StevieV

CJ raised their dividend too quickly and too high. Left them too tight for both the dividend and the SAGD projects. But they appear to have done a fantastic job on Redford 1 - ahead of schedule and above advertised production. I believe they are unhedged. So, some period of higher realized prices with Redford 1 operating should put them in good shape for Redford 2, as you suggest. If that goes as smoothly as 1 they’ll be in a much better position to sustain the dividend and have some flexibility

What do you think about slightly longer term SD? As in summer/fall 26. Futures have been in strong backwardation. WTI averaged mid and upper 70s in 23 and 24 and mid 90s in 22. For the economy generally, in isolation, 80s average in 26 shouldn’t be too concerning. There are prices that would be. Also, nothing is in isolation and 60 to 100+ in a couple weeks is different than a more measured rise. I am long some Canadian producers - OBE, WCP.to, CJ.to.

Depends on how much prices would fall. No true hedges and the value is obviously greatly tied to the price of gold. On the positive side, the company is cash positive. They are going to be spending down some of their cash plus most or all of their cash flow to pay for the build out of Mount Hamilton and Eagle Mountain but they are starting with a very solid balance sheet and should have some flexibility. A big positive to have such a clean balance sheet. The other big positive is the big increase in production. Going from 40+K ounces to 200K in the next 3 years. Production growth should be the big driver and should overwhelm a modest drop in gold prices. We'll see about their costs. 2024 AISC at their sole mine was around $1,400 oz. 2025 is running significantly higher some related to higher gold prices but I'm not sure how much. The new Moss mine in Arizona is going to be higher but I don't want to speculate too much about exact costs. Eagle Mountain should be relatively low cost. Mt. Hamilton should be decent. I'm interested to see what the average costs are but obviously much, much below current pricing. Gold is over $4500 as I type. IMHO the stock isn't pricing in anything like $4000 gold and successful execution of bringing the 4 mines online let alone management doing anything additionally value accretive or even higher gold. If we are at a permanently higher gold prices above $4,000 then this should be a homerun if they execute on the 3 new mines. I am sure they are also going to continue to do M&A though I am expecting a pause for a couple of years. They are obviously leveraged to gold prices. With hopefully 200,000 oz of gold production in a few years a move of $1000/oz is $200 million of revenue mostly flowing to the bottom line after taking out taxes for a company sitting at a $500 million market cap today. So, obviously, if gold prices drop to $3500 that's less attractive than current prices. $3000 less so and so on. Execution in getting the mines up and running is key. Assuming that happens have to figure a home run at $4500 or $4000. Still great at $3500. Good at $3000. With the balance sheet and costs I don't think the company itself is in any trouble at $2000 or lower but they aren't going to be printing money like at higher prices and the stock isn't going to do anything if gold get cuts in half. That's how I see it at least.

This is one of my favorite threads of the year. I picked board favorite JOE in 2025. Up a nice 36.5% YTD not including dividends. I'm not going to pick JOE in '26 but hope it continues to perform well for many years. For 2026 I am going to go with $FOUR, $PX and $MAKOF. FOUR and PX have had terrible 2025s and I'm looking for a bargain. MAKOF has had a tremendous 2025 on the back of big gains in the price of gold. Should still be a lot of room for the stock to have a good 2026 if they can execute on their new mines and the price of gold remains at current pricing.

I also view it this way - APO > OWL, but how do you think of the business model and structure of OWL vis-a-vis risk? Inherently it's a pretty safe structure to have locked up capital and take a percentage fee. This is what Apollo has been saying about competitors: "And I think a pure third-party business, heads you win, tails you win, hopefully the client does well, we think that's going to be a much more robust alignment to our business over time." (Zelter - September 16th).

Is this a serious comment? A huge number of press outlets disagreed with Biden's mental decline - The Washington Post, the NYT, the AP, CNN, ABCNews, MSNBC, and on and on. Did you see the infamous Joe Scarborough rant? I didn't read it, but wasn't this what the whole Jake Tapper book and tour was about. It was only after the disastrous debate AND it became apparent that the public wasn't buying the "bad night" or "had a cold" excuses and his polling dropped that the outlets turned on Biden.

I think PAX has earned some credibility by largely delivering on their 2022 Investor Day targets. The stock hit a 52-week high this week, but is still trading at about 10X 2025 FRE. That's much cheaper than the American alts. If RedLion last looked at PAX a couple of years back, the stock price was probably higher and the FRE was certainly lower. With the passage of a couple of years, the multiple now is more attractive and there is a public track record to look at. It also trades cheaper relative to the big US alts whose stock prices have appreciated versus PAX being flat/down. I personally wouldn't pay the same multiple for PAX as the US alts. In addition to the US market difference, I don't think that PAX has the moat that APO does or that it will grow as fast as OWL. However, it is pretty cheap and some nice characteristics. 4.3% yield. Path to double-digit earnings growth (they are projecting 13%, which I think is achievable). Scale has greatly mattered in the US and PAX has nice scale in Latam. Is Latam scale a good moat? It may be. Some might like that it is a Latam manager. I don't mind that for some regional diversity. Those are my thoughts. I own some. RL - let us know if you take a look. I think there is a Patria thread.

Transactions are clearly part of the plan, so I'd also expect some more deals. I don't think anything in the very near term as they focus on Moss and Guyana, but I haven't listened to Akiba's latest update yet so maybe he says something different there. What about Moss's mine life? 3.5 years and up to 6 if they move infrastructure. Is there reason for concern or optimism about them being able to extend the life of that resource. Nicaragua has always had a short proven runway, but good reasons to think they can continue to explore and find more gold and they now have a good track record of doing so. A lot has gone right or Mako. Gold going from sub-2000 to $3400 today is obviously huge, but so are the two acquisitions. We will see, but I think the Guyana acquisition will work out well. Moss was a really unique transaction that only a very rare company is going to get done. Hopefully shows a competence of deals that they can continue on in the future.

Moss (an almost "free" gold mine) > Nicaragua mine?

Spek points out an interesting dynamic whereby gold is a safe haven, but some companies that have gold as their primary product are not. Regardless, Mako is up very nicely on the year. We'll see how the mining results deliver as they start up commercial production next year and what success they have expanding the resource. However, at the moment, the Moss mine acquisition appears extremely cheap and well timed. I don't think I've ever seen an acquisition quite like it.

15 months sounds awesome. Money and career are the only reasons I would consider not doing it. If those aren't issues, I'd definitely take the 15 months. Congratulations! Being a parent is the best thing I've ever done.

I'm surprised that the poll is skewing so young. I thought a value investing board named after Berkshire and Fairfax would skew older.

JOE's 2024 share price performance makes it a good pick for 2025. Looks like it will start off 2025 at or near 52 week lows. The stock had a big run in 2020 and pretty much has gone nowhere over the last 4 years. No reason that the share price can't continue to languish in 2025, but a good starting point. My 2024 picks were a mixed bag of performance (my 2024 post in italics below). IDT, SPHR, PX and BRDG. IDT the company had a good year and so did the stock price. BRDG was the laggard. The market didn't price in AUM growth and BRDG didn't deliver AUM growth. IDT - Remains undervalued after litigation win. SPHR - I think filling in the schedule with new acts will be a significant boost. The success of U2 should prove out the model to other acts. A 2nd sphere could also be a big catalyst if the company negotiates a company friendly deal (i.e., capital light). PX and BRDG - Have lagged the alts rally. BRDG is lagging because it's real estate and will need to show some fundraising life. However, as per usual, the funds have long lock-ups. BRDG has bounced off its lows, but still is of BRDG isn't pricing in much if any growth in AUM.

Thanks. Do you prefer one of the two - PAX or VINP?

Leading LatAm alt manager trading at a good price (about 14x 2024 earnings measured in DE). I think they'll grow decently on a per-share basis. Scale matters for alts and so I like their scale in the region. I have had success with the US alts - APO/ARES/KKR/BX/OWL. However, they have all run up a lot. PAX remains apparently cheap. In general, I like that PAX (and various alts) can grow while paying out a substantial percentage of their earnings. I think the big uncertainty for both me and the market is the Latam component. I expect that's why it hasn't run up with the US alts. The company claims a majority of AUM in hard currencies, but I don't think that eliminates all of the regional concerns. I have a very small position.

JOE and PAX

I think most would categorize CG and ARES as asset light. APO, KKR and BN own the insurance subsidiaries. Carlyle owns a portion of Fortitude (insurance co), but not the whole thing. I don't think ARES has a significant stake in an insurance company. KKR also has this new unit where they are keeping operating businesses. From memory, so I could be off. In any event, I think the key is whether the particular company is developing a long runway and has developed a competitive advantage. I like APO, though not to the exclusion of the others. They have invested a lot into origination and I think that will pay off over the medium and longer term. Investor day coming up October 1.

No surprise to you, but I think $OWL in the 16s is attractive. My best guess is that they fall a bit short of their $1/share dividend goal for next year, but I think they'll get to at least something like 92 or 96 cents. That's a 5-6% yield for next year for a company with very healthy growth, significant "permanent" capital, mostly steady fee, and a decent variety of strategies.

Do you think they are going to expand throughput at the Nicaraguan mine in the nearish-term? That had been a priority for the company and seems to be on the back burner. Not clear whether they are going to pick that back up concurrently with the new Guyana project. Also, any estimate of total company production when Guyana is rolling? The Goldsource acquisition was a significant positive IMHO. Presumably they'll be doing more M&A, but no idea on the timing.

Not enough information and it always depends on the particular individual, company and position, but the potential move does not strike me as enticing at all.

IDT - Remains undervalued after litigation win. SPHR - I think filling in the schedule with new acts will be a significant boost. The success of U2 should prove out the model to other acts. A 2nd sphere could also be a big catalyst if the company negotiates a company friendly deal (i.e., capital light). PX and BRDG - Have lagged the alts rally. BRDG is lagging because it's real estate and will need to show some fundraising life. However, as per usual, the funds have long lock-ups. BRDG has bounced off its lows, but still is of BRDG isn't pricing in much if any growth in AUM.

Thanks RL. A few fortunate picks in 2023. Thanks to the board for FFH and JOE. Obviously a lot of great insight by Viking and Gregmal on those.

The client separated the possible costs of repairs and rebuilding from his other investible assets and invested the funds instead. He assumed he could make an average return of about 6% on the roughly $1.5 million while waiting for some other insurers to re-enter the market, Newman says. It's a stretch to call this finding a way around the challenge of increasing insurance rates. It is simply choosing to forego insurance. "Instead" of buying insurance, the homeowner will pay for a rebuild out of pocket if something happens. Those are typically the two options.

$OWL

Do you know why APO does convertibles rather than straight debt financing? If I recall correctly, ARES has done some equity financing in the past as well (at much lower prices). I assume they have good reasons.