You are viewing the chat in desktop mode. Click here to switch to mobile view.
X
Return toCapitalist Times
1/29/26 Capitalist Times Live Chat
powered byJotCast
View Full Chat Next Page
AvatarRoger Conrad
2:00
Hello everyone and welcome to the January 2026 Capitalist Times live webchat! We're looking forward to a lively session today.
2:01
As always, there is no audio. Just type in your questions and we'll get to them as soon as we can comprehensively and concisely. We will send you a link to the transcript of the complete Q&A probably tomorrow morning.
Here are answers to questions we received prior to the chat.
2:02
Q. Hi Roger, thanks for the alert about NEE results. Do these strong results move the needle for how quickly XIFR might rebound, either for the particulars of the relationship with NEE or just for the indicators of the contracted renewables and battery environment?

Looking forward to Thursday’s live chat. Thanks—Dan N.
 
A. Hi Dan

I think it's really two different situations. NextEra wants to resume
drop downs at some point to XPLR--that's why it's being kept around
instead of just absorbed. But it's going to have to execute plans and
the market environment will have to improve before that will happen.

Possibly, we could see batteries at sites owned by XPLR. They have
moved quickly with the repowering of existing wind facilities. And I
expect that to show up positively in 2026 earnings.
 

Q. What do you know about Innventure and American Homes 4 Rent?--=Jeff
 
A. Hi Jeff

Thanks for writing and for your kind words.

I don't cover either company currently.

Just looking at Innventure, they've got a lot going on in many areas.
And being successful in any of them means betting correctly on the
right technology and being able to raise sufficient capital to
support. I see they sold $40 mil of stock this past month and the
stock slid as a response. I think it's pretty speculative.

American Homes 4 Rent looks like it's doing as a pure play what a
number of private capital firms do. That is buying single family homes
and then renting them. This is something that's been targeted by the
Trump Administration ahead of November elections as they try to
address affordability and prevent a Blue Wave. I don't know how much
traction their proposal to ban this practice is getting.
But I feel a lot better about manufactured housing such as Equity
LifeStyle Properties (NYSE: ELS) does--which is a housing resource
less expensive than renting or buying homes.
 
Q. Roger, maybe a year
2:03
ago you talked about some deep value plays that you thought would eventually come back. You mentioned 7 - EIX, TKECF, PCG, HE, D, CNP, AQN. I bought all but D and CNP as they already had a big run at the time. And I'm up 26% with those 5. Thank you for that call. You recently talked the same way about DNNGY, so i added that one too and I'm up 16% on that. Are there any others like these that come to mind currently?—Eric F.
A. Hi Eric

Those are basically the kind of companies I've focused on this year.
If you want to look at REITs, I think Mid-America Apartment
Communities (NYSE: MAA) is looking very cheap and I recently featured
it in the REIT Sheet. Earnings and guidance are Feb 4.
 
Q. I recently sold some July puts on ARE at $50, for $7 each. Assuming that if i got put the shares my cost would then be $43, otherwise i just made the $7. Do you like this strategy? This is about as far as i go with options, selling puts on something I wouldn't mind
buying anyway at a lower price. Is it too risky to go that far out?—Eric F.
A. Hi Eric

Selling puts on stocks you want to own is a fairly low risk strategy.

As for Alexandria REIT, I wrote a bit on the stock in advance of its
Q4 earnings release and guidance update. And now that we've seen the
numbers, My view is pretty much the same. Mainly, the REIT is still
best in class in a vital area of biotech. But in the near-term, it
faces some substantial headwinds from near-term oversupply, higher for
longer interest rates and weakness in the biotech sector, which has
become something of a political football this year,

There were some bright spots in the report. Average occupancy during
the quarter was 30 basis points higher than last year. The strategic
plan advanced with asset dispositions exceeding guidance. The company
cut CAPEX and further focused on MegaCampuses that retain revenue. And
it brought a 100% occupied facility into operation. But there were
also asset impairments and FFO took a hit, though it t
too was in line
with guidance.

All this is to say, ARE is not a stock for anyone expecting a fast
turnaround at the business. I think it's very cheap. And I'm
comfortable holding it for recovery. Occupancy, for example, is
expected to dip to 87.7% to 89.3% this year--with the expectation of
growth by the second half of the year. So we're going to have to be
patient--though the stock is up year to date.
 
 
Q. Thanks again for having these very helpful chats. My first question concerns AES. Do you think the recent lawsuit re: AES's business in Panama is a realistic threat to AES as an ongoing investment. Secondly, does HESM fit well in a longer term portfolio. Thanks Norm G.
 
A. Hi Norm

Thanks for writing. AES Corp is expected to release Q4 results and
update guidance at the end of February. At that point, the key issue
for investors is going to be where management sees guidance the next
few years, as wind and solar tax credits phase out and the company
executes a strategic plan to "harvest" gains from its
2:04
aggressive build
and contract program of the past few years.

Meantime, the stock appears to be getting some traction from revival
of takeover rumors. I think a successful offer is going to have to be
cash in at least the upper teens. As for whatever is happening in
Panama, I'm not certain what you've read. But this is not a major
piece of AES' business. And the company is also organized in such a
way that most debt is at the unit level and not recourse to the
parent. So operations in individual countries outside the US will not
sink the parent even if they implode entirely--as some have in the
company's history.

My view on Hess Midstream is Chevron is eventually going to take it
private--that is buy up the stock held by the public either with cash
or an exchange into common stock. Until then, though, the
dividend--and a mid-single digit percentage annual rate of growth--are
secured by contracts that obligate Chevron to pay an escalating rate
whether it uses the assets or not. Eliminating those contracts and
keeping more of the money for running the system is basically why I
think CVX will buy out the whole thing. But in any case, HESM is a buy
on dips to 35 or lower for those who don't already own it.
 
 
Q. Dear Roger, Elliott: Thank you for hosting these Monthly Chats. Roger wonder if you have any opinion on CVS, ABT, and BMY.—Bill G. 
 
 
A. Hi Bill

The healthcare group is getting more interesting with prices coming
down, basically on politics-based concerns.

The latest of these is an election year proposal by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to hold 2027 Medicare payments to
an increase of just 0.09% versus 2026. The consensus expectation was a
4-6% increase that would basically match inflation. And the
predictable result was a selloff of insurance providers and big
pharmaceutical companies, since their payments would also
theoretically be impacted.
2:06
This proposal would obviously be politically popular and there will be
at least some earnings impact. I expect CVS Health to address them
when the company releases Q4 results and updates guidance, which is
expected around Feb 4. But this company has been effective dealing
with erratic government policy the past few years. And it's now back
to a price below my highest recommended entry point of 75 for anyone
who doesn't already own the position.

As for ABT and BMY, my favorite Big Pharma is still Abbvie (NYSE:
ABBV), which we sold from the CUI Plus/Dividends portfolio late last
year at a higher price. I'm still looking at re-entering, though I'd
like to see the price come down a bit more. PFE also looks
increasingly attractive for the dividend. I expect to have a new
pharma recommendation after earnings reporting is in.
 
 
Q. Roger:
 
In the WSJ article from 16 jan, "Trump Pushes Plan for Tech Companies to Fund New Power Plants" "Shares of GE Vernova, a maker of gas turbines that could benefit from new
demand, added more than 6%. Power generators, including NRG Energy, Vistra, Talen Energy and Constellation Energy, fell sharply. Part of the agreement included a two-year extension of a price cap in PJM’s capacity auctions, paid to ensure generation assets will be available at times of peak demand on the system."
 
Why would power generators' stock fall on the news that tech companies (i.e. data center users) pick up a larger share of the bill for the energy their data centers use? Wouldn't this secure more revenue for them?--Bur
 
Hi Bur

I think the problem with these stocks is that they had more or less
come unmoored from their business value. Constellation even now has a
forward P/E of 25X. The business is rock solid--well run and
contracted nuclear plants in a tight electricity market. And the
acquisition of Calpine further leverages earnings to the tight power
market. But that's a very high valuation for a power producer, Vistra
is a little cheaper and I think the Texas focus is a plus.
My opinion of the power bill is it was put together as a bumper
sticker, rather than as the result of serious consultation with
industry to come up with something that will actually help. You may
not agree. But I think there's a certain desperation starting to creep
into the government, as odds of a blue wave this November grow. And
this bill to somehow magically push all costs of added new supply off
onto Big Tech companies and off of stretched consumers brings up all
sorts of questions.

First, we've seen this movie before--when industrial firms responded
to the nuclear/coal building wave of the 1970s and 80s with so-called
"cogeneration," self building and operating power plants onsite
powered by new natural gas turbines that were supposed to be more
efficient that old coal and nuclear. As it turned out, volatile nat
gas prices wiped out any cost savings and then some in subsequent
years. And by the mid-'00s, industrial facilities were re-connecting
to the grid, if they hadn't already moved overseas. Big T
2:07
Tech companies
can certainly afford the cost of building. But do they want to be in
the business of keeping plants running, securing gas supplies etc
long-term? The fact most are signing contracts with CEG and others
says to me the answer is no.

The other problem I have is this bill is essentially more
federalization of electricity--taking power away from the states. The
15 states that "deregulated" power in the 1990s by forcing utilities
out of the generation business universally have higher rates and less
reliability than the 35 states that did not and kept local control.
And taking data center power plants out of state jurisdiction still
means higher rates of consumers, since Big Tech will be competing with
utilities for materials and labor, including natural gas turbines.

All this of course doesn't mean this bill won't pass. But it would be
one more push toward an energy crisis by 2028 in my view by taking
control from people on the ground that know what's going on--under a
system set up by federal
A. bureaucrats.

As for what to do with CEG, VST, NRG and others, my view is they would
likely be beneficiaries of this bill from a business standpoint--as
they would face fewer regulatory obstacles to building. So I agree
with you that the selling based on this reason is nonsensical. But the
better buys are companies like AES, BEP, CWEN and NEE that are
preferred suppliers for Big Tech and are not nearly so expensive
because of their association with renewable energy. By the way, a blue
wave in November would almost certainly reinstate the tax credits
removed by OB3 for solar and very likely wind--as the blue wave in
2018 did during the first Trump Administration. And that would light a
fire under these stocks.
 
 
Q. Hi Roger - happy new year! what are your thoughts on US water ute GWRS? Not in the coverage universe, but could it be added? Does it compare well to other US water companies you recommend?

The company touts its fast growth based on population and business developments in Arizona. How concerned
2:08
should we be about water scarcity? Or could scarcity be a business positive if it requires more investment?—Dan

A. Hi Dan

Thanks for your question about Global Water Resources.

It's on the small side with a market capitalization of just $250 mil.
But it's one I will consider adding to coverage, given the fact there
are so few investor owned water utilities with scale to be decently
traded. And the stock is down quite a bit over the last 12 months
(-25%) so the yield is decent (3.45%) and monthly payments are
attractive--though there have been no dividend increases since
December 2021.

Water utility economics are basically investment plus regulatory
support equals rate base and earnings growth. This company has
acquired several larger systems at what appear to be good prices--for
example Tucson Water for 1.05X current rate base. That should keep
revenue growing. The key risks are supply (I've lived in the. Phoenix
area and sources are stretched) and Arizona regulation, which has been
sometimes contentious.
There are ongoing cases for two units with
decisions due mid-2026 that will likely be pivotal.

Again thanks for bringing this stock to my attention. Earnings are
expected in early March. And I will look to add it around that time if
not earlier.
 
 
Q. Bold call on the spec focus! Doing my due diligence after having bought some. Trying to figure out what the DNNGY shares represent. I assume that they are an ADR but who pays the ADR fee without a dividend? I assume that they are also a fraction of the shares traded Copenhagen since they appear to be trading on the OTC under 43DKK and the DKK price for shares in Copenhaen is 125DKK+. Thanks!--Bill. 
 
 
A. Hi Bill

So far at least, our Orsted position is moving in the right direction.
I obviously thought there would be more of a reaction to the judge
lifting the stay on construction of the Revolution Wind project. This
one was 87% complete when work was stopped last month
And though it's
now winter in New England, the company appears to have everything in
place to get it running and sending power to the grid by spring. I
think the investor reaction has been muted because there's still work
to be done and the judge in the case seemed to imply construction was
a different issue from actual operation. But once this facility in in
operation, my view is it will be a lot more difficult for the
government to prove harm on any grounds that outweighs the harm of
taking supply off the grid. And at that point, we should see more
action.

The other good thing that's happened in the last few days is Orsted
announced it's completed installation of wind turbines at the 920
megawatt Greater Changhua offshore facility in Taiwan. Full
commissioning is expected in Q3, which is in line with management
guidance. And with Taiwan shutting in nuclear this year, the output
will be in instant demand. Orsted will release earnings Feb 6 and I
expect to hear more about its projects including Revolution
2:09
then.

Good question about who pays the ADR fee? I don't know the answer. It
is somewhat less than would be the case were the stock lists
NYSE--which is why so many companies are now delisting ADRs. As for
shares traded, 50.1% are owned by the Danish government and so are
fixed. Another 9% is owned by the national oil company Equinor--so
what's traded is what's left. Part of the rationale for betting this
is a trough for the company is that the government will continue to
support as it has.
 
 
Q. Could the invasion be because of them using crypto to trade oil? Or maybe the Cubans were putting military things that could aim at our country?-Lynn E.A. Hi Lynn
 
Mixing energy and politics rarely if ever leads to outcomes that make economic sense. Rather, government action usually winds up depressing the kind of long-term investment that's needed for supply to keep up with demand. The only time that's not the case is when the government action leans into something the private sector is already doing, and there's
a multiplier effect. I would argue the Biden Administration's poorly named "Inflation Reduction Act" leaned into private sector investment in solar that was already going on--and the result was investment accelerated. But the IRA's attempt to incentivize wind power had no real effect, as business was generally moving away from it. 
 
Freeing Venezuela from the Chavez/Maduro regime I would argue is admirable on many counts. But the impact on global oil supply and investment isn't likely to be much, unless oil prices rise enough to make the investment economic.
 
That's all ExxonMobil is saying. And they're looking out for shareholders by being conservative. I do think removing Maduro reduces risk to their Guyana production. But oil prices need to rise before it will make sense to make the investment needed to bring Venezuela back on line after so many years of mismanagement.
2:10
That's all I have. Let's get to some live questions.
Susan P
2:17
December's EIA gave us a helpful explanation re Canada and Carney's "national projects list," as well as the Build Canada Act. Two questions occur: 1) What is your expectation for the US$ vs. CAD going forward? 2) Of the companies mentioned -- South Bow, Oviniti, Energy Transfer, Pembina, and/or others--which one is your top pick? (continued)
AvatarRoger Conrad
2:17
Hi Susan. Canada has traditionally been known for natural resource exports. So the Canadian dollar has in the past gained ground against the US dollar during periods when commodity prices are strong. Back in the '00s, for example, CAD often traded at parity or higher, versus the 74 cents it does now.

The US is now the world's leading energy exporter, thanks to the shale revolution. So, you could make a case the commodity currency distinction no longer applies. But its also true the Trump Administration has been running a weak dollar policy. You see that in what gold has done. And the CAD is up from around 68-69 cents where it was at inauguration daty.

So I think the CAD/USD exchange rate will continue to be a tailwind for TSX-listed stocks this year. In terms of which of the 4 stocks you list is our favorite, I would say you're comparing apples and oranges to some extent. PBA is a great Canadian midstream that gives you a CAD play. OVV is a producer that looks very undervalued and will move with commodity
AvatarRoger Conrad
2:19
prices. Energy Transfer is my favorite large midstream stock once again. South Bow I think is a takeover play with a big yield. OVV probably has the most upside to commodity prices.
Susan P.
2:26
I stumbled on to a CUI 2016 article recommending AES Corp’s Series C Convertible Preferred Shares. Do you currently consider the preferred shares of the utilities you follow in CUI? Unlike most other sector preferreds, utility-issued preferreds can experience "Qualified Dividend Income (QDI)" taxation. If seeking potentially less volatile ways to invest in utilities, this offers advantages over the "Ordinary Income" taxation of many other income-oriented investments (e.g. bonds, REIT distributions, etc.). I understand their interest rate sensitivity and other risks, but, wondering if individual preferred shares would be considered again for CUI? Elliott tracks preferred etfs in his Smart Bond coverage, but individual issue coverage of utility preferreds is limited. Thanks much for your thoughts.
AvatarRoger Conrad
2:26
I've primarily used the convertibles in the past as higher yielding ways to buy common stocks I've liked. I've had some that have done extremely well--and some that basically treaded water until they converted to common stock.

Utilities have essentially used this form of capital raise to basically lock in a stock issuance at a later date. And the better their stocks have performed up to conversion, the fewer shares they've had to issue. These convertibles also don't count as debt, so credit metrics haven't been weakened.

For investors, the best time to buy these convertibles is when they trade at a discount to par. And with utilities coming off two very good years, that's generally not the case. I appreciate your interest and will take another look.
Susan P
2:27
Additionally, the supply/demand reality of oil detailed in the Dec EIA (e.g., Exxon v.v. heating oil's historical specifics) was excellent. I especially appreciated the past examples of how energy stocks perform versus the commodity. You wrote: "Longer term, oil prices will need to be much higher – we’d estimate at least $70 to $80/bbl – to bring the global oil supply and demand picture into balance?" Do you have any 'gut sense' or past-experience guestimate of what that longer term timing might be?
Thank you very much
AvatarElliott Gue
2:27
Thanks for the question. It's a little tough to know the exact timing. When we wrote the December issue oil prices were well down in the $50s and scraping along the lowest levels in about 4 years. If pressed in December, I would have said that oil prices would continue to scrape around in that $60/bbl region through Q1 2026, the period when supply/demand balances looked the most loose and then recover in that Q2 to Q3 time frame. Right now, it looks like we're getting a bit of an early start on that though with prices rebounding into the mid$60s WTI, close to $70/bbl Brent. As we wrote about in that issue the "tell" was the extreme outperformance of energy stocks over the commodity, which is typically something we see only near major bottoms like '98, '16 and '20. So, while it's unlikely to be a straight line higher, I suspect we've seen the lows for oil and I think it's very possible we could see WTI back in the mid-$70s/Brent in the low $80's late this year or very early in 2027. However, I don't think that
AvatarElliott Gue
2:27
will mark the end of the cycle.  This is more like the fifth inning of the bull market in oil that kicked off in 2020. Historically, commodity supercycles last 10+ years, so I think we'll even higher highs in crude and more upside for energy stocks into the 2030s. As we wrote in this week's issue, don't be surprised if ultimately oil and energy stocks start looking like silver/gold and mining stocks do today. From absolutely hated a few years ago, to loved today -- extreme pessimism to extreme optimism. That's how these cycles go.
Robert N
2:48
Hello Roger/Elliot,  thank you for holding these chats. As retail investors, the macro environment can become somewhat obscured. As of this writing, the market has taken a downturn. My question to you might seem elementary but market behaviour seems unhealthy. Metals are at an all time high and I can't help but think there are risks beyond our current assumption. Can you please provide your insight.  Thanks again for your support!
AvatarElliott Gue
2:48
Thanks for the questions. Glad you enjoy the chats -- we do as well for a number of reasons including that they help us gauge what topics are most of interest to readers. If we look at the S&P 500, it hit its all-time closing high on Tuesday this week at 6,978.60 and we're trading down only about 0.6% off that all time closing high today, so I don't see a major negative signal from the stock market as a whole. I would say that the broader market hasn't done much of anything since late October -- since that late October high the S&P 500 is up less than 1%. However, I think you have to look inside the market to see what's really going on -- the S&P 500 is dominated by a small number of technology and growth stocks, so it will always struggle to rally unless they're moving higher. However, the Equal-Weight S&P 500 is up a healthy 5.7%, Industrials up 6.2%, Energy and Materials both up close to 15% while all global markets except the US are up 9.2% and MSCI Emerging Markets are higher by 14.7%.
AvatarElliott Gue
2:48
Also, close to 70% of NYSE stocks are trading above their 200-day moving averages. Simply put, I don't think market action is unhealthy, it's just that we're seeing a rotation in leadership from technology, which dominates the S&P 500, to other groups and, by extension, to emerging markets and global stock markets where tech is a relatively small player from a sector weighting perspective.  Generally, strength in emerging markets and cyclical groups like energy and industrials suggest the market is looking for strong global economic growth and, perhaps, inflation remaining above target for some time to come. Unless you're just in an S&P 500 Index fund though I don['t think this is bad news -- indeed, it's refreshing to see sectors and stocks outside the Magnificent 7 performing well.
Susan P.
2:49
Have only skimmed recent Jan EIA but found Elliott's comments re The Broad Dollar Index very useful. He wrote: "Even with the decline in the dollar since early 2025, a move that accelerated early this year, we are still far closer to the top of this cycle that the lows" and suggested another 5-10 years of broad dollar weakness is likely. Elliott referenced the 2002-2011 time period as a loose analogy: How low might the dollar decline in the cycle? Thanks much for your insight.
AvatarElliott Gue
2:57
If you look at the Dollar Index since the 1960s, it's basically a wide  trading range. The 1978 lows were around 82.50 and in 1992 we dipped to 78.50. Then again from 2008-2011, the Dollar Index traded into the low 70's. Today we're at 96.30, and the daily average close for the dollar index since 2000 is around 94. I see no reason we couldn't see the dollar index drop into the 70s over the next few years, a level that we last saw around 15 years ago. After all, the Dollar Index traded over 115 back in late 2023, just over 2 years ago, a level that's pretty uncomfortable for US exporters.
Thomas S.
2:51
Is it time to take profits in gold?
AvatarRoger Conrad
2:51
Hi Thomas. I think a better way to look at gold--or really any investment that delivers a huge gain in a short period of time--is to harvest a portion of your profit periodically. In CUI Plus--which is also Dividends Premium on Substack--I built a position in Newmont Mining when the stock was trading in the 20s and 30s. I took a piece off the table when it hit the 80s and considered taking another when it hit 100. I did not and it's around 125  or so.

Gold is up on inflation expectations. And my feeling is the Trump Administration could bring those down (and gold) in a big way by appointing someone to the Federal Reserve that Wall Street respects as an inflation fighter. So I'm moving toward selling that second third of the position in NEM.
JT
3:13
Hi Elliott.  Silver and Gold have gone parabolic. I believe history has shown such moves indicate we are close to the end.  Do you see it that way? Are you looking to scale out or exit all together our SLV and GLD positions? Additionally, how will gold and silver equities behave if a climax top gets put in by silver and gold?
AvatarElliott Gue
3:13
Yes, precious metals have gone parabolic and the history of moves like this isn't pretty. I wrote about this over on Free Market Speculator late last year if you'd like more granularity, here's the link: https://open.substack.com/pub/freemarketspeculator/p/silvers-parabolic... However, as Keynes once said "In the long run, we're all dead." These parabolic moves can last far longer than most believe possible -- and there's no way to reliably call the top. The only way I know to deal with situations like this is to take steps to book/lock in partial gains on the way up. In my longer-term service, last summer we had large positions in GLD (gold), SLV (silver) and my favorite royalty and streaming company Wheaton Precious Metals (WPM). We started building these positions in the spring of 2023 when the metals and related stocks were deep out of favor and everyone was talking about how high interest rates would hurt precious metals. We sold down our SLV
AvatarElliott Gue
3:13
exposure by more than half, our GLD exposure by about 40% and our WPM position by about half in several steps starting in late October of last year. So, we're still holding all three of these positions, sitting on gains of as high as 300% for now, but I am still very much in  take profits mode and will look to do more in coming weeks. In our CT Trader trading service, we've followed a similar strategy and, in fact, recommended selling another chunk of our SLV position earlier this week for a 261% gain. In my Elliott's Options trading service, we've been "rolling" our SLV call option exposure to higher strikes since last August and the profit on this trade is up roughly 10 times since August. I actually explained this "rolling"  strategy in a recent options video I posted. And this week, I recommended a slightly more complex strategy to further lower our risk. Bottom line: Eventually silver will see a nasty downside reversal but I can't tell you whetehr thyat will be from current levels of $120/oz, or much
3:14
higher levels of $200 or $250/oz. That's why I believe it's prudent to lock in partial profits on these positions over time.
Connecting…