“Well, I don’t know why I came here tonight,
I got the feeling that something ain’t right,
I’m so scared in case I fall off my chair,
And I’m wondering how I’ll get down the stairs,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you..”
- From the 1973 single ‘Stuck in the middle with you’, by Stealers Wheel.
Get your Free
financial review
What characteristics do you associate with Britain’s greatest 20th Century prime ministers, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher ?
Here are some suggestions. Tenacity. Confidence. Boldness. Vision.
Churchill’s iconic place in our political history owes much to the view that our wartime leader, practically single-handedly, roused the nation to victory against the Nazis at a time when, at one point during the war, all seemed lost.
Mrs Thatcher’s iconic place in our political history owes much to the view that our greatest peacetime leader, practically single-handedly, reversed our national economic decline at a time when, at one point during the late 1970s, all seemed lost.
The one characteristic that nobody would associate with either of them is surely encapsulated in the word ‘Compromise’.
Here, for example, is Churchill addressing pupils at his alma mater, Harrow School, in October 1941:
“Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. We stood all alone a year ago, and to many countries it seemed that our account was closed, we were finished. All this tradition of ours, our songs, our School history, this part of the history of this country, were gone and finished and liquidated.
“Very different is the mood today..”
And you see something of the same fire and passion in the speech which secured Churchill’s premiership at the height of the appeasement crisis in May 1940, when the risk of his dethronement at the hands of his own Cabinet was very real. (This scene is vividly depicted in the film ‘Darkest Hour’.) Lord Halifax was urging the War Cabinet to peace talks between Britain and Germany intermediated by Mussolini. Churchill had little interest in such talks. He accordingly gathered his Outer Cabinet and made an emotional appeal to everyone within it:
“I am convinced that every one of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”
Not exactly compromise. Cue applause. Cue the reinforcement of Churchill in office. Cue a long, painful and exhausting war. Cue ultimate victory. (Readers are encouraged to take up the story by way of William Manchester and Paul Reed’s magisterial three volume Churchill biography, ‘The Last Lion’, which is the most grippingly magnificent biography you are ever likely to read.)
As for Mrs Thatcher.. One of the phrases most closely associated with ‘The Iron Lady’ is an acronym: TINA. There Is No Alternative.
We recently read Charles Moore’s authorised biography of Mrs Thatcher. As a child and then teenager during the Thatcher administration, this correspondent was only loosely aware of the significance of her premiership; Moore’s superbly detailed account helpfully fills in a lot of the gaps.
Here, for example, is Margaret Thatcher in a speech to voters in her Finchley constituency in January 1975, in which she sets out the essence of what would become known as Thatcherism:
“In the desperate situation of Britain today, our party needs the support of all who value the traditional ideals of Toryism: compassion, and concern for the individual and his freedom; opposition to excessive State power; the right of the enterprising, the hard-working and the thrifty to succeed and to reap the rewards of success and pass some of them on to their children; encouragement of that infinite diversity of choice that is an essential of freedom; the defence of widely distributed private property against the Socialist State; the right of a man to work without oppression by either employer or trade union boss.
“There is a widespread feeling in the country that the Conservative Party has not defended these ideals explicitly and toughly enough, so that Britain is set on a course towards inevitable Socialist mediocrity.”
(Emphasis ours, as the wealth-creating members of British society nervously await the first Keir Starmer budget.)
Doesn’t that last paragraph of Mrs. Thatcher’s speech give you an involuntary shudder ?
By way of comparison, here is Theresa May, surely one of the worst British prime ministers in living memory, in the last major speech of her premiership, delivered at the Royal Institute of International Affairs on 17th July 2019:
“..actually getting things done rather than simply getting them said requires some qualities that have become unfashionable of late.
“One of them is a willingness to compromise..
“It does not mean accepting the lowest common denominator or clinging to outmoded ideas out of apathy or fear.
“It means being driven by, and when necessary standing up for, your values and convictions.
“But doing so in the real world – in the arena of public life – where others are making their own case, pursuing their own interests.
“And where persuasion, teamwork and a willingness to make mutual concessions are needed to achieve an optimal outcome..”
All of which may explain the government’s disastrous handling of Brexit under Theresa May’s “leadership”. The decision whether to Leave the EU or Remain was purely binary. It did not allow for a compromise – unless you think that residing in the middle of the English Channel is some kind of pragmatic solution. And, as with every other Theresa May speech ever made, it contained nothing of substance, nothing of what you might describe as tenacity, confidence, boldness or vision. Just boring, instantly forgettable, bland centrist mush.
But since our entire political class has spent the years since the referendum resorting to ridiculous, Basil Fawlty-ish lengths to cheat the electorate of the outcome that June 2016 determined, it is no surprise that attitudes ended up hardening on both sides of the debate, leaving the centre to collapse.
Sleepwalking into the fire
This is the thesis that the philosopher John Gray examined in a 2019 essay for the New Statesman, ‘Centrists are sleepwalking into the fire’, and it goes far beyond the febrile politics of the UK:
“There is intense debate as to what the outcome [of the EU elections] tells us about voter support for Brexit, with both Leavers and Remainers claiming vindication. The most striking feature of the results, however, is the polarisation they reveal. The result of a botched Brexit has been the Europeanisation of British politics, with the old centre ground falling away..
“By resisting the verdict of the 2016 referendum, Britain’s centrist political class has set in motion a process that could end with the outcome it most dreads – a no-deal Brexit..
“The collapse of the centre is not confined to Britain, or Europe. Liberal democracies everywhere face mounting popular insurgencies, which centrist establishments have not begun to understand. Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, Vladimir Putin and Steve Bannon are invoked to explain the alienation and anger of tens or hundreds of millions of voters. No doubt all of these have been factors. But even taken together, they cannot account for the scale and force of the shift that has occurred. If centrists have turned to conspiracy theories, it is because they refuse to acknowledge their own role in their demise..
“There is, in any case, insufficient time for parliament to legislate for a referendum and hold it before the legal default for leaving comes into play in October. Unless the next Conservative leader requests and secures an extension, the only way Brexit can now be prevented is by revoking Article 50. With her Remainer instincts, Theresa May might have been ready, if all else had failed, to trigger this nuclear option. None of her most likely successors, with the Brexit Party roaring at their heels, will be.
“When a reckless leader of Britain’s centrist elite [David Cameron] called the 2016 referendum he bequeathed it a problem it could not solve. But the dilemma will not remain unresolved for very long. An electoral upheaval is sweeping away the political class that created the impasse. Britain faces a clash between populisms of the right and left, while the forces of the centre sleepwalk into the flames.”
The Conservative Party has now become so disconnected from its source code, per Margaret Thatcher’s declaration of beliefs in 1975, that it is no longer fit for purpose. It may yet be, however, that Keir Starmer – after the ‘loveless avalanche’ that pushed him into office – will manage to deliver the coup de grâce for the Labour Party, too.
There is no compromise in markets
Just as soft, centrist mush is no answer to our current political travails, the muddle of compromise has no meaning within the context of financial markets either. Markets, like nature, abhor a vacuum. Investors can, of course, elect to shelter effetely in cash, but the ‘compromise’ of cash deposits comes with unusual levels of risk today: real interest rates are barely positive; bank counterparty risk is meaningfully higher than it used to be; the risk of your cash being appropriated by an unashamedly Marxist government (or for that matter simply inflated away) is by no means trivial, either. So we can’t realistically just sit on the sidelines waiting out the squall.
But it’s not as if the investment world’s problems have gone away.
Doug Noland, for ‘The Credit Bubble Bulletin’:
“Crisis-period QE [Quantitative Easing] changed the functioning of global markets. Permanently including QE in central banks’ standard toolkit has transformed global finance and capitalism in ways not comprehensible at this juncture. The bond “vigilantes” are extinct. This has provided central banks unprecedented latitude to discard convention and follow their every whim. It has also conveniently removed a major risk (spike in yields) for equities. But is has also opened the fiscal floodgates, where monetary policies ensure the accommodation of huge deficit spending at extremely low borrowing costs. QE and the resulting death of the vigilantes have also empowered the strongman leader to subvert central bank independence.
“Remember James Carville’s, “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” That was before QE. Today’s bond market intimidates no one. Threatening – or even firing – the head of a central bank for not cutting rates – is a non-issue for today’s bond market. Ditto massive deficits. Why worry about supply, myriad excesses or politicizing monetary management when the magic of QE can make everything good ?
“Today’s “crazy” is incredibly dangerous. No check and balances. Markets have lost the capacity to self-adjust and correct. Sovereign debt, the foundation of global finance, has succumbed to unprecedented price distortions – and it only gets worse from there: The Speculative Blow-Off for Global Financial Assets. And I appreciate it all appears reasonable and unsustainable – so long as securities prices continue to inflate. But it will function poorly in reverse. The crazier things get the more unsustainable Bubble prices become.”
We are not in denial. We appreciate that there’s the world as it is – which in bond market terms, at least, can be described as well and truly crazy – and there’s the world as we would like it to be. But we happen to inhabit the world as it is, so we must play the hand we’re dealt.
But, at the risk of torturing some metaphors, that doesn’t mean we have to play by everybody else’s rules.
The exquisite problem facing all investors today is one of timing. We all probably sense that something is desperately wrong with the system – but when do we finally decide to head for the hills ?
To our mind, the beauty of a sufficiently diversified asset allocation approach is that you never need to answer that question. You can always remain fully invested – but in an array of uncorrelated assets that don’t keep you in the stock market to the exclusion of everything else.
On the basis that listed stocks offer some of the best potential for decent investment returns over the medium to longer term, as discretionary managers we will always keep a certain allocation to those. But we mitigate some of the risks by focusing exclusively on ‘value’, i.e. decent businesses run by principled, shareholder-friendly management, but only when the shares of those businesses can be bought at a discount to their inherent fair value or otherwise at no great premium. To this extent even within the ‘mainstream’ equity portion of our portfolios we nurture aspirations to generating absolute returns rather than index-relative ones. Strict index-relative investing is for the birds. It is pointless in the roughly two years out of every five when the market falls. (It is also pointless during those rarer occasions when the stock market experiences a catastrophic collapse.)
But we then take account of other forms of investment. ‘Uncorrelated’ funds – especially systematic trend-following funds – offer the potential for strong positive returns even in dramatic bear markets. They all delivered to this mandate back in 2008. That they have had mixed fortunes since then is not a disaster, especially since the traditional asset classes of stocks and bonds have generated great returns. We happen to think those returns are about to go into reverse, but we acknowledge that the timing of such a move is impossible to predict with any certainty.
And of course the portfolio insurance par excellence is exposure to the monetary metals, both in terms of bullion itself, and then to bullion miners. Readers will note that gold in all major currencies including the US dollar is making new all-time highs. That the Powell Fed has essentially capitulated in favour of yet more rate cuts is strongly bullish for gold. And while we like gold, we positively love silver. So we note, too, that silver is now breaking out on the upside from a prolonged downtrend. Of all of the asset classes within our discretionary management service, real assets – in the form of the monetary metals, gold and silver, and related mining concerns – are currently our standout favourites.
So now is not the time for giving in. Now is the time to reassess what you want out of your investment portfolio, and which investment choices are most likely either to protect what you have, or to deliver strong returns in the event that the monetary authorities lose control of the markets altogether. Those investment choices are unlikely to be bonds, nor cash or property, but they might well be a combination of the types of assets that as discretionary managers we have been holding for some time now, precisely in preparation for what may be ahead.
Conviction, yes. Diversification, definitely. But compromise: no. Never.
………….
As you may know, we also manage bespoke investment portfolios for private clients internationally. We would be delighted to help you too. Because of the current heightened market volatility we are offering a completely free financial review, with no strings attached, to see if our value-oriented approach might benefit your portfolio – with no obligation at all:
Get your Free
financial review
…………
Tim Price is co-manager of the VT Price Value Portfolio and author of ‘Investing through the Looking Glass: a rational guide to irrational financial markets’. You can access a full archive of these weekly investment commentaries here. You can listen to our regular ‘State of the Markets’ podcasts, with Paul Rodriguez of ThinkTrading.com, here. Email us: info@pricevaluepartners.com.
Price Value Partners manage investment portfolios for private clients. We also manage the VT Price Value Portfolio, an unconstrained global fund investing in Benjamin Graham-style value stocks.
“Well, I don’t know why I came here tonight,
I got the feeling that something ain’t right,
I’m so scared in case I fall off my chair,
And I’m wondering how I’ll get down the stairs,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you..”
Get your Free
financial review
What characteristics do you associate with Britain’s greatest 20th Century prime ministers, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher ?
Here are some suggestions. Tenacity. Confidence. Boldness. Vision.
Churchill’s iconic place in our political history owes much to the view that our wartime leader, practically single-handedly, roused the nation to victory against the Nazis at a time when, at one point during the war, all seemed lost.
Mrs Thatcher’s iconic place in our political history owes much to the view that our greatest peacetime leader, practically single-handedly, reversed our national economic decline at a time when, at one point during the late 1970s, all seemed lost.
The one characteristic that nobody would associate with either of them is surely encapsulated in the word ‘Compromise’.
Here, for example, is Churchill addressing pupils at his alma mater, Harrow School, in October 1941:
“Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. We stood all alone a year ago, and to many countries it seemed that our account was closed, we were finished. All this tradition of ours, our songs, our School history, this part of the history of this country, were gone and finished and liquidated.
“Very different is the mood today..”
And you see something of the same fire and passion in the speech which secured Churchill’s premiership at the height of the appeasement crisis in May 1940, when the risk of his dethronement at the hands of his own Cabinet was very real. (This scene is vividly depicted in the film ‘Darkest Hour’.) Lord Halifax was urging the War Cabinet to peace talks between Britain and Germany intermediated by Mussolini. Churchill had little interest in such talks. He accordingly gathered his Outer Cabinet and made an emotional appeal to everyone within it:
“I am convinced that every one of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”
Not exactly compromise. Cue applause. Cue the reinforcement of Churchill in office. Cue a long, painful and exhausting war. Cue ultimate victory. (Readers are encouraged to take up the story by way of William Manchester and Paul Reed’s magisterial three volume Churchill biography, ‘The Last Lion’, which is the most grippingly magnificent biography you are ever likely to read.)
As for Mrs Thatcher.. One of the phrases most closely associated with ‘The Iron Lady’ is an acronym: TINA. There Is No Alternative.
We recently read Charles Moore’s authorised biography of Mrs Thatcher. As a child and then teenager during the Thatcher administration, this correspondent was only loosely aware of the significance of her premiership; Moore’s superbly detailed account helpfully fills in a lot of the gaps.
Here, for example, is Margaret Thatcher in a speech to voters in her Finchley constituency in January 1975, in which she sets out the essence of what would become known as Thatcherism:
“In the desperate situation of Britain today, our party needs the support of all who value the traditional ideals of Toryism: compassion, and concern for the individual and his freedom; opposition to excessive State power; the right of the enterprising, the hard-working and the thrifty to succeed and to reap the rewards of success and pass some of them on to their children; encouragement of that infinite diversity of choice that is an essential of freedom; the defence of widely distributed private property against the Socialist State; the right of a man to work without oppression by either employer or trade union boss.
“There is a widespread feeling in the country that the Conservative Party has not defended these ideals explicitly and toughly enough, so that Britain is set on a course towards inevitable Socialist mediocrity.”
(Emphasis ours, as the wealth-creating members of British society nervously await the first Keir Starmer budget.)
Doesn’t that last paragraph of Mrs. Thatcher’s speech give you an involuntary shudder ?
By way of comparison, here is Theresa May, surely one of the worst British prime ministers in living memory, in the last major speech of her premiership, delivered at the Royal Institute of International Affairs on 17th July 2019:
“..actually getting things done rather than simply getting them said requires some qualities that have become unfashionable of late.
“One of them is a willingness to compromise..
“It does not mean accepting the lowest common denominator or clinging to outmoded ideas out of apathy or fear.
“It means being driven by, and when necessary standing up for, your values and convictions.
“But doing so in the real world – in the arena of public life – where others are making their own case, pursuing their own interests.
“And where persuasion, teamwork and a willingness to make mutual concessions are needed to achieve an optimal outcome..”
All of which may explain the government’s disastrous handling of Brexit under Theresa May’s “leadership”. The decision whether to Leave the EU or Remain was purely binary. It did not allow for a compromise – unless you think that residing in the middle of the English Channel is some kind of pragmatic solution. And, as with every other Theresa May speech ever made, it contained nothing of substance, nothing of what you might describe as tenacity, confidence, boldness or vision. Just boring, instantly forgettable, bland centrist mush.
But since our entire political class has spent the years since the referendum resorting to ridiculous, Basil Fawlty-ish lengths to cheat the electorate of the outcome that June 2016 determined, it is no surprise that attitudes ended up hardening on both sides of the debate, leaving the centre to collapse.
Sleepwalking into the fire
This is the thesis that the philosopher John Gray examined in a 2019 essay for the New Statesman, ‘Centrists are sleepwalking into the fire’, and it goes far beyond the febrile politics of the UK:
“There is intense debate as to what the outcome [of the EU elections] tells us about voter support for Brexit, with both Leavers and Remainers claiming vindication. The most striking feature of the results, however, is the polarisation they reveal. The result of a botched Brexit has been the Europeanisation of British politics, with the old centre ground falling away..
“By resisting the verdict of the 2016 referendum, Britain’s centrist political class has set in motion a process that could end with the outcome it most dreads – a no-deal Brexit..
“The collapse of the centre is not confined to Britain, or Europe. Liberal democracies everywhere face mounting popular insurgencies, which centrist establishments have not begun to understand. Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, Vladimir Putin and Steve Bannon are invoked to explain the alienation and anger of tens or hundreds of millions of voters. No doubt all of these have been factors. But even taken together, they cannot account for the scale and force of the shift that has occurred. If centrists have turned to conspiracy theories, it is because they refuse to acknowledge their own role in their demise..
“There is, in any case, insufficient time for parliament to legislate for a referendum and hold it before the legal default for leaving comes into play in October. Unless the next Conservative leader requests and secures an extension, the only way Brexit can now be prevented is by revoking Article 50. With her Remainer instincts, Theresa May might have been ready, if all else had failed, to trigger this nuclear option. None of her most likely successors, with the Brexit Party roaring at their heels, will be.
“When a reckless leader of Britain’s centrist elite [David Cameron] called the 2016 referendum he bequeathed it a problem it could not solve. But the dilemma will not remain unresolved for very long. An electoral upheaval is sweeping away the political class that created the impasse. Britain faces a clash between populisms of the right and left, while the forces of the centre sleepwalk into the flames.”
The Conservative Party has now become so disconnected from its source code, per Margaret Thatcher’s declaration of beliefs in 1975, that it is no longer fit for purpose. It may yet be, however, that Keir Starmer – after the ‘loveless avalanche’ that pushed him into office – will manage to deliver the coup de grâce for the Labour Party, too.
There is no compromise in markets
Just as soft, centrist mush is no answer to our current political travails, the muddle of compromise has no meaning within the context of financial markets either. Markets, like nature, abhor a vacuum. Investors can, of course, elect to shelter effetely in cash, but the ‘compromise’ of cash deposits comes with unusual levels of risk today: real interest rates are barely positive; bank counterparty risk is meaningfully higher than it used to be; the risk of your cash being appropriated by an unashamedly Marxist government (or for that matter simply inflated away) is by no means trivial, either. So we can’t realistically just sit on the sidelines waiting out the squall.
But it’s not as if the investment world’s problems have gone away.
Doug Noland, for ‘The Credit Bubble Bulletin’:
“Crisis-period QE [Quantitative Easing] changed the functioning of global markets. Permanently including QE in central banks’ standard toolkit has transformed global finance and capitalism in ways not comprehensible at this juncture. The bond “vigilantes” are extinct. This has provided central banks unprecedented latitude to discard convention and follow their every whim. It has also conveniently removed a major risk (spike in yields) for equities. But is has also opened the fiscal floodgates, where monetary policies ensure the accommodation of huge deficit spending at extremely low borrowing costs. QE and the resulting death of the vigilantes have also empowered the strongman leader to subvert central bank independence.
“Remember James Carville’s, “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” That was before QE. Today’s bond market intimidates no one. Threatening – or even firing – the head of a central bank for not cutting rates – is a non-issue for today’s bond market. Ditto massive deficits. Why worry about supply, myriad excesses or politicizing monetary management when the magic of QE can make everything good ?
“Today’s “crazy” is incredibly dangerous. No check and balances. Markets have lost the capacity to self-adjust and correct. Sovereign debt, the foundation of global finance, has succumbed to unprecedented price distortions – and it only gets worse from there: The Speculative Blow-Off for Global Financial Assets. And I appreciate it all appears reasonable and unsustainable – so long as securities prices continue to inflate. But it will function poorly in reverse. The crazier things get the more unsustainable Bubble prices become.”
We are not in denial. We appreciate that there’s the world as it is – which in bond market terms, at least, can be described as well and truly crazy – and there’s the world as we would like it to be. But we happen to inhabit the world as it is, so we must play the hand we’re dealt.
But, at the risk of torturing some metaphors, that doesn’t mean we have to play by everybody else’s rules.
The exquisite problem facing all investors today is one of timing. We all probably sense that something is desperately wrong with the system – but when do we finally decide to head for the hills ?
To our mind, the beauty of a sufficiently diversified asset allocation approach is that you never need to answer that question. You can always remain fully invested – but in an array of uncorrelated assets that don’t keep you in the stock market to the exclusion of everything else.
On the basis that listed stocks offer some of the best potential for decent investment returns over the medium to longer term, as discretionary managers we will always keep a certain allocation to those. But we mitigate some of the risks by focusing exclusively on ‘value’, i.e. decent businesses run by principled, shareholder-friendly management, but only when the shares of those businesses can be bought at a discount to their inherent fair value or otherwise at no great premium. To this extent even within the ‘mainstream’ equity portion of our portfolios we nurture aspirations to generating absolute returns rather than index-relative ones. Strict index-relative investing is for the birds. It is pointless in the roughly two years out of every five when the market falls. (It is also pointless during those rarer occasions when the stock market experiences a catastrophic collapse.)
But we then take account of other forms of investment. ‘Uncorrelated’ funds – especially systematic trend-following funds – offer the potential for strong positive returns even in dramatic bear markets. They all delivered to this mandate back in 2008. That they have had mixed fortunes since then is not a disaster, especially since the traditional asset classes of stocks and bonds have generated great returns. We happen to think those returns are about to go into reverse, but we acknowledge that the timing of such a move is impossible to predict with any certainty.
And of course the portfolio insurance par excellence is exposure to the monetary metals, both in terms of bullion itself, and then to bullion miners. Readers will note that gold in all major currencies including the US dollar is making new all-time highs. That the Powell Fed has essentially capitulated in favour of yet more rate cuts is strongly bullish for gold. And while we like gold, we positively love silver. So we note, too, that silver is now breaking out on the upside from a prolonged downtrend. Of all of the asset classes within our discretionary management service, real assets – in the form of the monetary metals, gold and silver, and related mining concerns – are currently our standout favourites.
So now is not the time for giving in. Now is the time to reassess what you want out of your investment portfolio, and which investment choices are most likely either to protect what you have, or to deliver strong returns in the event that the monetary authorities lose control of the markets altogether. Those investment choices are unlikely to be bonds, nor cash or property, but they might well be a combination of the types of assets that as discretionary managers we have been holding for some time now, precisely in preparation for what may be ahead.
Conviction, yes. Diversification, definitely. But compromise: no. Never.
………….
As you may know, we also manage bespoke investment portfolios for private clients internationally. We would be delighted to help you too. Because of the current heightened market volatility we are offering a completely free financial review, with no strings attached, to see if our value-oriented approach might benefit your portfolio – with no obligation at all:
Get your Free
financial review
…………
Tim Price is co-manager of the VT Price Value Portfolio and author of ‘Investing through the Looking Glass: a rational guide to irrational financial markets’. You can access a full archive of these weekly investment commentaries here. You can listen to our regular ‘State of the Markets’ podcasts, with Paul Rodriguez of ThinkTrading.com, here. Email us: info@pricevaluepartners.com.
Price Value Partners manage investment portfolios for private clients. We also manage the VT Price Value Portfolio, an unconstrained global fund investing in Benjamin Graham-style value stocks.
Take a closer look
Take a look at the data of our investments and see what makes us different.
LOOK CLOSERSubscribe
Sign up for the latest news on investments and market insights.
KEEP IN TOUCHContact us
In order to find out more about PVP please get in touch with our team.
CONTACT USTim Price