends, they sat on more than A$500m in cash post‑final dividend, which is very comfortable.

     My take: this income leg of the thesis is intact, as long as coal prices do not collapse structurally lower than current levels.

  2. Low valuation vs earnings power

     • Forward numbers point to a single‑digit P/E (high 5s to mid 7s, depending on assumptions and coal prices), which is cheap compared with the broader market and roughly in line or cheaper than peers like Whitehaven and Yancoal.

     • Cheap can always get cheaper, but you are not paying a growth stock multiple for this risk.

     My view: valuation still looks supportive, not stretched. This helps protect you if coal stays “meh” rather than great.

  3. Asset base and production outlook

     • Core assets: Bengalla, New Acland Stage 3, port and infrastructure exposure.

     • Production is guided to grow / stay solid, with capacity to keep volumes up even with some logistics hiccups.

     • Exit from oil & gas simplifies the story back to coal plus associated logistics and agri side‑businesses.

     In my opinion, this is still a robust, fairly simple asset base, not some speculative science project.

     Right now:

     • Coal prices are off their highs, but not in free‑fall.

     • New Hope’s CEO and strategy still assume coal demand will remain meaningful for a long time, while acknowledging climate policy pressure.

     • They are paying out large dividends, keeping the balance sheet clean, and not massively over‑leveraging into high‑cost marginal projects.

     It looks like:

  a cyclical cash generator trading cheaply
  in an unpopular sector with real long‑term policy risk.

• The price drop of about 7–8% in November is annoying, but it is within normal volatility for a coal producer.

• Fundamentals over the month did not fall off a cliff. Production is fine, cash is strong, dividends are flowing.

---

Genmab (GMAB) — November Update

Stock performance

• Start price (31 Oct): $28.61

• End price (28 Nov): $32.36

• Move: +$3.75, roughly +13% in under four weeks

So, while it was not a news‑explosion month day by day, the market essentially “re‑rated” the stock higher as investors digested the Q3 2025 earnings and pipeline story that came out in early November.

Key backdrop from Q3 numbers and commentary:

• Revenue up ~21% year-on-year and operating profit up ~52% for the first nine months of 2025, helped by strong recurring revenues and royalties, especially from DARZALEX, plus growing sales of EPKINLY and TIVDAK.

• Q3 revenue around $1.02B, up ~28% year-on-year, and EPS beating expectations ($0.65 vs $0.46 consensus).

In my view, November’s share price strength is mostly the market catching up to the fact that:

1. The business is already very profitable,

2. Most of the revenue is recurring (royalties plus proprietary drugs),

3. The late‑stage pipeline is starting to look like a “mini big pharma” rather than a single‑asset biotech.

What happened in November

Here are the main moving parts that mattered for the stock around November:

a) Strong Q3, higher guidance tone

From the Q3 call and summaries:

• Recurring revenue = 96% of total. That means less dependence on one‑off milestones, more “annuity-like” cash flow.

• EPKINLY + TIVDAK:

  • Combined sales up 54% year-on-year for the first nine months, contributing about a quarter of total revenue growth.

  • EPKINLY alone reached $333m in sales, up 64% year-on-year.

• DARZALEX royalties: net sales of DARZALEX are about $10.4B year-to-date, generating over $1.7B in royalties for Genmab. This is still a huge profit engine.

• Management expects 2025 revenue of $3.5–3.7B and operating profit of $1.1–1.4B, both implying mid‑teens to mid‑20s % growth at the midpoint.

My take: This is the kind of earnings profile you normally pay a premium multiple for. GMAB didn’t have that premium, which is why you’re seeing this kind of rerating move when results keep coming in strong.

b) Pipeline momentum: Rina‑S, EPKINLY, and beyond

The market is also reacting to the pipeline story, not just the current P&L.

Rina‑S (ProfoundBio acquisition)

• In advanced endometrial cancer, early data show 100% disease control rate and 50% objective response rate, with no major toxicity red flags (no ocular toxicity, lung issues, or neuropathy).

• Multiple Phase III trials are running, with first launch targeted around 2027, including accelerated‑approval‑intent trials in platinum‑resistant ovarian cancer and second‑line endometrial cancer.

EPKINLY (epcoritamab)

• Over 65 regulatory approvals globally in DLBCL and FL, and the company is waiting on second‑line follicular lymphoma approvals that could push it earlier in the treatment setting.

• More than 20 abstracts accepted for ASH, 7 of them oral presentations, which underlines how central this drug is becoming in B‑cell malignancies.

My view: The market increasingly sees Rina‑S + EPKINLY as potential multibillion‑dollar franchises over time. November’s move reflects investors starting to price in that optionality a bit more.

c) Merus acquisition story (petosemtamab)

Genmab announced a proposed acquisition of Merus, bringing in petosemtamab (“peto”), an EGFR bispecific antibody with two FDA breakthrough therapy designations and late‑stage trials in head and neck cancer.

Key points that matter for the thesis:

• The deal pushes Genmab further toward a 100% owned portfolio, meaning more economics per dollar of sales in the future.

• Management is openly saying that with EPKINLY, Rina‑S, acasunlimab, and petosemtamab, they see scope for several multibillion‑dollar programs over the next decade.

• First peto data from Phase III are expected in 2026, with a possible 2027 launch if all goes well.

In my opinion, the market initially worried about M&A risk and integration costs, then slowly moved toward, “OK, this actually fits the strategy and may accelerate growth.” That shift in sentiment helps explain part of the November strength.

Is the thesis unchanged, better or broken?

What improved the thesis

• Earnings execution is better than what many feared, with earnings and revenue repeatedly beating expectations.

• Recurring revenue is now the vast majority (96%), which lowers risk and smooths out cash flows.

• Rina‑S data look best‑in‑class vs current chemo in endometrial cancer, with a clean safety profile. That is a big deal.

• Regulatory and commercial progress for EPKINLY and TIVDAK is tracking well, with more geographies and indications coming.

What got a bit riskier

• The Merus acquisition adds integration and execution risk, plus higher OpEx over the next few years.

• The pipeline is more crowded and complex. Management needs to juggle multiple Phase III programs and commercial launches almost back-to-back.

My take on valuation: good value or value trap?

At $32.36, the market is finally giving Genmab some credit, but in my opinion it is still closer to “good value” than being overvalued, assuming:

• You are willing to hold through biotech volatility.

• You accept typical drug‑development risks, including trial failures and regulatory delays.

So, in my opinion, the thesis is intact and actually slightly stronger after November. The market is just starting to reprice that, which is why you’re seeing a near‑13% move in a month.

This is not a story of a fading legacy drug; it is a story of a very profitable royalty base funding multiple new growth drivers.

Market 12‑month targets around mid‑30s to high‑40s suggest analysts still see upside from current levels.

---

Halozyme Therapeutics (HALO) — October update

Performance

• Price on 31 October: $65.19

• Price on 28 November: $71.40

• Absolute change: +$6.21

• Performance: roughly +9.5% for the period

So, HALO had a strong month. For a mid-cap biotech/platform name, a near‑10% move in a few weeks is meaningful, but not crazy given the news backdrop.

In my opinion, this move is mostly the market catching up with fundamentals rather than a speculative spike.

What happened

Most of the “fuel” for Halozyme’s story is coming from 2025 developments that the market is continually repricing:

1. Q3 results: very strong fundamentals

   • Q3 2025 revenue: $354.3M, up 22% year over year.

   • Royalty revenue: $236M, up 52% year over year, a record level.

   • Adjusted EPS: $1.72 vs consensus $1.63, so a clear beat.

   • Adjusted EBITDA: $248M, up about 35% year over year.

   • Management raised full‑year 2025 guidance again, now seeing:

     • Total revenue $1.30–1.38B

     • Royalty revenue $850–880M

     • Adjusted EPS $6.10–6.50
       Sources: Halozyme Q3 press release, Zacks / Nasdaq recap.

   Why this matters for the stock:

   • The business is behaving like a high‑margin royalty machine.

   • Each guidance hike tells investors the original 2025 expectations were too low, so the fair value of the stock needs to move higher.

   • Beating estimates and raising guidance is one of the cleanest signals the market likes to pay for.

2. Core ENHANZE portfolio is firing on all cylinders
   Royalty strength is coming from three main subcutaneous (SC) blockbusters that use Halozyme’s ENHANZE / MDASE technology:

   • Darzalex SC (J&J) – multiple myeloma.

   • Phesgo (Roche) – HER2+ breast cancer.

   • Vyvgart Hytrulo (argenx) – gMG and CIDP.

   Halozyme keeps collecting a percentage of sales from these drugs, without having to spend on big sales forces or full R&D programs. In Q3, those royalties grew over 50% year over year, which is huge for a company of this size.

   On top of that, four newer ENHANZE‑enabled products have launched and are just starting to contribute: Ocrevus Zunovo, Tecentriq Hybreza, Opdivo Qvantig, Rybrevant SC. Management explicitly points to these as incremental growth drivers for 2026 and beyond.

3. Guidance raises: reinforcing the “compounding” story
   Management first raised 2025 guidance in May, then again with Q3 results in November. Repeated raises signal two things:

   • The partner drugs are selling better than expected.

   • The model has real operating leverage, so extra revenue “drops through” to earnings.

   In my view, this is exactly the pattern you want from a royalty platform: expanding royalty base + cost discipline + repeated guidance upgrades.

4. Elektrofi acquisition: long‑term optionality

   • Halozyme agreed to acquire Elektrofi for $750M upfront plus up to $150M in milestones. Elektrofi’s “Hypercon” tech enables ultra‑high concentration biologics for subcutaneous delivery.

   • Royalty contributions from Hypercon are projected to begin around 2030 and run into the 2030s.

   • This effectively gives Halozyme two subcutaneous platforms over time, not just ENHANZE.

   I think the market is still working out how much value to put on Hypercon, but it clearly broadens the technology story. Even though the deal is capital‑intensive, it fits the royalty‑platform strategy quite well.

5. Balance sheet and capital returns

   • Cash and marketable securities around $700M (post‑Q3) and strong free cash flow.

   • Ongoing share repurchases under an existing buyback program.

   For a royalty company, this combo of high margins, buybacks, and expanding partner base tends to support a higher valuation multiple over time.

Net effect in November:
Earnings momentum, higher guidance, and growing confidence in the ENHANZE + Hypercon franchise all contributed to a re‑rating. A near‑10% move from late October to late November is consistent with that backdrop, in my opnion.

Is the thesis unchanged, stronger or broken?

1. Royalty engine: stronger than before

   • Royalty revenue growth above 50% year over year is exactly what a “stronger thesis” looks like.

   • Partners like J&J, Roche, and argenx continue to win new approvals and indications, extending the runway.

   My take: This part of the thesis is not only intact, it is better than I would have expected when I bought the stock.

2. Pipeline of partnered launches: broadening

   • New launches (Ocrevus Zunovo, Tecentriq Hybreza, Opdivo Qvantig, Rybrevant SC) are just starting, so their peak‑sales royalties are still ahead.

   • Management also highlighted additional late‑stage programs and ongoing Phase 3 assets from partners like BMS and Takeda in earlier announcements.

   The more diversified the partner and indication base, the lower the risk that one product disappointment derails the whole story.

3. Elektrofi / Hypercon: increases long‑term durability, adds some risk

   • Positive: If Hypercon is broadly adopted, Halozyme turns into a multi‑platform subcutaneous specialist with potential royalties well into the 2040s.

   • Risk: $750M upfront is a meaningful capital outlay, and execution risk is real. If partner uptake is slower than expected, the return on this deal could disappoint.

   In my opinion, the risk/reward of this move is acceptable given the strength of the core ENHANZE franchise, but it does add another variable to watch.

4. Key risks to keep an eye on

   • Partner dependence: HALO relies heavily on partners’ commercial success. If Darzalex SC, Phesgo, or Vyvgart Hytrulo growth slows, royalty growth will cool.

   • Competition & biosimilars: Over time, competition in oncology and autoimmune diseases can pressure partner pricing and volumes.

   • IP / legal risk: There is an ongoing patent lawsuit against Merck over SC Keytruda. This is part of defending the IP moat, but legal outcomes are never guaranteed.

   • Valuation risk: After a strong run (up almost 40% YTD by some estimates), the market already prices in solid growth. If growth normalizes faster than expected, the multiple could compress.

In my opinion, HALO now sits more in the “quality compounder at a reasonable price” bucket than in deep value territory. The easy valuation arbitrage may be behind us, but the long‑term compounding story is still very much alive.

---

Uber (UBER) — November update

Stock performance

• Start of period (31 Oct): $96.50

• End of period (28 Nov): $87.54

• Move: roughly ‑9.3% over the month.

While the broader story for Uber in 2025 has been positive, November itself was a down month.

This was not about some disaster at the business level. It was more about:

• Market digestion after a big run earlier in 2025.

• A mixed reaction to very strong Q3 results (odd but common on growth names).

• Ongoing worries around regulation and labor classification.

What actually happened in November?

a) Q3 2025 Earnings, 4 November

Uber reported Q3 2025 numbers on 4 November and fundamentally they were strong:

• Trips: up 22% year over year to 3.5 billion

• Monthly Active Platform Consumers (MAPCs): up 17% to 189 million

• Gross bookings: $49.7B, up 21% YoY

• Revenue: $13.5B, up 20% YoY

• Income from operations: $1.1B

• Adjusted EBITDA: $2.3B, up 33% YoY, margin ~4.5% of gross bookings

• Net income: $6.6B, helped by a large tax valuation release and equity revaluations

Guidance for Q4 2025 was also healthy:

• Gross bookings: $52.25–$53.75B (17–21% growth).

• Adjusted EBITDA: $2.41–$2.51B, 31–36% YoY growth.

So on paper, this is exactly what you want to see: high‑teens to low‑20s growth, rising profitability, and strong cash generation.

Yet, the stock fell after earnings.

My take:
This is classic “expectations vs. reality.” The bar was high after a big year‑to‑date run, so even a “beat and raise” quarter was not enough to push the stock higher. Traders focused on:

• Legal and regulatory costs weighing on operating profit.

• Management comments that robotaxis will remain loss‑making for several years, which cooled some of the near‑term hype.

The fundamentals looked solid though.

b) Credit upgrade tone: S&P turns more positive

In the background, S&P Global revised its outlook on Uber’s credit profile to “positive” from “stable” while affirming its rating. The key reasons:

• Leading global platform with strong network effects.

• Expectation that gross bookings will exceed $190B in 2025.

• Forecast free cash flow approaching the high single billions in the next couple of years.

• Leverage remaining low and manageable.

• A commitment to return about half of free cash flow to shareholders via buybacks.

Why this matters for you:
A more positive credit outlook reduces perceived risk around Uber’s balance sheet, which is supportive for equity holders over time. It tells you the fixed‑income world believes Uber is now a durable cash generator, not a cash burner.

c) Strategic progress: autonomy, partnerships, product

November also brought more signs that Uber is building a platform, not just a rides app.

A few highlights from Uber’s own news section:

• Toast partnership (3 Nov):

  • Multi‑year partnership with Toast, making Uber the preferred delivery marketplace for many Toast restaurants.

  • Restaurants can run Uber Eats promos and ads directly from the Toast POS.

  • This deepens Uber’s integration into the restaurant tech stack, not only a “last‑mile” app.

• Uber Ski (13 Nov):

  • Seasonal product, but shows the company’s push into niche use cases and experiences, driving higher‑value trips.

• Retail expansion (25 Nov):

  • Partnerships with PacSun, Camping World, and Lush to widen retail selection on Uber Eats.

  • This supports the “local commerce” thesis: groceries, beauty, clothing, and general retail from the same app.

• WeRide robotaxis in Abu Dhabi (26 Nov):

  • Launch of fully driverless commercial robotaxis on Yas Island via Uber’s platform, no safety driver in the car.

  • This is part of Uber’s approach to autonomy as a partnership model instead of building everything in‑house.

All of this supports the idea that Uber is becoming the operating system for local movement and delivery, not just a ride‑hailing company.

d) Regulatory and labor noise

On the negative side, regulatory and labor issues stayed in the headlines:

• New Zealand’s Supreme Court ruling that some Uber drivers should be treated as employees rather than contractors added to the global pattern of legal challenges.

• Local issues in markets like India over fare structures and aggregator rules remain unresolved in places.

These do not derail the global business, but they:

• Increase legal costs.

• Create uncertainty about future margins in some regions.

• Keep a permanent “headline risk” discount on the stock.

In my view, that is part of why you see a disconnect at times between strong operating numbers and a choppy share price.

So why did the stock drop in November?

Putting it together:

1. Profit‑taking after a big YTD run

   • Uber has been a strong performer over the past 12 months, with the share price up strongly from the low‑60s to above 100 at one point.

   • After that kind of move, even good news gets sold as investors lock in gains.

2. “Great numbers, but…” reaction

   • Revenue, bookings and EBITDA all looked good.

   • Some investors focused on:

     • Higher legal and regulatory costs.

     • Uncertainty around long‑term robotaxi economics.

     • The fact that a chunk of net income was driven by tax and investment revaluations.

3. Regulatory overhang

   • Each labor ruling in a new country reminds the market that Uber’s cost base could change if more jurisdictions push toward employee status.

In short, the business performance and the stock performance diverged in November. The company executed well. The stock took a breather.

Is the thesis unchanged, stronger, or broken?

November’s data supports the thesis rather than weakens it.

• Trips up 22%, bookings up 21%, EBITDA up 33% YoY.

• Q4 2025 guidance still in strong double‑digits.

• Structure of the business moves further into consistent profitability and cash generation.

• New partnerships deepen relevance in restaurants, retail, and autonomy.

b) Key risks that did get louder

Where I think investors are rightly nervous:

1. Regulation and labor

   • Each court case or new rule might nudge costs higher or change the contractor model in some markets.

   • That could slow margin expansion or force price hikes in certain regions.

2. Autonomy economics timing

   • Robotaxis will not magically print cash tomorrow. Management itself acknowledged they will likely be loss‑making for several years.

   • The market may have to wait longer than hoped for autonomy to materially improve margins.

3. Valuation sensitivity

   • At around 10–11x trailing earnings with strong growth, the valuation is not crazy, but after a huge run, the market reacts sharply to any hint of slower margin progress.

   • We saw that reflex in November.

So I would say: the core thesis is intact, but the path will stay bumpy. If you own Uber, you are signing up for regulatory headlines and sentiment swings as part of the package.

Short term: The stock can absolutely stay choppy. Another negative headline or macro wobble, and you can see more pressure.
Long term (multi‑year): If Uber keeps compounding bookings in the mid‑teens, holds or slightly improves margins, and continues buybacks, today’s pullbacks are likely to look attractive on a 3–5 year chart.

---

EQT Corp – November update

Performance

• Start of period (31 Oct): $53.42

• End of period (28 Nov): $60.86

• Monthly return: 13.9%

So, EQT meaningfully outperformed both the broader market and most energy peers over this window, helped by two things in my view:

1. improving sentiment around US natural gas prices, and

2. the market slowly re‑rating EQT as a vertically integrated, FCF machine rather than a plain-vanilla gas producer.

What moved the stock in November?

There was no single “one‑day” headline in November, but several ongoing themes continued to play out from Q3 and earlier:

a) Follow‑through from strong Q3 results and integration progress

EQT reported Q3 2024 numbers at the end of October and gave a pretty constructive update on the business and on Equitrans integration. Highlights from the company’s own releases and materials:

• Equitrans Midstream integration >60% complete just three months after close, with an estimated $145m of annualized base synergies already actioned.

• That derisks over half of the total synergy plan and supports the low‑cost, vertically integrated gas thesis.

• The earlier Q2 update already showed strong production at the high end of guidance, lower capex, and solid free cash flow, even at modest gas prices.

So, going into November, investors had:

• Better visibility on synergies & costs.

• More confidence that EQT’s free cash flow is resilient even in a $3-ish gas price world.

My take: the November share price strength is, in part, the market catching up to that improving fundamental picture.

b) Structural positioning in US gas and midstream

With the Equitrans acquisition completed in July 2024, EQT is now:

• The only large-scale vertically integrated US gas player, combining upstream gas production with key midstream infrastructure in Appalachia.

• Targeting an unlevered NYMEX FCF breakeven of about $2.00/MMBtu, which is at the very low end of the North American gas cost curve.

In simple terms, that means:

If gas prices are “meh,” EQT still makes money.
If gas prices are good, EQT prints cash.

As the market increasingly prices in future demand from LNG exports, power demand and data‑center / AI loads, low-cost integrated producers like EQT get rewarded. November’s move is consistent with that repricing.

c) Macro tailwind: gas sentiment improving

I won’t quote an exact gas price here, but over the last few months:

• The forward curve has started to reflect tightening supply-demand a few years out.

• There is a lot more talk about US LNG exports, coal‑to‑gas switching, and power demand from AI / data centers.

• EQT’s own commentary and contracts point to long‑term gas demand projects (power plants, industrial users, etc.) coming online from 2027–2029.

In my opinion, November’s price action is the market slowly handicapping those long‑term demand drivers into the stock.

Major business developments relevant for the thesis

Some key ongoing elements from the recent quarters that matter for the November view:

Equitrans Midstream acquisition & synergy capture

• Acquisition closed ahead of schedule in July 2024, saving roughly $150m versus initial expectations and accelerating deleveraging EQT IR.

• By Q3, over 60% of integration was completed and $145m of annualized synergies were already locked in.

Why this matters for a retail investor:

• It reduces EQT’s cost per unit of gas.

• It gives EQT control over key pipelines and gathering systems, which lowers risk around getting gas to market.

• It strengthens the free cash flow profile and supports buybacks, dividends, and debt paydown.

My take: This is a big part of why EQT is being treated less like a cyclical “just another gas producer” and more like a core North American gas infrastructure name.

Strong operating performance and cash generation

From Q2 and Q3 updates:

• Production at or above the high end of guidance.

• Capex coming in below guidance thanks to efficiency and midstream optimization.

• Free cash flow in the hundreds of millions each quarter, even after unusual legal costs in Q2.

• Net debt reduction, with management targeting lower leverage over time.

This combination, in my view, is exactly what you want to see into an up‑move like November’s: the stock is not going up on hype alone, it is backed by actual cash generation.

Strategic growth projects tied to future gas demand

EQT is lining up a number of multi‑year gas demand anchors:

• MVP Boost & MVP Southgate: adds takeaway capacity from Appalachia to the Southeast US, improving access to premium markets.

• Long‑term power projects: agreements and LOIs to supply large gas-fired power plants and industrial projects (including AI‑related data center loads) ramping from 2027–2029.

• New gathering contracts with third parties, using the midstream system to serve other producers.

These deals gradually convert “theoretical” future gas demand into contracted, visible volumes for EQT. That supports a higher multiple, because investors can see a clearer earnings path.

Is the thesis unchanged, stronger or broken?

Cost and scale advantage

• Still intact, arguably even better.

• Vertical integration via Equitrans lowers the all‑in cost structure and gives EQT more control over infrastructure.

• Management continues to drive efficiency gains and lower capex per unit.

In my opinion, the cost-leadership part of the thesis is stronger than a year ago.

Free cash flow and leverage to gas prices

• The Q2 and Q3 numbers show healthy FCF at relatively modest gas prices.

• With an FCF breakeven guided around $2/MMBtu, anything structurally above that in the coming decade could translate into very large cumulative cash generation EQT IR.

The flip side:

• After a near 14% jump in November alone, the easy “deep value” re‑rating might be behind us in the very short term.

• The stock is now more sensitive to pullbacks in gas prices or broader risk‑off moves.

My take: the FCF part of the thesis is intact and well supported, but you should expect higher volatility at this price, not less.

Balance sheet and capital returns

• Net debt has been trending down, and the company is committed to deleveraging plus returning cash.

• Integration synergies and midstream earnings should stabilize cash flows, making dividends and buybacks more sustainable.

No obvious red flags here. If anything, EQT looks more like a core long‑term gas infrastructure & production platform than it did pre‑Equitrans.

Optionality: LNG, power, AI / data center demand

• EQT is clearly positioning itself to be a key supplier into structural demand growth: LNG exports, new gas‑fired power, and data‑center builds.

• Several long-term projects and agreements are expected to start ramping around 2027–2029, giving a multi‑year volume and cash flow runway.

This is where I see the real upside over a 5–10 year view. If even part of this demand shows up as planned, EQT’s combination of low cost + infrastructure could be extremely valuable.

Here, the thesis is stronger, but also more long‑dated. The market is starting to discount this now, which explains part of November’s move.

EQT still looks like a quality, long‑duration gas compounder.
The core thesis is unchanged to slightly stronger, but near‑term returns from here will be much more tied to gas prices and macro risk appetite than from “discovery of value.”

---