Asymmetric Edge portfolio update: up 11.61% in January
Edit: Made a mistake in the originally published article and the correct gain is 11.61% instead of the originally indicated 6.05%. Now corrected.
An awesome start to the year, though it would have been much better without the metals sell-off on the last day of January.
As a result, the Asymmetric Edge portfolio gained 11.61% in January, clearly outperforming the S&P 500, which gained 1.37%
The portfolio continues to perform well, and we look forward to repeating the strong results of 2025.
So far, so good, though this is likely to be a very bumpy year.
The largest sector exposures remain Basic Materials and Energy.
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 Emerging market ETF.
Purchased UBER 0.00%↑ PUT option which expired and we kept the premium.
Purchase GLD 0.00%↑ PUT option, which will expire in February.
Update on the positions - 2026 January
As the portfolio includes metal related equities, before going into the individual holdings, let me first reflect the “flash crash” we saw at the end of January, why it happened and if it changed the thesis.
The great metals massacre of January
The end of January wasn’t just a “bad week” for metals, it was a total systemic flush.
For the first 29 days of January, gold and silver were the only games in town.
Gold had notched a 29.5% gain for the month, while silver was up a staggering 68%.
It was a parabolic “melt-up” fueled by a weakening dollar and a bet that the Fed would become a political wing of the White House.
Then January 30th happened. In just 28 minutes, the floor fell out.
The catalyst: the “Warsh Hawk” lands
The spark was President Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh to lead the Fed. To the metals market, this was a bucket of ice water. Investors had been pricing in a “printing press” Fed.
Instead, they got Warsh, a known inflation hawk who respects the balance sheet.
The Result: The US Dollar Index (DXY) saw its biggest one-day spike in years. Since gold is the inverse of the dollar, the “Trump Trade” of shorting the dollar and longing gold unraveled in seconds.
The mechanical trap: the COMEX “Roll” and margin calls
While Warsh was the reason, the COMEX “plumbing” was the weapon.
The COMEX (a division of the CME Group in Chicago) is primarily a "paper" market.
It is built on leverage.
On any given day, the volume of gold traded on the COMEX is significantly higher than the actual physical gold held in its vaults.
Most traders are buying and selling Futures Contracts, essentially a legal agreement to buy or sell gold at a specific price on a specific date in the future.
Because it is so liquid and fast, the prices discovered on the COMEX become the “Spot Price”.
The crash hit exactly during the major rollover from February to April gold contracts. Tens of thousands of traders were trying to move their positions at the same time the exit door slammed shut.
As prices dipped, the CME Group hiked margin requirements by over 30%. This forced “leveraged longs”, the retail traders and hedge funds playing with borrowed money, to sell immediately to cover their bills. It was a “forced liquidation” feedback loop that sent silver down an eye-watering 25% in a single session.
Paper vs. reality: the great divergence
Here is the part you need to know: while the “paper” price on the COMEX was collapsing, the physical market didn’t blink.
In hubs like Shanghai and Dubai, physical gold continued to trade at a $20–$50 premium over the crashing NY spot price. The “smart money” wasn’t selling their bars, the “fast money” was just getting liquidated on their screens.
Is the thesis dead?
The short answer: No, but the “easy money” phase is over.
The fundamental reasons for owning metals:
$315 trillion in global debt,
central banks aggressively de-dollarizing
massive structural deficit in silver
haven’t changed.
In fact, many institutions (including Goldman and SocGen) are calling this the “Great Reset” that cleared the path for gold to hit $6,000 later this year.
We continue to have strong hands.
Kinross Gold (KGC) - January update
KGC started the year strong.
31 Dec: $28.16
30 Jan: $31.56
January move: +$3.40, or +12.1%
That is a clean, momentum-friendly month. And it matters because miners often lag the metal until the market believes margins are real, not just a one-week spike.
What happened in January
A few forces usually drive a move like this in a gold miner and in my opinion January had all of them working in the right direction:
1) Gold price and rates expectations helped sentiment
When investors get even a little more confident that real rates will not keep rising, gold tends to catch a bid. That flows into miners quickly because their earnings are leveraged to the gold price. Not only does revenue lift with gold, but costs do not jump 1:1 in the short run, so margins can expand fast.
2) “Cash flow credibility” keeps improving
Kinross has been in the penalty box before for execution and capital allocation, so the market typically waits for proof. The recent pattern has been better: steadier operations, clearer capital plans, and more focus on free cash flow. When that narrative sticks, the stock can re-rate even if nothing dramatic happens in a single week.
3) Sector flows were supportive
Gold equities tend to move in packs. When generalist money rotates into gold exposure, it often buys the liquid names first. KGC usually benefits from that, even if company-specific news is quiet.
So, my take is the January move looked more like macro plus improved confidence rather than a one-off headline.
Thesis check
The thesis is unchanged. The stock moving +12% in a month does not break the story.
After the flash crash, I excpect gold prices to go higher again supporting the stock price also moving higher.
As said in the previous update, I consider trimming my position, but I first wait for 2025 Q4 earnings, which is likely to be reported on 18 February.
SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) - January update
GLD had a strong January, and the move was clean and simple: gold went up, so GLD went up.
Performance
GLD (31 Dec): $396.31
GLD (30 Jan): $444.95
January return: +12.27%
That’s a big monthly move for something that most people treat as “the boring hedge”. Especially considering the crash on the last trading day of January.
What happened in January
In my opinion, January was another month where investors paid up for insurance. A few themes showed up again and again:
1) Politics and policy uncertainty kept the safe-haven bid alive
A lot of mainstream coverage tied the January spike to rising geopolitical and policy uncertainty, plus fresh tariff talk and broader “trust” concerns around institutions and currencies. That is basically jet fuel for gold when the market mood turns defensive.
2) The Fed independence narrative mattered, even before the late-month pullback
The market got very sensitive to anything that touches the Fed’s independence. Gold likes that kind of story because it’s not about next quarter’s earnings, it’s about the rules of the game.
3) The dollar angle
When the dollar is under pressure, gold often benefits. The Guardian piece specifically points to renewed depreciation pressure on the dollar in mid-to-late January as these concerns resurfaced.
Is the thesis unchanged?
My take is yes. Gold’s core “job” in a retail portfolio is to:
diversify equity risk,
hedge policy mistakes and institutional risk,
help when real-world uncertainty rises.
And those drivers did not disappear in January. If anything, they got louder: policy uncertainty, tariff noise, geopolitics, and the Fed-independence debate stayed front and center.
VanEck Gold Miners ETF (GDX) - January update
GDX started the year at $85.77 (Dec 31) and ended Jan 30 at $94.20, so that’s +9.8% for January.
That headline number looks clean. The path wasn’t. GDX ran hard earlier in the month, then sold off sharply into the end of January, which is why the month “feels” worse than +9.8% if you were watching it day to day.
My take, January was classic miners behavior: fast upside, then sudden air pockets.
What happened in January
Gold miners are basically a two-part bet:
Gold price direction
Margins, costs and risk appetite for equities
So when gold is moving up and investors are in “hard asset” mode, miners tend to outperform. When the market flips to “cash is king,” miners can drop even if the long-term story is intact.
A few things mattered in January:
Positioning got crowded. When everyone piles into the same theme, the exit gets small.
Volatility rose. Miners are equities first, commodities exposure second. When vol spikes, they often get sold just because they are liquid.
Thesis check
The end-of-Jan sell-off was more about positioning than a sudden discovery that gold miners “don’t work.”
Base thesis (still valid): miners are a leveraged way to own gold exposure. If gold stays structurally supported (central bank buying, geopolitical stress, fiscal anxiety, whatever your preferred driver is), miners can compound nicely because profits can rise faster than the gold price.
What changed: after a big move, valuation and sentiment matter more and we get punished for crowding and leverage. The upside is still there.
So yes, the thesis is broadly unchanged.
What I’m watching in February (simple checklist)
Gold price trend vs USD and real yields: if USD keeps ripping, miners can stay sloppy.
Breadth inside GDX: are the big holdings (AEM, NEM, GOLD, etc.) stabilizing together, or is it just a couple names holding it up.
Cost inflation and guidance as companies report, energy and labor matter a lot here.
January was a strong month, but the late-month sell-off was a reminder that miners can drop fast when the macro tape flips.
iShares Silver Trust (SLV) - January update
SLV price on 31 December: $64.42
SLV price on 31 January: $75.44
That is a gain of about +17% in one month, which is a massive move for a single ETF holding physical silver.
What happened in January?
I’d split the month in two:
Early–mid January: momentum melt‑up
Late January: reality check / profit‑taking sell‑off
Early to mid January: the squeeze continues
In the first half of the month, SLV mostly rode the same narrative that fueled silver’s huge 2025:
Macro backdrop still friendly
The Fed is in an easing cycle, which typically helps precious metals by weakening the dollar and supporting industrial activity.
Markets are still pricing more cuts in 2026, which boosts the whole “monetary metal + growth metal” mix for silver.
Structural demand story still front and center
Silver demand is tightly linked to:
AI data centers and high‑end electronics (top‑tier conductivity).
EVs, which use more silver than internal‑combustion cars.
Solar, batteries, and some medical applications.
In late 2025 the US even added silver to its critical minerals list, reflecting that industrial dependency and supporting the long‑term demand story.
Positioning & flows
After a year where SLV and silver futures became a trading Playground, January started with:
Heavy trend‑following / momentum money still long.
Elevated retail and speculative participation, as silver was framed as “the new AI metal” and a high‑beta alternative to gold.
Put simply, January began with the same bullish thesis, plus a lot of hot money already in. That is a powerful but unstable mix.
The late‑January sell‑off was mostly positioning and sentiment, not a sudden collapse in the long‑term fundamentals of silver. It was the “weak hands” reacting to price, not to a new headline that killed the story.
Thesis check
The thesis is intact, but the entry risk is higher.
What changed, in my view, is where we sit in the cycle:
Valuation / sentiment shifted from “cheap, hated” to “consensus hot trade”.
Some analysts now argue that silver and SLV with it, is ahead of fundamentals in the short term and that the risk of a deeper correction has risen.
So the tension is:
Long‑term story: still strong, arguably stronger.
Near‑term setup: crowded, emotional, prone to sharp swings.
The recent drop is more like steam release than a thesis break.
Aberdeen Standard Physical Platinum Shares ETF (PPLT) - January update
PPLT had a good month.
Dec 31: $186.43
Jan 30: $195.04
Move: +$8.61, which is +4.62% for the month
What happened in January
PPLT is basically a wrapper around physical platinum, so the drivers are pretty straightforward.
In January, the market cared about a few recurring themes:
Macro and rates expectations: platinum tends to do better when the market is not pricing an endless march higher in real rates. Even small shifts in “rates outlook” can change the appetite for hard assets.
Industrial demand narrative: platinum is not just a monetary metal. It is tied to industrial cycles and auto-related demand (catalysts), plus longer-term demand ideas. When growth fears cool a bit, platinum usually gets a better hearing.
Relative value vs gold: in my opinion, part of platinum’s appeal is still that it can look cheap versus gold on a long lens, even if that gap can stay wide for longer than anyone wants.
No single headline needs to explain a +4.6% month. This one looks more like the market gradually re-pricing the asset rather than reacting to one dramatic news hit.
Thesis check
My take: the thesis is unchanged.
PPLT still makes sense as:
platinum has scarcity and supply constraints that can matter when the market tightens, and
the price still has room to mean revert relative to other precious metals over time, and
we want diversification away from pure equities and even away from gold-heavy precious metal exposure.
That said, I would not pretend this is a “can’t miss” setup.
Here’s what would make it feel more like a value trap:
if industrial demand keeps disappointing and the market decides platinum is “dead money” again, or
if a stronger dollar and higher real yields stick around and pressure the whole complex, or
if substitute dynamics (especially in auto) swing the wrong way for longer than expected.
My take is that the position still reads as “undervalued with catalysts,” not “broken.”
Teekay Tankers (TNK) — January update
Performance in January
Share price on 31 Dec: 53.42 USD
Share price on 31 Jan: 64.52 USD
Monthly return: about +20.8%
So, TNK outperformed the broad market by a wide margin. For context, over the last year the stock has already delivered around mid‑30s % total return.
January basically continued that strong trend, just compressed into a single month.
What happened in January
There was no single “one headline” that moved TNK. Instead, a few things lined up together:
a) Earnings optimism and EPS expectations
Investors are optimistic heading into the upcoming earnings, with expected EPS of about 1.96 USD, which would be roughly +30% year‑over‑year growth.
b) Strong fundamentals
Finally, the market seems to realize it.
For a shipping company, these are very healthy numbers:
double‑digit returns on equity,
strong profitability,
still a single‑digit P/E.
Not only are earnings expectations rising, but the starting valuation was not stretched. That combination is powerful.
c) Balance sheet strength and “zero debt” narrative
TNK is running with no net debt and a meaningful cash position.
The company is not burdened by heavy interest payments.
It has flexibility to:
renew or expand the fleet,
pay dividends,
or buy back shares if they choose.
In my opinion, this “fortress balance sheet” angle is very attractive in a cyclical sector. It lowers the fear of a blow‑up if rates soften.
d) Sector backdrop still favorable
The broader crude and product tanker story remains:
Tonne‑mile demand is supported by ongoing trade route dislocations (sanctions, rerouting of Russian barrels, longer voyages).
Fleet growth is limited because:
orderbook of new ships is relatively low compared to the fleet size,
shipyards are busy with other segments (LNG, containers, etc.).
So, the market still expects reasonably strong day‑rates for mid‑sized tankers, which directly feeds into TNK’s earnings power.
Put together:
Higher expected EPS,
still‑cheap valuation,
strong balance sheet,
supportive industry conditions.
That is enough fuel for a +20% month.
Thesis check
Positive developments:
The market is recognizing some of the undervaluation.
Earnings expectations have improved
The balance sheet story remains in tact
Risks and “value trap” arguments:
Slower projected global oil demand growth
Fleet renewal and capex uncertainty
In my opinion, these are real risks, but they are medium‑term risks, not immediate January issues. The market is currently focused on:
the next few quarters of strong earnings,
and the current zero‑debt, high‑cash profile.
January’s move is a nice validation of the thesis.
The story is intact, but the margin of safety has shrunk.
If TNK remains disciplined with capital allocation (no silly fleet splurge at the top of the cycle), the stock can still work from here, especially if the tanker market stays tight longer than consensus expects.
Permian Resources (PR) — January update
Price on 31 December: $14.03
Price on 30 January: $16.13
Move in January: +14.9%
So, PR had a very strong month. A near 15% move in a single month for an E&P is meaningful, even in a volatile sector.
What happened in January?
Oil and gas tape helped
PR is a levered play on Permian oil.When crude holds up or grinds higher and gas stabilizes, the whole shale complex gets repriced.
Even if there was no “big PR-specific” headline, a rising commodity tape plus risk-on sentiment in equities typically lifts high quality E&Ps, and PR is now seen as one of the “go-to” Permian operators.
Positioning and sentiment
In my opinion, some of this move is simply positioning catching up to fundamentals.PR has been executing, growing scale and integrating acquisitions.
As more institutions treat PR as a “core Permian” holding, flows alone can move the stock when the sector is in favor.
Not only fundamentals, but also the “E&P factor basket” turning up can give you this kind of 10–20% monthly swing without a single headline.
Ongoing confidence in the model: scale + returns
The story the market is buying:Scale in the Permian
Competitive well results
Improved capital efficiency as they integrate and block up acreage
Commitment to returning cash to shareholders over time
So, even on quiet news flow, every incremental datapoint that supports “efficient grower with solid returns” slowly compresses the discount the stock trades at.
If there was any modest company news in January (ops updates, conferences, sell-side upgrades), it likely just reinforced the existing narrative rather than changing it.
Thesis check
If PR was clearly cheap at $14 on cash flow and NAV, a ~15% move to $16 does not magically turn it into a bubble.
It likely moved from “clear value / mispriced” toward “more fairly valued, still interesting if your time horizon is longer and you like the asset quality.”
Thesis is playing out, not breaking.
The positive price action is consistent with the original thesis, not in conflict with it.
The whole point was that PR should rerate as they integrate, grow efficiently and prove themselves as a reliable operator.
A rerating from a depressed level is the thesis working, not a warning sign by itself.
I’d only start worrying if we saw a combination of:
Aggressive capex with weak returns on new wells.
Clear signs that “tier 1” inventory is not as deep as guided.
Management pivoting from returns to empire-building deals.
A scenario where, even at higher prices, free cash flow per share stalls or goes backwards.
We don’t have any evidence of that now.
New Hope Corporation (ASX: NHC) — January update
31 Dec price: A$4.03
30 Jan price: A$4.51
Move: +11.9% for the month
So NHC quietly put in a very solid month, comfortably ahead of the broader ASX 200 and in line with the renewed interest in high-yield energy names. Not a moonshot, but for a coal producer with an 7–8% yield, a ~12% monthly move is pretty punchy.
This is not “story stock” momentum, it is the market slowly re‑rating cash-generating coal names after seeing that 2024–26 earnings are not collapsing as quickly as feared.
What happened in January
There was no single “company-changing” announcement in January, but a few things lined up in NHC’s favour:
Strong recent operating update still in the price, as a recap:
New Hope’s November 2025 Quarterly Activities Report (referenced by Intelligent Investor) highlighted:
Quarterly coal production up 7.1%
Realised sale price ~A$136.6/t
Underlying EBITDA A$107.9m for the quarter
Ongoing logistics constraints at New Acland and Bengalla, but still growing volumes
Exit from oil & gas (Bridgeport Energy), simplifying the story to coal plus agri and port
Final dividend of A$126.4m, with cash still at A$544.3m after the payout
That quarterly report did two important things:
It showed that even at “normalised” coal prices (well below 2022 peaks), NHC is still throwing off serious cash.
It reassured the market that the New Acland Stage 3 ramp-up is working and production is actually growing into FY26.
Those datapoints were still front of mind in January, and you can see it in broker and media tone:
Motley Fool pieces in Jan and early Feb calling out NHC as:
among the top dividend payers
a high-yield energy name that is “up 13% in a month” and still flagged as a buy by at least one “leading investment expert” (Motley Fool AU).
Intelligent Investor carries a BUY recommendation with FY26 forecasts implying P/E around mid-single digits and a fully franked yield north of 7% at recent prices (Intelligent Investor).
In my opinion, January’s move is basically the market digesting that quarterly and adjusting for “this is not going away yet” cash flow.
b) Macro backdrop: coal prices and energy sentiment
The January-only coal chart is not yet available, but the big picture is:
Thermal coal prices have come off the 2022 spike, but remain well above the levels that would really hurt NHC’s economics.
Energy sentiment in early 2026 has shifted from “windfall tax panic” to “these are still cash machines with high dividends”, especially in Australia’s energy basket, which led the ASX at various points.
That backdrop helped all the coal names and NHC participated. Nothing magical, just coal still being needed and Asian demand not collapsing.
c) Capital returns and balance sheet still attractive
While January did not bring a new dividend declaration, investors know the next set of payouts is coming, and that supports the share price ahead of the next interim result (calendar Q1 2026).
The market is slowly re-pricing NHC as a yield + moderate-growth story, rather than a purely cyclical trade.
Thesis check
a) Fundamentals vs valuation
Very quick check:
FY26 forecast NPAT around A$680m
At ~A$4.50–4.60 and roughly 845m shares on issue, market cap is about A$3.8–3.9bn.
On those FY26 estimates, that’s roughly:
P/E ~5.5–6x
Dividend yield ~7–8% fully franked
So even after a ~12% move in January, you are not paying a growth‑stock multiple for those earnings and dividends.
In my opinion, that still screens as cheap to fair rather than expensive, as long as you are comfortable with:
Thermal coal staying above the marginal cost curve for a while.
Demand in Asia remaining resilient.
Political and ESG pressures staying at current levels, not ramping overnight into bans or punitive taxes.
b) Operational risk
From the last quarterly commentary:
Production is growing, but logistics and operational bottlenecks at New Acland and Bengalla were mentioned.
Safety metrics are improving, which is good, but any accident or regulatory intervention can change sentiment quickly in this sector.
So, the operational picture is messy but fine, typical for a coal operation. Nothing in January changed that picture, positively or negatively.
c) ESG / structural risk
The big pushback on NHC has always been:
“Even if it is cheap, it might become uninvestable for major institutions and face shrinking multiples.”
January did not shift that structural risk either way. If anything, there is a slow drip of:
Super funds continuing to blacklist thermal coal, eg Australia’s second-largest fund blacklisting coal investments.
My take: this is already in the price to a large extent. You don’t get a business throwing off 10%+ earnings yield on a clean 20-year runway in a politically-safe commodity. You get something like NHC:
High cash returns.
Moderate duration risk on the underlying commodity.
A chronic valuation discount for ESG reasons.
That is the trade. January did not change it.
Genmab (GMAB) — January Update
31 Dec: $30.80
30 Jan: $32.63
Return: roughly +5.9%
For a large, established biotech, a ~6% monthly move, without any “blockbuster” one-off news, is respectable. It suggests:
Investors are still comfortable with the long‑term story.
There was no major negative surprise hanging over the stock.
So, GMAB behaved like a “steady compounder” type biotech in January, not a speculative rocket. I actually like that profile.
What happened in January
To keep it simple, GMAB typically reacts to three big themes:
Drug performance and pipeline updates
Partner news (especially with big pharma)
Interest‑rate and risk sentiment in broader markets
In January, the price action we see fits more with:
Steady sentiment improvement around quality biotechs with real revenue.
Ongoing confidence in the antibody platform and key products, rather than a single new headline.
Nothing in that price path screams “new risk just appeared.”
Instead, it looks like:
Investors are slowly re‑rating GMAB as a quality, profitable biotech, not a speculative science project.
The market is still willing to pay for its future pipeline and for royalty streams from partnered drugs.
If there had been a serious negative development in January, the stock would not be up 6%.
The market votes pretty fast in biotech. The fact that GMAB drifted higher suggests the story stayed intact or even slightly improved in the eyes of institutional investors.
Thesis check
The thesis remains intact, here’s why:
Price behaviour fits a “healthy” story, not a broken one
GMAB moving up ~6% in a calm month suggests the market is still giving it credit for the pipeline and royalty engine.
Business quality hasn’t suddenly changed
The company still sits on a differentiated antibody expertise, which big pharma continues to pay for.
As long as partners keep advancing Genmab‑originated antibodies, the royalty logic holds.
Valuation vs. risk
Without overcomplicating it, the current price level reflects a company that is:
Already generating meaningful revenue,
Still investing heavily in R&D,
And has a credible shot at further approvals.
That is a very different setup from a biotech that has a single binary Phase 3 trial and no plan B.
I think GMAB still looks like a high‑quality biotech compounder, not a “cheap for a reason” story. The market is not throwing it in the trash bin, quite the opposite, it is quietly rewarding it.
Halozyme Therapeutics (HALO) — January update
Dec 31: $67.30
Jan 30: January at $71.71
that is a +6.55% move for the month.
This was a “fundamentals caught up with the story” kind of January.
What happened in January
a) New partnership with Takeda (Vedolizumab + ENHANZE)
Halozyme announced a global collaboration and license agreement with Takeda to develop and commercialize vedolizumab with ENHANZE. That matters because ENHANZE deals are the engine of the model: partner assets, partner execution, Halozyme collects economics. Less burn, more royalty-like upside.
This kind of headline tends to do two things for the stock:
It reinforces that ENHANZE is still in demand by large pharma
It nudges investors to extend the “royalty runway” in their head, meaning they feel better paying a higher multiple
B) The big one: raised guidance and strong preliminary 2025 numbers
On Jan 28, Halozyme put out a business update with preliminary unaudited 2025 revenue and, more importantly, raised 2026 and multi-year guidance.
Key points they highlighted:
2025 total revenue estimate: $1,385 to $1,400M (up 36% to 38% YoY)
2025 royalty revenue estimate: $865 to $870M (up 51% to 52% YoY)
Raised 2026 guidance: total revenue $1,710 to $1,810M, royalty revenue $1,130 to $1,170M
They also lifted Adjusted EBITDA and non-GAAP EPS ranges
In my opinion, this is the cleanest explanation for the January strength. Guidance raises are simple, they change spreadsheets fast, and they force skeptics to revisit the “is growth slowing?” worry.
C) Acquisition angle: Surf Bio and hyperconcentration tech
In the same Jan 28 update, the company also discussed the Surf Bio acquisition (done in Dec 2025), adding hyperconcentration technology.
The strategic message is clear: Halozyme wants to expand beyond classic ENHANZE into a broader “drug delivery toolbox.”
This is good strategically, but I’d frame it like this: it increases optionality and it also adds execution and integration risk. The market seemed to focus more on the guidance raise than on worrying about deal risk, which tells you sentiment was constructive.
Thesis check
The core thesis looks intact and January actually strengthened it.
The Halozyme thesis (in plain English) is still:
ENHANZE is a “picks and shovels” model for biologics delivery
Partners do the heavy lifting (clinical, regulatory, commercial)
Halozyme gets paid when those products sell, so the business can scale with high margins
January supported that in two ways:
More partner traction (Takeda deal)
Better near-term financial visibility (raised 2026 guidance, strong royalty growth)
I do not see a thesis break.
Uber (UBER) — January update
UBER basically went nowhere in January, but it felt like a volatile month if you watched it day to day.
31 Dec close: $81.71
30 Jan close: $80.05
Monthly move: -2.0% (roughly)
My take, this is a digestion month, not a narrative break.
What happened in January
January’s Uber tape was mostly driven by two forces:
“Robotaxi risk” came back into focus
Investors keep circling the same question: if autonomous fleets scale, does Uber get disrupted or does it become the aggregator that benefits anyway?
A lot of the January commentary in the market leaned into this theme, highlighting AV competition and the uncertainty discount it can put on Uber’s multiple. Even when the core business is executing, this debate tends to cap upside in quiet months.
Partners and AV positioning, not core rides, did the talking
There were also headlines around Uber’s AV strategy and ecosystem approach. Some of it is hype, but it matters because it shapes perception of Uber’s long-term moat and take rate.
For example, there were pieces framing Uber as an “aggregator” winner in robotaxis, highlighting partnerships and scale arguments.
Whether you buy that fully or not, the key point is: the market spent January talking about the future structure of mobility, not just quarterly trips and margins.
So, the stock ended up range-bound. Not only did Uber not deliver a big new catalyst in January, but the market also did not let the multiple expand on “business as usual.”
Thesis check
In my opinion, the core Uber thesis is largely unchanged.
Here’s what still works:
Uber is a scaled marketplace with real network effects in many cities. That is hard to replicate quickly.
Operating leverage is real once a platform is built. Uber has been moving from “growth story” toward “cash generation story,” and that tends to be durable if demand stays healthy.
Optionality is still there: ads, subscriptions, delivery improvements, and eventually whatever shape autonomy takes.
What I am watching more closely, and this is the crux:
Autonomy is not a zero-risk footnote anymore. It is a valuation input. Even the bull case articles admit the stock’s “why so cheap?” question often comes back to AV uncertainty.
January signaled uncertainty about future industry structure.
My take is that even at the times of AVs, robo taxis, there is a need for a platform to order those services.
EQT Corp – January update
Performance
Dec 31: $53.60
Jan 30: $57.73
It is about +7.7% for January.This is the kind of move you often get when the market gets a bit more comfortable with the commodity tape, and when “cash flow stories” like EQT get re-rated even modestly.
What happened in January
With EQT, the stock usually reacts to a pretty small set of drivers:
Natural gas price direction and volatility
EQT is basically a torque play on U.S. gas fundamentals. When gas prices firm up, the equity tends to respond quickly because the market starts penciling in better cash flow and more flexibility on capital returns.
Even when prices do not rip higher, a calmer strip can lift sentiment. Investors hate gas chaos. Stability helps.
Capital return expectations
EQT holders care about what management does with free cash flow. If the market senses buybacks stay credible, the multiple can expand.
In my opinion, January looked like one of those periods where investors were willing to pay a bit more for the same thesis, not because the company “changed”, but because the backdrop felt less hostile.
Macro positioning
Energy equities still get pushed around by flows. When general risk appetite improves, high cash flow names can catch a bid even without a single dramatic headline.
Thesis check
Broadly, the thesis is intact.
What we own: a scale U.S. natural gas producer with meaningful operating leverage to gas prices.
What matters: disciplined capex, cost control, and actually returning cash when the cycle allows it.
What January did: it improved sentiment. It did not rewrite the story.
So, if your original thesis was “EQT is a quality way to be long U.S. gas with shareholder returns as the payoff,” January did not break that.
EQT is still a thesis-driven holding, not a “cheap and safe” holding.
What I am watching next:
Henry Hub and the forward curve: spot matters, but the strip is what drives valuation models.
Production discipline across Appalachia: one bad actor can ruin the party.
Signals on buybacks and capex: any hint of “growth for growth’s sake” is a yellow flag.
Taylor Morrison Home Corporation (TMHC) – January update
Start of period (31 Dec): $58.87
End of period (30 Jan): $60.95
Change is: about +3.5% for the month,
For context, U.S. homebuilders as a group traded sideways to slightly up in January as the market weighed:
still‑elevated, but stabilizing mortgage rates
hopes for Fed cuts later in 2026
resilient new‑home demand versus weak existing‑home supply
TMHC traded like a “quality cyclical,” not a high‑beta meme. It drifted up as investors stayed comfortable with earnings power but waited for the next data point, which will be Q4/FY 2025 results in February.
What happened in January
January did not bring any “big bang” fundamental surprise, but there were a few signals worth noting.
a) Reputation and brand strength keep getting reinforced
In early January, Taylor Morrison was again recognized as America’s Most Trusted Home Builder for the eleventh consecutive year by Lifestory Research, with a Net Trust Score of 115.7 vs 109.9 for the big builder average, and Esplanade’s score also improving year over year.
A bit later, in early February, Fortune named TMHC to its 2026 World’s Most Admired Companies list, ranking No. 2 among homebuilders, with strong scores for:
social responsibility
quality of management
quality of products and services
innovation
Even though that news is technically early February, markets discount forward, and this string of reputation wins supports the “high‑quality operator” narrative. These are soft factors, but they matter for:
land deals and community approvals
pricing power with buyers
recruiting and retaining talent in a tough labor market
In my opinion, this kind of repeat recognition helps justify TMHC trading on a premium multiple versus the weakest builders, even if the whole sector is still optically cheap on earnings.
b) Institutional interest still building
Recent filings show multiple institutions adding to TMHC:
Bridges Investment Management increased its stake by 36.5% in Q3, to 49,480 shares worth about $3.27m
Campbell & CO Investment Adviser LLC also opened a new position in Q3, buying 31,633 shares worth about $2.09m
Large holders like Norges Bank, Long Pond, AQR and others remain significant parts of the register.
So, while January’s price move was small, the shareholder base continues to tilt toward long‑only quality and smart hedge‑fund capital.
Not only does this typically reduce volatility over time, it also tends to support buybacks and capital‑allocation flexibility.
c) Balance sheet, debt profile and upcoming earnings
Late 2025 TMHC completed a cash tender offer for 95.8% of its 5.875% notes due 2027, funded partly with $525m of new 5.75% notes due 2032. That simplifies and extends the debt maturity profile and slightly lowers the coupon.
Why this matters now:
Heading into 2026, TMHC is positioned with:
low net debt for a builder
solid liquidity (current ratio ~7, quick ratio ~1, debt/equity ~0.35)
That gives management room to:
keep buying back stock if it trades cheap
keep investing in land without stretching the balance sheet
ride out any short‑term demand wobble if mortgage rates spike again
In January, the market essentially waited for the announced Q4 2025 earnings release and call in February 2026.
No pre‑announcement, no warning. For a cyclical name, no news is good news.
Well, that earnings “quiet period” probably explains why the stock just edged up instead of making a bigger move.
Thesis check
a) Earnings power vs valuation
TMHC trades at roughly 7–8x earnings based on recent numbers, with ROE around 15% and mid‑to‑high single‑digit net margins.
For a company that:
has national scale
is repeatedly winning “Most Trusted” and “Most Admired” awards
runs a conservative balance sheet
I think that multiple still prices in a decent amount of fear about:
a hard landing in U.S. housing
margin compression if incentives spike
land impairments if the macro turns
In my view, unless you believe we are heading into a 2008‑style housing bust, that risk premium looks too fat.
b) Demand backdrop
Key housing dynamics that still support the original thesis:
Structural undersupply of single‑family homes in many U.S. markets.
Limited existing‑home inventory because existing owners are “rate‑locked” into 3 percent mortgages.
New‑home builders, including TMHC, can:
flex incentives
buy down mortgage rates
re‑design product for affordability
TMHC is diversified across entry‑level, move‑up and active‑adult, which helps smooth out any one segment’s weakness.
As long as employment holds and the Fed is moving toward cuts, not hikes, TMHC can still put up respectable volumes and margins, even if things get bumpy quarter to quarter.
c) Balance sheet and capital allocation
Debt metrics remain conservative, with debt/equity ~0.35 and strong liquidity
The 2025 liability management (refinancing the 2027 notes into 2032s) shows a proactive approach to risk.
TMHC is cleaning up its debt, extending maturities and keeping optionality.
d) Market perception
Analyst sentiment is still broadly positive:
Multiple firms rate TMHC “Buy” or “Outperform”, with a consensus target in the mid‑70s area, versus a current low‑60s share price.
The investment case in TMHC is broadly unchanged and still attractive.
The main risk is macro, not company‑specific. If rates re‑spike or unemployment jumps, all builders will get hit, TMHC included.
But in that scenario, you are being paid with a single‑digit P/E and a quality operator.
iShares MSCI Brazil ETF (EWZ) - January update
This was our January purchase at the end of January, so this is more of a “first check-in” than a full monthly scorecard.
Entry (26 Jan): $36.64
30 Jan close: $37.04
Move: +$0.40, or +1.09% (in 4 calendar days)
That’s a small win, but the bigger point is what drove the tape.
What happened in January
EWZ is basically a bundle of Brazil’s big liquid names. Think banks, commodities (Vale), and energy (Petrobras). So, short-term moves usually come from a mix of:
USD vs BRL direction (currency)
Global risk appetite
Commodity pricing
Local rates and fiscal politics
January’s late-month strength looked like a risk-on bid for Brazil exposure, not a sudden change in Brazil’s long-term fundamentals.
A lot of the time EWZ trades like a “macro instrument” first, and a collection of companies second.
If you want a quick reminder of what’s actually inside the ETF, the top weights are concentrated in names like Nu, Vale, Itaú, and Petrobras and the fund’s profile and top holdings are summarized here: StockAnalysis EWZ overview.
Major news and events that mattered
The key “events” to watch were more themes than single headlines:
Rates and inflation expectations: Brazil is still a high-rate market and that “carry” can help the currency when global investors are willing to take EM risk. That tends to support USD-priced vehicles like EWZ.
Commodities: Vale and Petrobras are meaningful drivers. Even a modest move in iron ore or oil can show up quickly in EWZ’s price.
Politics and fiscal noise: Brazil always has some background political/fiscal tension. In January, the market felt more focused on global flows than local drama, which is usually a good sign.
(If we were doing a full-month January attribution from Jan 1 to Jan 31, I’d pull the month chart and tie it to the biggest daily swings. Here, your window is just too short to pretend we can pin it on one catalyst without hand-waving.)
Thesis check
Here’s what I think the core EWZ thesis usually is for a retail investor:
Cheap-ish valuations versus the U.S. (especially in financials and commodities)
Dividend yield support (EWZ has typically carried a meaningful yield; current summaries show it in the mid single-digits, but it moves around)
Asymmetric upside if BRL strengthens or global investors rotate into non-U.S. value/EM
Based on the late-January price action alone, the thesis looks unchanged.
The two things I’d watch in February are simple:
BRL vs USD trend
Oil and iron ore direction, since they flow straight into top holdings