Asymmetric Edge portfolio update: down -0.96% in December, closing the year 74.64%

December would have been a good month if year-end profit-taking in metal-related stocks/ETFs had not occurred. But it did.

So, as a result Asymmetric Edge portfolio declined by 0.96% in December. This marks the first time since launch (in April 2025) that it underperformed the S&P500 (down 0.05% during the month).

It means that the portfolio is closing the year with a stunning 74.64% performance (since launch on April 10, 2025).

It is more than double the S&P500 performance (29.94%) in the same period.

HERE!!! So, portfolio continues to perform and in less than 9 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

• Purchased a Residential Construction company.

• GOOGL 0.00%↑ PUT option expired and we kept the premium.

Update on the positions - 2025 December

Kinross Gold (KGC) — December update

Price move

• 29 November: $28.11

• 31 December: $28.16

It was a quiet month for Kinross.

Even though the share price went nowhere in December, under the surface a few important, fundamentally positive things happened.

The key point:

• Price was flat, but risk went down, and balance sheet quality went up.

• That kind of setup often does not show up immediately in the share price, but it matters a lot for long‑term returns, in my opinion.

Any gain or loss for the month came mostly from gold price noise and general risk sentiment, not from stock‑specific news.

What happened in December?

Here are the main December items that matter for KGC’s value:

Full redemption of the 4.50% 2027 notes & rating upgrade

In early December, Kinross fully redeemed its $500M 4.50% senior notes due 2027 and, at the same time, Moody’s upgraded its credit rating to Baa2 from Baa3 with a stable outlook.

This is a big deal, even if the stock price did not jump:

• Less debt, lower interest cost over time.

• A stronger investment‑grade profile, which usually means better access to capital and lower future financing costs.

• The upgrade reflects what rating agencies see: scale, solid production, low leverage, conservative financial policy.

This move confirms management is serious about keeping the balance sheet very clean, not stretching for risky growth. For a cyclical business like gold mining, that is exactly what you want.

Dividend and capital returns still flowing

In December, Kinross paid the regular $0.035 quarterly dividend (about $0.14 annualized) after a roughly 17% dividend increase earlier in 2025. This dividend is funded by strong free cash flow and a balance sheet that shifted into a net cash position after an exceptional Q3 2025, where they delivered around $700M of free cash flow and increased the share buyback program to $600M for the year.

So in December there were 3 things happening all at once:

• Ongoing dividend payout.

• Buybacks still in the picture.

• Debt reduction and a rating upgrade.

So, not only is cash coming back to shareholders, but financial risk is going down. That combo is usually pretty powerful over a full cycle.

No major operational blow‑ups

As of the start of January, there were no big negative December operational surprises publicly disclosed: no large mine shutdowns, no catastrophic guidance cuts, no major hedging disasters reported in the news streams I checked. The company has also been consistent in saying it is on track for its 2025 production target of ~2.0M gold equivalent ounces and maintaining its cost guidance.

We will get the official Q4 and full‑year numbers in February, but December looked like a “keep executing” month.

Is the thesis unchanged, better, or broken?

Let’s restate the core KGC thesis as I see it:

“A mid‑to‑large scale gold producer with improving balance sheet quality, disciplined capital allocation and leverage to the gold price, trading at a reasonable valuation vs cash flow and reserves.”

What improved the thesis in December

1. Balance sheet strength

2. Capital returns are real, not just promises

3. Execution remains on track

In my opinion, December reinforced the quality and risk profile part of the thesis.

What is worth watching

1. Still heavily tied to gold price: in my opinions gold run is going to continue still

2. Execution must continue in 2026+: a single bad quarter or big cost blowout can quickly dent sentiment in this sector.

The market already knows Kinross is healthier and better capitalized as reflected in multiple analyst upgrades and a nice run earlier in the year.

From here, upside will likely come from a mix of:

• Gold staying strong or moving higher.

• Continued capital returns.

• Proving more ounces economically and extending mine lives.

My take:
At around $28, with the December information we have, KGC still looks like a solid, cash‑producing gold play. December did not give us a breakout in price, but it did quietly strengthen the balance sheet and validate management’s discipline.

I see December as a good month even if the chart looks boring.

As the stock price already doubled since we purchased it, I consider trimming the position, but before doing that I’ll wait for:

• the February Q4/full‑year release,

• updated 2026 guidance and reserve report,

• ongoing cost discipline and project updates.

---

SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) - December update

Performance

• GLD price on 28 November: $387.88

• GLD price on 31 December: $396.31

That is a gain of about 2.2% for December.

A solid positive month to close the year even though in the last days of the year there was profit taking on the market causing significant price drop.

What happened with the gold price in December?

Big picture, December continued the late‑2025 gold bull story:

• Spot gold traded around 4,400–4,500 USD/oz by late December, hitting multiple all‑time highs above 4,500 USD/oz as the month went on

• On the year, gold was up well over 50–60%, one of the strongest annual moves since the late 1970s, driven by:

  • Expectations of Fed rate cuts in 2026

  • Ongoing geopolitical tensions

  • Very strong central bank buying and broader “de‑dollarisation” flows

Key drivers in December specifically:

1. Rate‑cut expectations climbed
   Markets increasingly priced in a path of several Fed cuts, which:

   • Pushed real yields lower

   • Reduced the opportunity cost of holding gold (which has no yield)

   • Supported higher gold prices into year‑end

   In my opinion, this is still the main cyclical engine behind the move.

2. Geopolitics kept safe‑haven demand high
   We still had:

   • War‑related uncertainty

   • Ongoing tensions in the Middle East and Eastern Europe

   • Friction in global trade and tariffs

   None of this calmed down in a meaningful way, so investors kept using gold as a hedge.

3. Strong structural demand in the background

   • Central banks continued to be net buyers of gold, especially in emerging markets

   • Investors looked for protection after a year of:

     • High correlations between stocks and bonds

     • Sticky inflation worries

     • Very stretched government debt levels globally

So, while GLD’s +2.2% in December might look modest, it happened against the backdrop of gold sitting close to record highs after a huge year.

Why did GLD “only” move 2.2% with such a strong gold backdrop?

A few practical points:

• Year‑end flows: December often brings:

  • Profit‑taking

  • Tax‑loss selling in other assets

  • Portfolio rebalancing

These can mute the last leg of any rally.

• ETF mechanics: GLD tracks gold very closely over time, but:

• Intraday moves

• Small tracking differences

• FX for some investors

can slightly smooth the final monthly number.

So, GLD’s December result looks pretty normal to me given where gold already was.

Is the GLD / gold thesis unchanged?

How I see the thesis today:

• Macro drivers are still intact

  • The market still expects lower real rates over time.

  • Central banks remain buyers, not sellers.

  • Geopolitical risk is not fading.

That is all consistent with a long‑term bullish case for gold.

• No sign of a blow‑off top yet

  • Yes, gold had a massive year.

  • But December’s price action was relatively controlled, not a vertical spike then instant collapse.

  • Pullbacks have been shallow so far, which, in my opinion, points more to strong underlying demand than to a pure speculative mania.

• Positioning risks are there, but manageable

  • After such a big year, sentiment is naturally more optimistic.

  • That means:

    • You should be prepared for a sharper correction at some point.

    • Momentum traders can exit quickly and exaggerate any pullback.

For a long‑term GLD holder, that is more a volatility issue than a broken thesis.

GLD at year‑end feels more like a strong asset after a big move, not a broken idea waiting to collapse.

For us, as we are invested in bull call spreads, the most important thing to see GLD price above $320 (strike price) on 18 June (expiration), which seems likely now. If so, we can maximize our return and we’d see a 300% realized gain on our investment.

What I watch from here:

1. Fed and real yields

   • Faster or deeper cuts than expected: usually bullish for gold / GLD.

   • “Higher for longer” surprise: could trigger a sharp pullback.

2. Central bank purchasing data

   • As long as central banks keep buying meaningfully, it is a strong backbone for the thesis.

   • A big, sustained slowdown there would be a warning sign.

3. Geopolitical risk premium

   • Any major de‑escalation can lead to short‑term gold weakness.

   • Fresh crises or escalation can quickly push prices higher again.

---

VanEck Gold Miners ETF (GDX) - December update

Performance

• Price on 28 Nov: $83.23

• Price on 31 Dec: $85.77

• Move: +3.1% over the period

So, December was a modest month for GDX

Given that GDX has had a huge run in 2025, a positive December after that kind of move is actually quite healthy. It suggests buyers are still there, even after big gains.

What moved GDX in December?

GDX is basically a leveraged bet on:

1. Gold price expectations

2. Real interest rates and Fed policy

3. Risk sentiment in equities

Here’s what mattered in December, in my view (similar to what I wrote for GLD):

Fed & rate‑cut expectations

• Market kept pricing in rate cuts for 2026, even as the Fed stayed cautious in its messaging.

• Lower expected real yields are usually good for gold and gold miners, because:

  • Cash and bonds become a bit less attractive.

  • The opportunity cost of holding non‑yielding gold goes down.

• This backdrop helped support the gold price and kept flows coming into miners, even with some volatility.

Impact on GDX:
Supportive. Not a massive catalyst day‑to‑day, but it helped prevent a deeper pullback after a very strong year.

Precious metals volatility, especially silver

• December saw strong moves in precious metals, with silver in particular hitting new highs and then pulling back sharply.

• When silver gets wild, it tends to:

  • Pull in speculative money to the whole metals complex.

  • Increase volatility in miners as a group, even if GDX is gold‑focused.

Impact on GDX:
Short‑term choppiness, but overall positive sentiment for the metals space. You could see that in GDX holding near highs instead of rolling over.

Positioning & profit taking into year‑end

After such a huge YTD move, December is the classic time for:

• Tax‑loss selling in laggards (less relevant here, since GDX was a winner).

• Profit taking from traders who rode the rally.

• Window dressing from funds who want to show they own the big winners of the year.

My impression:
Some intramonth selling pressure from profit takers, but dip buyers stepped in. The fact that we finish the period higher at $85.77 tells me demand is still strong and nobody is rushing for the exits.

Thesis check – still good value or turning into a value trap?

Here’s the core thesis for GDX:

Own a diversified basket of large/mid‑cap gold miners to get leveraged upside to gold in an environment of:

• Stubborn inflation risk

• Peaking or falling real rates

• Ongoing geopolitical and macro uncertainty

Let’s walk through if December changed that.

Macro backdrop vs thesis

• Rates: The market still expects cuts, real yields are not screaming higher. That’s broadly in line with a bullish case for gold.

• Inflation & deficits: Structural themes like high government debt, large fiscal deficits, and geopolitical risk did not magically disappear in December.

• Gold itself: Price action in gold and silver remains strong and volatile, which is exactly the kind of environment where miners can shine.

So, on the macro side, nothing in December says “this thesis is broken.”

Valuation & risk–reward

Even after the big run:

• Many gold miners are still trading at reasonable multiples of cash flow vs their history, especially when you factor in current metal prices and the potential for higher realized prices going forward.

• GDX is not “cheap on last year’s numbers,” but:

  • Balance sheets in the sector are generally healthier than in previous cycles.

  • Many miners have been disciplined on capex, focusing on cash returns.

My opinion:
At these levels, GDX is no longer a deep value bargain, but it is not an obvious bubble either. It looks like a cyclical winner priced like a cyclical winner, with upside tied to how gold behaves in 2026.

Behaviour of the ETF in December

The December price action actually supports the thesis:

After a big move earlier in the year, GDX:

• Held near its highs.

• Added a bit more, +3.1% over your measurement window.

• Did not show signs of a sharp blow‑off top followed by a collapse.

That is what you want to see in a sustainable uptrend. If December had given us a sudden 15–20% crash on no news, then I would start worrying more about the sentiment.

In my opinion, December price action supports staying with the thesis, but size matters. If the position feels too big for you to sleep well when it drops 10% in a week, it’s probaby too large.

For us, as we are invested in bull call spreads, the most important thing to see GDX price above $55 (strike price) on 18 June (expiration), which seems likely now. If so, we can maximize our return and we’d see a 300% realized gain on our investment.

---

iShares Silver Trust (SLV) - December update

Performance

• Price on 28 November: $51.21

• Price on 31 December: $64.42

That’s a +25.8% move in just over a month. For a precious metals ETF, that is a very strong leg up.

This type of spike is what we usually see when markets suddenly “reprice” a theme they had been ignoring or underestimating, not just slow, steady grinding higher.

What actually happened? 🔍

I’ll keep this in simple buckets: macro, silver-specific and flows/sentiment.

Macro backdrop: rates and the dollar

Here’s the usual mechanics in the background:

• When markets start to price in lower interest rates in the future,
  precious metals often catch a bid.

• Silver, like gold, is a non‑yielding asset. So when bond yields look less attractive, silver becomes relatively more interesting.

• A weaker or less-aggressive-dollar view also tends to support silver prices, since silver is priced in USD globally.

In December, the market leaned more towards a “easing or not-tightening-further” stance. That was a important tailwind for metals.

In my opinion, a decent part of this December move is macro-driven repricing, not just “story hype.”

Silver-specific drivers

Silver is a bit unique because it is:

• Part monetary / store‑of‑value metal, like gold.

• Part industrial metal, with strong links to:

  • solar panels and broader renewables

  • electronics and EVs

  • AI/datacenter power and energy infrastructure indirectly

So, when investors get excited about:

• AI build-out

• Energy transition (solar capacity, grid upgrades)

• Electrification overall

you often see renewed interest in silver as the “industrial cousin” of gold.

December’s jump fits the pattern of markets suddenly saying: “Wait, if these themes are real, maybe silver is too cheap.”

Flows and sentiment: FOMO kicking in

A move of +20–30% in a month usually tells you:

• New money is coming in, not just existing holders sitting tight.

• Short-term traders and momentum strategies are chasing strength.

• Some longer-term investors who were on the sideline finally capitulate and buy.

Practically, that can mean:

• Short-term flows overshoot fair value in the near term.

• Volatility goes up, which means the ride will not be smooth from here.

So, while the fundamental story might be improving, the speed of the move is at least partly sentiment and FOMO driven in my view.

Is the thesis unchanged, stronger or broken?

Let’s go back to what a typical SLV/silver thesis looks like for a retail investor:

1. Inflation hedge / monetary hedge

   • Silver should benefit if fiat currencies are being debased over time.

   • It often lags gold on the way up, then outperforms late in the cycle when speculation increases.

2. Industrial growth angle

   • Structural demand from solar, EVs, electronics, AI‑linked energy use.

   • Supply is relatively constrained, new mines take years and lots of capital.

3. Diversifier in a portfolio

   • Low correlation to some equity sectors.

   • Can help when risk sentiment flips or when real yields fall.

After a +26% spike in a month, I would not call SLV “cheap” on a short‑term basis.

But structurally:

• The monetary hedge angle is still there.

• The industrial demand angle is, if anything, more convincing over the coming 5–10 years.

My take:
At these levels, silver/SLV is probably less of a screaming bargain than it was around $50 and below, but the core thesis is very much alive. The move looks like re-rating, not “this story is done, get out.”

In my opinion, upside from here is likley still solid over a multi‑year horizon.

Short-term downside risk has increased, simply because:

• You now own an asset that just ran +25–30% in a month.

• Any macro wobble, stronger USD, or profit‑taking wave can easily knock 10–15% off the price without killing the long-term story.

So, I would frame it like this:

• Thesis: unchanged to slightly stronger.

• Entry point quality: worse than late November.

• Risk of sharp corrections: higher.

If you are multi‑year focused, December’s spike is noise.

In my opinion, silver is entering the phase where narrative and flows can swing price around a lot on both sides, while the deep, slow-moving fundamentals stay broadly supportive.

For us, as we are invested in bull call spreads, the most important thing to see SLV price above $45 (strike price) on 18 June (expiration), which seems likely now. If so, we can maximize our return and we’d see a 300%+ realized gain on our investment.

---

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

Performance

• 28 Nov price: $152.59

• 31 Dec price: $186.43

That’s about +22% in just over a month

So, if November felt a bit frustrating and choppy, December basically compensated in one shot. This is exactly how commodity plays often move, they look dead for weeks, then do months of work in a few days.

My take: if you were holding through the quiet period waiting for the deficit story to show up in the price, this leg higher is the first real “validation” move.

What happened?

A few key drivers behind the move around November and into December:

Supply deficits getting harder to ignore

The World Platinum Investment Council (WPIC) has been flagging large, ongoing supply deficits:

• 2025 deficit estimated in the hundreds of thousands of ounces

• Mine supply pressured mainly from South Africa, which dominates world platinum production

• Secondary supply (recycling) is up a bit, but not nearly enough to close the gap

So, you had a market where:

• Demand stayed decent

• Supply stayed tight

• Investor positioning was light for a long time

In my opinion, November was the period where the market finally started to price in the structural deficit.

Industrial and auto demand: boring but important

Platinum demand still comes largely from:

• Auto catalysts (especially in diesel and in some gasoline substitution cases)

• Industrial uses (chemicals, glass, electronics)

• Jewelry

• Early‑stage hydrogen / fuel cell and green tech demand

What changed recently is not a single headline, but a slow realization that:

• Auto demand is more resilient than people thought

• Hydrogen and fuel cell themes are not hype-only, they are slowly turning into tonnage

• Above‑ground inventories are being drawn down

This combination tends to create a “coiled spring” effect. Prices move sideways for a while, and then when funds decide to rotate in, the move is violent. That’s pretty much what your November–December price action looks like.

Flows into PPLT and sentiment shift

As platinum strengthened, ETFs like PPLT started to see inflows:

• More assets coming into PPLT means more physical platinum has to be held, supporting the metal price.

• Momentum traders and macro funds notice the breakout and add on top.

So, the spike from $152.59 to $186.43 is not random. It reflects:

1. Structural deficit story gaining traction.

2. Better sentiment around precious metals as a group.

3. Fresh capital rotating into a very small, illiquid corner of the metals space.

Is the original thesis unchanged, stronger or broken?

The original thesis was laid out as:

PPLT is a leveraged way to own a scarce, industrial precious metal that is in structural deficit, currently mispriced versus gold and palladium.

Against that:

Structural deficit is still intact, arguably stronger.

• Supply is constrained, especially in South Africa, and CAPEX to bring new primary platinum mines online is limited.

• Deficits are forecast to persist for several years, eating into above‑ground stocks.

Demand and long‑term use case

• Auto demand has not collapsed the way the market once feared.

• Hydrogen / fuel cell and green tech are still early, but directionally positive.

• Jewelry and investment demand are lumpy, but they’re not collapsing either.

In my opinion, platinum’s use‑case risk is lower than the market priced in a year or two ago. This is good for a long‑term holder.

Platinum is still historically cheap relative to gold.

Recent move looks more like a re‑rating from “too cheap” to “less cheap”, not a bubble.

For us, as we are invested in bull call spreads, the most important thing to see PPLT price above $165 (strike price) on 18 June (expiration), which seems likely now. If so, we can maximize our return and we’d see a 300%+ realized gain on our investment.

---

Teekay Tankers (TNK) — December update

Performance

• Price on 28 November: $57.67

• Price on 31 December: $53.42

That is a drop of about 7.4% for the month.

So, while tanker spot rates stayed healthy and the underlying business remained strong, the stock took a breather.

In my opinion this is more of a sentiment and positioning move than a change in fundamentals.

What actually happened in December?

There was no major company‑specific news in December:

• In December, Teekay published more of a market update than a company‑specific change. The message:

  • Product and crude tanker markets remained tight, helped by:

    • Tonne‑mile growth from rerouted Russian barrels and Middle East tensions.

    • Low global inventories that keep seaborne trade active.

  • The global tanker orderbook is around 16% of the fleet, which is not low, but manageable, especially with an aging fleet that needs replacement.

  • The average fleet age globally is now over 13 years, which is very high by historical standards, so scrapping pressure will likely offset a good chunk of newbuilds over the next few years.

  • The tone for early 2026 was still constructive, with firm winter rates and decent demand growth expected.

So why did the stock go down? A few likely drivers, in my view:

1. Profit‑taking after a big run

   • TNK has had an excellent multi‑year run on the back of very strong tanker markets. When a stock is up multiples, a 5–10% give‑back over a month is pretty normal as some holders “lock in” gains.

2. Macro and sentiment noise

   • December often has odd flows, tax‑loss selling, portfolio rebalancing, and lower liquidity. In that enviroment, shipping names can swing more than the fundamentals justify.

3. Forward‑looking worries, not current earnings

   • Some investors are already looking to H2 2026 and 2027, when more new tankers deliver and rates could soften from peak levels.

   • That narrative can pressure valuations even while current cash flows are very strong.

Importantly, there was no negative earnings pre‑announcement, no balance sheet problem and no strategic U‑turn.

The December moves look like classic volatility in a cyclical stock, not a broken story.

Thesis check

Let’s go back to the core TNK thesis, at least how I see it:

1. Tight mid‑size tanker supply

   • Orderbook around mid‑teens % of fleet, deliveries spread over several years.

   • Global fleet is old, over 13 years on average. This is structurally bullish because older ships become less competitive under stricter environmental rules and higher fuel costs.

2. Spot‑heavy exposure with very low breakeven

   • TNK has one of the lowest cash breakevens in the sector (just above $11,000/day), thanks to a debt‑free balance sheet and efficient operations. Current spot rates are around 3x times above break-even level.

   • When spot markets are good, TNK prints cash. When markets cool, they still remain profitable longer than many peers.

3. Prudent capital allocation

   • Management has been selling old vessels at high prices and rotating into younger ships, while also returning some cash through dividends and buybacks in earlier periods.

   • They avoided over‑ordering newbuilds at peak prices, instead using their balance sheet to stay flexible and opportunistic.

Thesis is broadly intact.

The stock dropped about 7% in December while nothing material changed in earnings power.

TNK is still trading on what I’d call “mid‑cycle” multiples on earnings that are likely above mid‑cycle, but not at the blow‑off peak we saw in some earlier tanker spikes.

That setup can be quite interesting. If rates stay stronger for longer because of geopolitics and a slow scrapping / replacement cycle, current valuation could prove conservative.

What could break the thesis?

Here are the things I’d watch in 2026:

1. A very sharp collapse in spot rates for several quarters in a row.

2. A wave of newbuild orders beyond what is currently in the orderbook.

3. Teekay suddenly levering up to fund big speculative fleet growth.

None of these are playing out today based on the latest available info.

In my opinion, December’s drop looks like noise within a still‑strong cycle, not a signal that TNK is broken.

The stock will likely to remain volatile, and you have to be comfortable with 10–20% swings that have nothing to do with fundamentals in the short term. That is just the price of admission in shipping.

---

Permian Resources (PR) — December update

Performance

• Price on 28 November: $14.49

• Price on 31 December: $14.03

PR slipped about 3.2% over the month. In practice, that is a pretty mild pullback for a small‑mid cap E&P name, especially given commodity noise and year‑end tax-loss / fund rebalancing flows.

Relative to the risk profile, I’d call December performance “slightly weak, but not dramatic at all”. It’s more of a drift than a selloff.

What happened in December?

There was no big operational disaster or thesis-breaking headline. December was more about housekeeping, capital returns and structure.

Here are the key points.

Dividend and yield support

PR continued to position itself as a cash‑return story:

• Quarterly base cash dividend of $0.15 per share (annualized $0.60).

• At around a $14 share price, that’s about a 4%+ dividend yield.

• Ex‑div date was in mid‑December, payable at the end of the month.

I think: a 4%+ base yield from a growth‑oriented Permian operator is quite attractive, as long as they can sustain it through the cycle. The dividend makes small price dips more tolerable, because you are being paid to wait.

One technical note: stocks often trade a bit weaker around ex‑dividend dates, as the price adjusts by roughly the dividend amount. That can contribute to this kind of 2–4% month‑over‑month move without any real change in fundamentals.

Corporate reorganization & alignment

In December, PR announced a corporate reorganization designed to better align management ownership with public shareholders and to simplify the structure towards a more straightforward C‑Corp, single‑class setup. Ticker and trading remain the same.

This type of clean‑up is usually positive over the medium term.

• It tends to make the stock more investable for larger institutions that dislike complex structures.

• It improves governance optics and can help close valuation discounts over time.

It is not the sort of news that makes the stock jump 20% overnight, but it supports a higher fair value multiple over the next few years.

Analyst sentiment stayed constructive

December also brought more validation from Wall Street:

• Multiple firms raised their price targets into the high‑teens / low‑20s while keeping Buy or Outperform ratings.

• Consensus target sits around $19, which implies meaningful upside from ~$14.

When you see a cluster of targets around $19 on a stock trading near $14, it usually means the market is either

• pricing in lower commodity assumptions or

• still a bit skeptical about execution and M&A history,

not that the fundamentals have collapsed.

So the slight decline in the share price looks more like:

• year‑end positioning,

• dividend adjustment, and

• general energy sector softnes,

rather than a PR‑specific blow‑up.

Is the thesis unchanged, improving or broken?

Cash generation & returns: still intact

• The maintained base dividend and prior earnings strength suggest cash generation is on track, not deteriorating.

• A 4%+ base yield is more in line with a cash‑return E&P than a pure growth story. That supports the idea that even if the market gives you a flat share price for a while, you still get paid.

In my opinion, this is thesis‑supporting, not thesis‑breaking.

Balance sheet & structure: getting better

The announced restructuring to align ownership and simplify the corporate structure is a clear incremental positive for long‑term holders.

• Cleaner ownership and governance often help multiples.

• It also slightly reduces the “complexity discount” that some investors apply to E&Ps.

So here, I would actually say the thesis is incrementally stronger after December.

This is the key question.

• Price at year‑end: $14.03

• Street average target: around $19

• Dividend yield: roughly 4–4.5%

Based on current information:

• We do not see evidence of deteriorating assets.

• Last Q3 earnings came in ahead of expectations.

• The company is paying a consistent dividend instead of scrambling for liquidity.

So, in my view, PR at ~14 with a 4% yield, following an EPS beat and with positive analyst sentiment looks like “undervalued with execution risk”.

My take:

• If oil prices stay in a reasonable band and PR continues to execute, this looks like good value.

• If management pivots back into aggressive, expensive acquisitions or over‑spends capex, then it could create problems and change fundamentals.

Right now, I’d say: Thesis unchanged to slightly improved.

---

New Hope Corporation (ASX: NHC) — December update

Performance

• Price on 28 November: AUD 3.82

• Price on 31 December: AUD 4.03

That is a move of about +5.5% for the month.

So, while coal prices stayed soft, the stock quietly ground higher. For a pretty unloved thermal coal name, that is a quite a solid month. In my opinion, this was more a “steady re‑rating” than a news driven spike.

What actually happened in December?

There was no major company‑specific announcement in December. The market was mostly digesting the Q1 FY26 update released mid‑November, plus the broader coal price backdrop.

Quick reminder of the latest fundamentals already on the table by December:

• Volumes up: sellable coal production increased, helped by the ramp‑up at New Acland Stage 3 and stable output from Bengalla.

• Profits holding up: underlying EBITDA for Q1 FY26 was about A$108m, up roughly 15% quarter on quarter, despite weaker coal prices, as higher volumes and good cost control did some heavy lifting

• Guidance: Management is guiding to 10.2–11.5 Mt of sellable coal in FY26, up from FY25’s 10.7 Mt, so they are still talking growth, not decline.

• Dividends: A fully franked dividend of A$126m+ was paid in October, and at recent prices the trailing yield sits around high single to low double digits.

On the macro side:

• Thermal coal prices (Newcastle benchmark) spent late 2025 in the US$100–110/t range, down a long way from the super‑cycle highs, but still comfortably above NHC’s reported cash costs in the low‑to‑mid US$70s per tonne.

• China and Asia had plenty of coal in stock, which kept a bit of pressure on prices, but not enough to push high‑quality low‑cost producers into real pain.

How did this feed into the share price in December?

• No fresh shock, no new big negative ESG headline, no new tax or royalty hit.

• The last data point investors could lean on was a pretty decent quarterly, plus confirmation that the New Acland legal headaches had already been resolved earlier in 2025, clearing the path for a multi‑year production profile.

So, December felt like a “carry month” for NHC. Coal stays profitable, the business keeps churning cash and the stock reprices a little higher after a weak year.

Is the thesis unchanged?

• Operational thesis intact
  Nothing in December pointed to operational problems. The latest guidance and quarterly numbers, which were still “fresh” information for the market through December, show that NHC can make acceptable money at post‑boom coal prices.

• Balance between price and risk
  A 5.5% gain in the month is nice, but it does not suddenly turn NHC into a glamour stock. The valuation still prices in a lot of fear about the long‑term future of thermal coal.

• Dividend story still credible, but not guaranteed
  With coal prices where they are, the dividend looks sustainable near term. If prices roll over further, that can change faster than most people expect. This is defintely not a “set and forget for 20 years” type of name.

The December move does not break the thesis, it just nudges the share price a bit closer to fair value. I still see it as potentially attractive for income‑focused investors who understand that:

• the earnings stream is volatile,

• regulatory and ESG risk are structural, and

• you are being paid primarily through dividends and near‑term cash generation, not through a long growth runway.

---

Genmab (GMAB) — December Update

Performance

• 28 Nov: $32.36

• 31 Dec: $30.80

• Change: −$1.56, or roughly −4.8% for the period

The path within the month was more interesting than the end result:

• Around 23 December, GMAB traded at a new 12‑month high near $33.7 as sentiment around the pipeline and oncology names stayed strong.

• In the final week of December, the stock gave back some of those gains after Genmab announced it would terminate development of acasunlimab, which the market read as a mild negative at first, even though it was a portfolio clean‑up move rather than a financial shock.

What actually happened in December?

Here are the key pieces that moved sentiment, in plain English.

Pipeline pruning: acasunlimab scrapped

Genmab decided to stop further clinical development of acasunlimab, a PD‑1 x VEGF bispecific antibody being developed in cancer. Management framed this as:

• The competitive landscape in that indication is crowded.

• Capital and internal resources are better used on late‑stage, higher‑probability programs like:

  • Epcoritamab (EPKINLY)

  • Petosemtamab

  • Rina‑S (rinatabart sesutecan)

What I think about it:

• For a small or mid‑cap biotech, focus is a feature, not a bug.

• Killing a weaker project to double down on stronger ones is usually a positive, even if the stock has a short‑term wobble.

The market reaction: shares pulled back a few percent after the news.

But importantly, 2025 financial guidance and the broader long‑term story did not change.

R&D and ASH updates: reinforcing the core story

During December, Genmab also walked investors through:

• R&D progress across the portfolio, with a strong focus on epcoritamab.

• ASH (American Society of Hematology) data for EPKINLY in blood cancers, plus early data in CLL‑1 and related settings.

The tone of the R&D update was:

• Epcoritamab is still central to the story, both in current approved indications and potential label expansions.

• The broader platform of antibody and bispecific technologies is progressing in a measured but meaningful way.

In my opinion, this kind of event is exactly what you want to see after a strong run in the stock as:

• It re‑anchors the share price to clinical data and long‑term commercialization potential.

• It reduces the risk that the move was “just momentum” with nothing underneath.

Market context and sentiment

On top of company‑specific news, remember:

• Biotech as a sector has been volatile, with macro and rate expectations swinging sentiment around.

• GMAB had already had a very strong year, which naturally invites some profit‑taking into year‑end.

Is the thesis intact?

Let’s link December’s events back to the core thesis.

What changed

• Acasunlimab is gone.

  • This reduces optionality a bit, but not the core revenue drivers.

  • It simplifies the story: less “sprawl,” more focus on the winners.

• The company clearly signaled:

  • “We are prioritizing late‑stage, higher‑impact oncology assets.”

This to me is good capital allocation, even if it feels uncomfortable when framed as “scrapping a late‑stage drug.”

What did not change

• Epcoritamab’s role as the key growth engine.

• The long‑term expansion potential of the pipeline.

• The financial position and overall strategy.

So, I see it more as a normal, slightly messy month in a high‑innovation biotech, with one asset cut and the rest reaffirmed.

I’d treat December more as noise around a sensible strategic move than a fundamental red flag.

The real questions to keep watching in 2026 will be:

• Are epcoritamab launches tracking well in key markets and lines of therapy?

• Do we see more clinical wins from petosemtamab, Rina‑S, and other next‑gen assets?

• Does management stick to disciplined capital allocation like in December or drift

Halozyme Therapeutics (HALO) — December update

Performance

• Start (28 Nov): $71.40

• End (31 Dec): $67.30

• Return: roughly –5.7%

For context, HALO had run quite a lot into late 2025 on the back of strong ENHANZE royalty growth and a series of new product launches and indications. The Q3 numbers were very strong, with royalty revenue up 52% year-on-year and total revenue up 22% year-on-year to a record $354m. Net income was up 28% and non‑GAAP EPS up 35% to $1.72 in Q3 alone, and management even raised full‑year 2025 guidance for revenue, EBITDA and EPS Halozyme Q3 release.

So, you had:

• Strong fundamentals,

• A stock that had already re‑rated on that story,

• Then some December “headline risk” that cooled sentiment a bit.

The price dip into year‑end, in my opinion, is more about sentiment and some profit‑taking than any collapse in the business itself.

What actually happened in December?

Big positive: new ENHANZE approval with J&J

On 18 December, Halozyme announced that Johnson & Johnson received FDA approval for RYBREVANT FASPRO, a subcutaneous formulation co‑formulated with ENHANZE for EGFR‑mutated advanced non‑small cell lung cancer.

Why this matters:

• It is approved across all RYBREVANT indications, not just a niche subgroup.

• It is the first and only subcutaneous targeted therapy for this EGFR+ NSCLC segment.

• It dramatically reduces administration time from several hours IV to roughly 5 minutes SC and cuts infusion‑related reactions from 66% to 13% in trial data.

This type of product is exactly why ENHANZE is valuable. You are not just giving patients a bit more convenience, you are freeing up infusion chairs, saving nurse time and making payers and hospitals happier. That usually translates into strong and sticky adoption and ultimately royalty growth for Halozyme.

From a thesis point of view, this approval is clearly positive for the long‑term royalty stream.

Analyst moves and the “post‑2030 cliff” debate

December also brought some conflicting analyst commentary that, in my view, explains part of the share‑price softness:

• TD Cowen (5 Dec): reaffirmed Buy with a $79 price target, signaling confidence in the earnings growth setup for 2026 and beyond.

• Goldman Sachs (4 Dec): Downgraded HALO to Sell with a $56 target, highlighting the “post‑2030 royalty cliff”. Their argument: around 70% of Enhanze royalties roll off between 2030–2035 and current business‑development pace may not fully offset that.

So, suddenly the market refocused on, “What happens after 2030?”

This type of debate usually compresses valuation multiples even when the near‑term numbers are strong. You can see that in the late‑year price action: good news from J&J, but a slightly lower stock into year‑end. Investors are starting to discount the long‑term uncertainty.

My take:

• The near‑term (2025–2028) picture is excellent, with raised guidance, a growing basket of ENHANZE products, and very high margins.

• The long‑term (post‑2030) requires Halozyme to keep signing new partners and new assets and to make the Elektrofi/Hypercon acquisition work as a second growth engine.

Is the investment thesis unchanged, better or broken?

Let’s link events to valuation:

Positive drivers in December:

• RYBREVANT FASPRO approval with ENHANZE

• Confirmation of Halozyme as an attractive growth name for 2026

• Analyst commentary highlighted it as an “affordable growth stock” with solid earnings trends.

• The Q3 print and raised 2025 guidance already set the tone for strong EPS growth.

Negative / overhangs in December:

1. Goldman Sachs “Sell” and royalty‑cliff narrative

2. Profit taking after a strong 2025

   • With revenue and royalty growth numbers like Halozyme reported in Q3, some investors who bought earlier in the year simply locked in gains into year‑end.

   • That is normal behavior, not necessarily a verdict on fundamentals.

In my opinion, December’s net effect is modest sentiment damage, not a fundamental hit. The business value arguably improved with the new approval, even if the share price slipped.

• The underlying business is growing fast.

• Margins are high.

• Cash flows are real and robust.

• You have a credible 4–6 year runway of growth from products already launched or close to it.

But it is also not a “set and forget for 15 years” compounder.
We need to re‑evaluate every couple of years/quarters to see if:

• New ENHANZE deals are being signed,

• Elektrofi/Hypercon starts to generate real partner uptake and future royalties,

• Management manages capital allocation well (M&A, buybacks, etc.).

In my opinion, December did more to highlight the long‑term question than to change the near‑term thesis. The approval win and the Q3 strength both support the story. The price drop gives you a bit more margin of safety, but the “royalty cliff” debate is now baked into the narrative.

---

Uber (UBER) — December update

Stock performance

• 28 Nov: $87.54

• 31 Dec: $81.71

• Change: about –6.7% over the period you mentioned.

The share price took a breather after a strong year and reacted pretty sensitively to headlines.

What actually happened in December?

Fundamentals in the background: still strong

Even though December itself didn’t bring fresh earnings, the Q3 2025 results (reported earlier) kept echoing through analyst notes and articles:

• Revenue around +20% year over year

• Trips up about 22%, to roughly 3.5 billion rides and deliveries.

• Adjusted EBITDA around $2.3B, up more than 30% YoY.

• Free cash flow for the quarter around $2.2B, meaning Uber is now a real cash machine, not a “promise for the future.”

• A large share buyback program was underway, with tens of billions authorized and several billions already repurchased in 2025.

So, operationally, December sat on top of a very strong fundamental backdrop.

Key December headlines and why the stock wobbled

Here are the big themes that kept moving the price:

1. Regulatory & legal noise (FTC / subscriptions, general regulation)

   • The FTC expanded a lawsuit related to Uber One (its subscription program), accusing Uber of misleading subscription practices and issues around cancellations and auto‑renewal.

   • This headline hit sentiment because subscriptions are a nice high‑margin, recurring revenue lever for Uber.

   • Market reaction: short‑term selling, as investors priced in the risk of fines, changes to how subscriptions are marketed, or slightly lower future subscription economics.

   
   This is annoying, but not thesis‑breaking at all. Worst case, Uber pays some fines, adjusts terms and keeps scaling membership. The underlying demand for the service does not hinge on the exact wording of the cancellation page.

2. General regulatory pressure & labor / policy concerns

   • Ongoing issues in various regions, such as EU and NYC discussions around gig work, delivery rules, and EV incentive changes, stayed in the news.

   • Markets never love regulatory uncertainty, so each headline can shave a few percent off the stock in the short term.

   
   This is part of the Uber story and has been from day one. It tends to cause volatility but rarely flips the long‑term trajectory unless there is a true ban or hugely punitive law in a major market. We did not get anything like that in December.

3. Autonomous vehicle (AV) and robotaxi narrative

   This is where things got noisy:

   • Waymo and other players reported strong momentum in robotaxi rides (millions of trips, expanding markets).

   • That fed into a familiar question: “What if robotaxis disrupt Uber?”

   • At the same time, Uber was expanding partnerships, such as robotaxis in Dallas with Avride and delivery with autonomous robots in some markets.

Over the next decade, AVs are more likely to plug into Uber’s network rather than fully replace it. Uber already aggregates human drivers, taxis and different partners; adding AV fleets is an extension of that model. It could actually improve margins over time if they pay a lower “take” to AV fleets relative to human drivers.

Analyst commentary and targets

Despite the share price pullback, analyst stance remained broadly bullish:

• Consensus rating: “Buy / Strong Buy”.

• Average 12‑month targets in the $105–110 range, implying 30–40% upside from around $80.

Not only that, but a number of December pieces specifically framed Uber as “still too cheap” relative to growth in free cash flow and earnings.

When the stock is down on headlines but sell‑side targets barely move, it usually tells you sentiment is shaken but the core numbers haven’t changed.

Is the thesis unchanged, better or broken?

Unit economics & cash generation

• Q3 numbers that December investors were still digesting showed strong profitability and FCF.

• Nothing in December indicated a reversal in demand: people are still riding, ordering food, and using Uber for everyday life.

The economic engine is intact. Price dipped, cash flows did not.

Regulatory / legal risk

• The FTC Uber One issue and regional regulations are real and will probably result in some costs and operational tweaks.

• However, they don’t touch the core demand for rides and deliveries.

• This is more of a “tax on success” than a break in the business model.

My view:
This sits in the “cost of doing business” bucket. It slightly dents the multiple sometimes, but it rarely kills the story.

AV / competition risk

• Waymo, Tesla and others staying in the headlines makes people nervous.

• But the TAM for urban and suburban mobility is enormous, and Uber’s strength is demand aggregation, routing and customer relationship, not owning a specific car.

The AV news flow hurt the stock short term, but it arguably strengthens the long‑term logic of Uber as the layer connecting riders and whatever vehicle shows up: human, robotaxi or something else.

Valuation check

Around $81–82, with solid earnings and strong FCF:

• Uber is trading at a pretty reasonable earnings and cash flow multiple for a company still growing revenue around high‑teens to 20% and expanding margins

• Analysts still see decent upside to fair value, with targets well above the current price.

I also think that at these levels Uber is a “good business on sale”.

If you believed in Uber as a scalable, cash‑generating platform before December, I don’t see anything in December that invalidates that. The month looks more like a sentiment dip than the start of a structural decline. For a long‑term retail investor, December’s lower price is more of an opportunity to accumulate than a sign to panic, as long as you’re comfortable with volatility and the usual Uber regulatory drama.

---

EQT Corp – December update

Performance

• 28 Nov price: $60.86

• 31 Dec price: $53.60

That is roughly a 12% pullback into year‑end.

So, what happened and is the thesis still intact?

In my opinion, this move is mostly about:

1. Natural gas price volatility in late Q4. Even small swings in gas strip prices can hit E&Ps like EQT quite hard.

2. General risk‑off mood into year‑end, especially in cyclicals and anything tied to commodities.

3. Some profit taking after a strong earlier run in the stock.

Key news and events and how they matter

Dividend increase, quietly bullish for long‑term holders

EQT had previously announced a 5% increase in the base dividend to $0.165 per share quarterly (about $0.66 per year), which was paid on December 1 to shareholders of record in early November. That’s a small but clear signal.

Why this matters:

• Management is willing to commit more cash to shareholders.

• Dividend hikes are usually a sign they feel good about cash flow visibility and balance sheet strength.

In my opinion, this supports the thesis of EQT as a cash‑generating, scaled gas producer, not a speculative “hope and pray” story.

Balance sheet moves: continuing to clean up debt

EQT has been actively working on its debt stack, including redeeming higher‑coupon notes and pushing the balance sheet to a safer place.

Why I like this:

• Lower interest expense means more free cash flow over time.

• A cleaner balance sheet gives them optionality: buybacks, more dividends or disciplined growth when the gas market is tight.

So while the stock price was drifting down, the underlying financial risk was actually improving.

Analyst views and market sentiment

Across November and December, most analyst commentary stayed constructive to bullish:

• Average target prices remained above the current share price, implying upside in the mid‑teens or more.

• Ratings clustered around Buy / Outperform, with only a minority on Hold.

This tells me the pullback into year‑end is not because the market suddenly abandoned the story, but because the sentiment cooled temporarily.

Thesis check: still good value?

What supports the thesis:

1. Scale and cost position:
   EQT stays a top‑tier Marcellus/Utica gas producer with competitive costs. Nothing in this period suggests its cost structure worsened.

2. Capital returns:
   The dividend increase and ongoing focus on debt reduction fit perfectly with a disciplined, shareholder‑friendly strategy. That is exactly what you want in a cyclical commodity name.

3. Macro tailwinds still there:

   • LNG build‑out continues.

   • Power demand from AI and data centers is a multi‑year story, not a one‑month theme.

   • If gas prices normalize higher over the cycle, EQT’s cash flows can scale up fast.

4. Balance sheet improving:
   Less high‑coupon debt, more flexibility. That’s the opposite of a value trap, where usually the balance sheet is rotting in the background.

What challenges the thesis (and is worth watching):

1. Gas price volatility:
   If gas prices stay depressed for longer than expected, free cash flow will be lower, and the market may keep the multiple compressed. This is the single biggest real risk in my view.

2. Execution risk:

   • They need to stay disciplined on CAPEX.

   • Any major operational slip or poor hedging decision could hurt the story.

3. “Crowded trade” risk:
   EQT has been a go‑to name for investors wanting “clean US gas leverage.” In risk‑off environments, those popular trades get sold first.

I think, at these levels, EQT still looks a volatile value opportunity.

The November–December drop is uncomfortable, but not thesis‑breaking.

I still stick to the thesis.

However we should:

• Avoid over‑trading every 10–15% swing. This name will always be choppy.

• Re‑check position size, so if we can live with more volatility without panicking out at the worst moment.

---

Taylor Morrison Home Corporation (TMHC) – December Update

This is our new purchase in December.

Performance

• Buy price (22 Dec): $59.29

• Price at month-end (31 Dec): $58.87

Performance was about –0.7%, basically flat, a tiny paper loss

So, for December, this position mostly went sideways. No drama, no big win either.

From mid to late December, TMHC traded in a tight range around the high‑50s / low‑60s.
The small drop from your entry price to month‑end is:

• Not company-specific,

• Largely in line with how homebuilders traded into year‑end.

What weighed on the share price:

• Higher-for-longer interest rate expectations kept pressure on anything tied to housing.

• Investor sentiment toward homebuilders turned cautious after a strong run in 2023–2024.

• A bearish analyst narrative showed up in December, highlighting earnings downgrades and softer housing data.

What actually happened fundamentally?

There was no big December company event like a shock profit warning or major acquisition. The backdrop is more about:

Earlier strong execution still stands

• Through 2025, management kept delivering:

  • Q1 and Q3 2025 both beat guidance on closings, pricing and margins.

  • They continued shifting to a more land‑light model, with about 60% of land controlled via options instead of fully owned. That reduces balance sheet risk over the cycle.

  • They stayed focused on share buybacks rather than dividends, retiring a meaningful amount of stock over the last few years.

So the trailing fundamentals going into December were actually strong.

Where the market got nervous

Late 2025, analysts started to trim their forward estimates:

• Expectations for 2025 and 2026 revenue and EPS came down,

On top of that:

• Mortgage rates remained high, cooling demand and forcing more incentives and rate buy‑downs to move inventory.

• Land and construction costs stayed sticky, so margins have less room to expand and may compress a bit.

• Builder inventory across the sector has been on the high side, which markets don’t love.

This combination explains why a stock with good trailing numbers can still stall or pull back. The market cares more about “next year and the year after” than about last quarter.

About the thesis

The thesis for TMHC is:

1. Quality operator in a still‑undersupplied U.S. housing market.

2. Strong balance sheet and improving returns on equity.

3. Disciplined capital allocation, mainly via buybacks instead of empire‑building.

4. Trading close to book value, so you’re not paying a crazy multiple for that quality.

Let’s test each point.

Housing backdrop: still supportive long term

• The U.S. still hasn’t fully corrected for years of underbuilding after the 2008 crisis.

• Household formation and an aging housing stock both support structural demand for new homes over a 5–10 year view.

• Short term, high mortgage rates absolutely hurt, but that’s the cyclical piece.

In my opinion, the long‑term housing shortage story is still intact. December did not change that.

Business quality & balance sheet

• Recent results show healthy margins (low‑ to mid‑20s gross margin) and strong cash generation.

• Book value keeps compounding, which is what you want in a cyclical: you want book value to rise through the cycle, not get wiped out.

• The shift to more optioned land lowers risk if the cycle turns ugly.

To me, this looks like a quality operator.

The thesis is supported, but:

• The path will be bumpy.

• Earnings may flatten or dip in the next year or two.

• The stock could trade sideways or even lower if housing data weakens further, even while fundamentals stay broadly fine.

---