You are viewing the chat in desktop mode. Click here to switch to mobile view.
X
Return toCapitalist Times
12/18/25 Capitalist Times Live Chat
powered byJotCast
AvatarRoger Conrad
1:56
Happy Holidays everyone and welcome to our December Capitalist Times live webchat--which is in fact our final webchat for calendar 2025! We appreciate everyone's participation today and look forward to another lively session!
1:57
As always, there is no audio. Just type in your questions and we'll get to them as soon as we can comprehensively and concise. We will be sending you a link to a transcript of the entire Q&A tomorrow morning and it will also be posted on the websites.
Let's get started with some we received prior to the chat.
1:58
Q. Roger, I’m sure you will get many questions today regarding VG. At this price it would seem to be discounting its financial ruin. Has Wall Street got this wrong?
Thanks for your insight. Regards—Frank W.

A. Hi Willy

Happy holidays and thanks for your question.

We actually see Venture as a fairly binary situation. If Shell’s attempt to reverse VG’s recent court victory fails, we see this as a mid-teens stock almost immediately. If Shell wins a BP sized verdict, VG will probably wind up trading around where it is for the time being. It’s also possible VG gets a better deal vs BP, which would also trigger a recovery.

We see this as a very aggressive bet. But at the current price, potential reward far offsets risk.
 
Q. Hi Roger,
 
I'm really happy with this year's results. Thank you. Especially appreciate the sale of LYB to offset capital gains. 
 
I have some other capital gains to offset (like sale of BRK.B). If I have an equity that is below its dream buy price, would that be suitable to sell now and buy back later to offset capital gains?
 
My son is interested in graphene. I'm wondering if there are industries you follow that would be involved in the development or use of it.--SandyW
 
A.Hi Sandy

Happy holidays.

i think the rule with selling for tax losses is (1) You're operating
out of a taxable account, (2) That you have capital gains to match the
losses against and (3) That you've held the stock in question for a
year or more, so it's not classified as short-term capital loss and
you'll get the maximum benefit.

If you have stocks like that and selling them is beneficial--avoids
taxes you'd otherwise have to pay--then it probably makes sense to
make the trade. If you want to own the stock long-term and your plan
is to buy back after 30 days to avoid the wash rule, just be aware
that a lot can happen in 30 days. And January is the time of year
1:59
when
a lot of people try a "dogs of the Dow" type strategy--buying the
previous year's losers in hopes of better performance going forward.
So it's possible--maybe not likely--that the price will get away from
you before you can buy back in.

My feeling is there will always be stocks to buy. So if the timing
doesn't work out for re-entry, it's no great loss. But that is a
consideration. And obviously, my view is that good companies trading
below Dream Buy prices are ripe for big gains at some point.
 
 
Q. Hi Roger,
 
I’ve been a long time subscriber to CUI and have done very well based on your advice over the years. I have two long time holdings that I’d like your thoughts on:
 
ATO. I’ve held some shares since they were around $24.00. Sold some over the years and my current dollar amount totals about $38,000 value with a cost basis of about $6,700. It generates about $1,700 per year in dividends. Thought about selling and reinvesting in stocks paying a higher dividend yield? Thoughts
UTG. I love idea of a month dividend! Started accumulating shares about 15 years ago and never sold when you sold out your position. Now totals slightly over 5% of our portfolio and generates about $5,550 per year in dividends. Should I sell all shares and reinvest in other suggested conservative stocks even though they do not have as high a yield or monthly payment? Thoughts?
 
Thanks so much for taking the time to review this and if you don’t feel comfortable making suggestions I understand.
 
Have a great Holiday Season! Michael A.
 
A.Hi Michael

Happy Holidays and thanks for your questions.

My feeling is Atmos Energy is a great company with a pretty clear path
to strong earnings and dividend growth for at least the next several
years, with relatively low business risk. But the stock has come a
long way in a hurry and looks pricey at 23X earnings for a utility,
even one growing at an upper single digit percentage rate yearly. And
the yield is less than 2.4%. I haven't advised selling entire
positions.
But I have recommended selling some shares. I think the
question is probably whether your position is out of balance with
everything else you own--which would elevate overall portfolio risk.
If so, it probably makes sense to pare back more and look for
something else not quite so bid up.

The closed end fund question is a little more difficult to answer. The
dividend is not quite the same as it is with an individual stock--as
it's likely paid out of other fund income besides the dividend yield.
But this has been a solid fund over the years, pretty consistently
well managed. Again, I think the questions you're asking are probably
best answered by a look at your overall portfolio and figuring out
what's weighted and how much. 5% doesn't sound like an overweight--but
that will depend on what else you own. I do prefer to hold individual
stocks even to a good CEF. I think you have more visibility to what
you actually own and can make better judgments about upside.
2:00
China seems to be way ahead of us in electric production, with nuclear, water, and wind, but we have the chips and the innovators, but our chips need electricity to run.
 
 
Q. With all the projected growth in AI and its energy needs, where are the investment sweet spots and companies in the energy sector that will most benefit from this long-term trend? --Mr G
 
A. Hi Mr G

Happy holidays.

Necessity is the mother of invention. China is able to build energy
infrastructure quickly as much because of its strong supply chains
that support solar, nuclear etc as permitting advantages. And it built
those I think because it had to--given its enormous needs for energy
as well as for self-sufficiency, as the country generally lacks the
easily accessible oil and gas resources the US does. It's an
interesting comparison, though I think more than anything it
demonstrates how relatively free trade and global commerce makes
countries richer, while protectionism from nationalist policies makes
everyone less efficient and p
poorer.

If I had to name one company that has benefited most from
neo-mercantilism in energy it would be the solar components maker
FirstSolar. Before Trump 1, the company was struggling to compete
globally against better funded and larger Chinese companies. Now it's
thriving as the US supplier of choice with new production capacity in
multiple states and sales robust and taking off. I think it's
expensive. But Fluence Energy (NSDQ: FLNC) may be shaping up to be as
big a winner in battery storage, also thanks to having production
inside the tariff walls.

I think in US nuclear, Brookfield Renewable (NYSE: BEP/BEPC) is your
best bet as the 51% owner of Westinghouse. It's the only company in
the space with real earnings, or in fact even commercially proven
designs. And Westinghouse has also partnered with the US government in
a $50 bil deal to promote new US nuclear reactors. I think to succeed
they need to prove to buyers like utilities--along with regulators and
investors--that they can build a new reactor
2:01
in a predictable amount
of time and at a predictable cost. But they have the pole position to
do that.
 
 
Q. Roger. I enjoyed your recent posting on banks. I’m curious what you think about SNV. Nice dividend. Thanks for all your good advice.--Quint
 
A. Hi Quint. The big event for Synovus Financial is the pending merger
with Pinnacle Financial Partners. The deal won federal approval last
last month and is expected to close on January 1--with "full system
and brand conversion expected to take place in first half 2027"
according to the parties.
Terms of the deal are for SNV shares to convert to PNFP at a rate of
0.5237 SNV per PNFP. At a price of around $50 currently, SNV is
trading a few pennies more than its value in PNFP stock. PNFP
currently pays a dividend of 24 cents per share. That's a value of
about 12.6 cents per SNV share at the exchange rate, which equates to
a cut of about 68% from the current rate of 39 cents.

I think that's probably why SNV shares dropped when the deal was first
announced. I think there is some "industrial logic" here combining
these Sunbelt focused entities. But it's obviously not in the
dividend.

 
Q. Roger, is HESM an MLP? In your Live Chat at about 5:48, in your answer to a question, I understood it is not. Thanks, Willy
 
A. Hi Willy. Hess Midstream is somewhat unusual in that it's treated as a
C-Corp for tax purposes for everyone else besides controlling
shareholder Chevron--who gets to treat it like a tax-advantaged
partnership. That was a change made several years ago by then
co-owners Global Infrastructure Partners (now controlled by Blackrock)
and Hess Corp (now a part of Chevron). But it means you get a 1099 at
tax time. And it also decomplicates a prospective privatization by
Chevron--no MLP type trigger for capital gains--which I think still
makes a great deal of sense for all parties, especially Chevron which
will be able to cut its Bakken midstream costs substantially by
eliminating the minimum value contracts. Much more to come on this
situation I think.
 
Q. Hi. I appreciate a company with no debt, but when DMLP wants to expand they have to issue shares (I believe 4 million last year and so far 1 million this year). They retain no cash for expansion, so the yield is high but growth comes at a steep price. Opportunities abound when the price of oil is low, but that is the same time that their share price is depressed. Wouldn't that be overly
2:02
dilutive? Happy Holidays--Frank F.
(Been following you guys since the Personal Finance days!)
 
A. Hi Frank

Thanks for writing, and especially for being a founding member of
Capitalist Times--which hard to believe is already in its 14th year.

The way to think about Dorchester Minerals is it's basically a pass
through entity--where the dividends are going to basically track oil
prices, and to a lesser extent natural gas. Basically, if oil and gas
prices rise, so will the realized selling price of whatever is
produced on its lands. And the third party producers will likely step
up output as well. Cash flow rises and will go immediately into the
quarterly distribution. When prices slump as they have this year, the
opposite occurs. Cash flow is less and the dividend drops.
You literally do share the ups and downs as an investor. And there
would be absolutely no reason to buy DMLP--or BSM for that matter--if
you thought oil and gas prices were headed lower, since your dividend
and the share price would too. We believe commodity prices are in a
temporary trough and that they'll head higher--taking cash flow,
dividends and share prices for these royalty trusts higher. But the
dividends are variable--not like the steady and growing dividends of
our midstream recommendations.

You are correct that by issuing shares, DMLP will have to spread its
cash flow over more shares, which all else equal would mean a lower
dividend. But all else really is not equal here because cash flow and
dividends are as variable as commodity prices. I think acquiring more
lands by issuing stock is a good move--it means more potential
production when oil and gas prices rise.
And again, that's the basis
for this recommendation.
 
 
Q. Hi Roger,
During the 1990's I gleefully bought all the limited partnerships I could find money for and gloated over the untaxed income. However when I finally had to sell one I discovered that the income wasn't untaxed just tax-deferred because it had been deducted from my purchase price and I had practically no basis left so I owed a great deal more tax on the sale than I had expected. Then I went to work for a tax preparer and discovered that many limited partnerships earn money in 10-15 different states and technically I might owe a tax return and possibly tax to each. When the amounts were $15-$20 I wasn't worried but as I built larger positions I began to wonder at what point the states would become interested. Admittedly people more sophisticated than I am wouldn't be concerned at all but I try to stay out of trouble rather than trying to escape after the fact. So given a choice between a limited partnership and a corporation I buy the
2:03
corporation even if it costs more upfront. Evidently given the disparity in prices other people share my viewpoint. 
Thank you for your publications and your willingness to engage with your subscribers.—Teresa P.
 
A. Hi Teresa

I certainly understand the sentiment. We will continue to always have
C-Corp alternatives like OKE, PBA, HESM and the like. I just think
there's a massive value gap to take advantage of, if you don't mind
the additional complication.
AvatarElliott Gue
2:05
Q: Hi Elliott:
FYI; I noticed on a Form 4 that EWBC's Chief Operating Officer sold about 1/3 of his stock ownership yesterday. I wonder if that would change your opinion.
2:06
Answer: This is a name I just added to our Free Market Speculator and Creating Wealth Services. The short answer is that it would not change my opinion or recommendation as I don’t track insider selling activity. Most insider selling is routine and driven by life and financial events. For example, insiders selling stock for use as the down payment on a home, to pay taxes or simply for diversification. The latter effect is driven by the fact many companies issue stock as part of an executive’s compensation.
Indeed there have been several studies on this including a series from NBER and out of Wharton over the last 10 years or so showing no statistically significant information content from insider sales.
Looking specifically at EWBC, you will notice a consistent pattern of insider sales with few insider buys (almost zero on the open market) over the years despite the fact the bank has outperformed the KBW Regional Bank Index over the past 5-  and 10- year holding periods. This is driven by the fact executives
at EWBC, much like at other major regional banks receive in the region of 50% to 60% of their compensation in the form of equity. The CEO has been with EWBC since 1992, so as you might expect, his wealth is largely tied up in EWBC shares and his selling is primarily aimed at diversification.
So, insider sales haven’t provided a useful signal at EWBC for the past 10+ years at a minimum.
Generally, prior to 2002, insider sales may have had more information content, but the Sarbanes Oxley law stepped up regulation and rendered this data less useful.
I do sometimes use insider buying activity as a signal. While there are many reasons an insider might sell shares, there’s pretty much only one reason an insider buys in the open market. So, usually every few weeks I have a quick look at names that have seen a lot of insider buying activity or a single notable buyer.
Q: Recommendation for TW, TLTW, TLT & ORCL
2:07
I recommended selling TradeWeb (TW) from the Free Market Speculator / Creating Wealth model portfolio on September 19, 2025, while I continue to believe that the company’s basic business – an electronic exchange for fixed income – is a good one, the stock just isn’t working. I think partly it’s getting punished due to read-across from MarketAxess, it’s key competitor, which has been having some stock-specific issues. However, when a stock doesn’t work as I expect, I’d rather sell out and look to reenter when the dust clears.
TLTW and TLT both remain buys. TLTW – an ETF that buys long-term Treasuries and sells covered calls – has been a particularly solid performer for us this year, rising 11.6% compared to about a 7% gain in the Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index year-to-date.  TLT (long-term Treasuries) hasn’t performed as well up around 5% YTD, but we still recommend a position there.
TLT and TLTW are recommended in both Free Market Speculator / Creating Wealth and our Smart Bonds services,
the latter focusing on fixed income, credit and preferred stock exchange traded funds (ETFs). In Smart Bonds, when we get some clearer indication from the indicators it’s time to do so, the plan is to pivot in favor of duration (longer-term Treasuries and investment grade corporates basically), which would generally mean adding to ETFs like TLT and (perhaps) booking some gains in ETFs like TLTW. For now though, TLTW represents a way to own long-term Treasuries with added income.
ORCL is a name we recommended a little over two years ago and it’s still up 75%+ since that time. We have been gradually selling off part of the position, taking profits over approximately the past year. We have a small position – the smallest in dollar terms in the model portfolio – which we have rated “hold.”
Robert N.
2:11
I can't help but ask about the TAE Technologies announcement to go public through Trump Media and Technology Group. Firstly, is fusion even viable at this juncture to promote such a venture? Secondly, what is your opinion when it will show up on the radar as a true contender in the energy production space. Thank you.
AvatarElliott Gue
2:11
Fusion, like fuel cells, is one of those technologies I've been hearing about for 25+ years that's just never been investable. In my view, it's not going to be a meaningful contender in terms of meeting global energy demand for the forseeable future.
Frank F.
2:16
Hi

Stumbled across this stock, Miami International Holdings (MIAX) that looks to be a options clearinghouse that wants to compete with CME and ICE. Have a tie in with Robinhood, and a guy I'm familiar with, Murray Stahl of Horizon Kinetics Mutual Funds is on the board. Went public not too long ago. Any thoughts?

Happy Holidays!
AvatarElliott Gue
2:16
Over the years CME, ICE, CBOE have all been strong performers and we've recommended several of these names in various services from time to time as they benefit from rising trading activity/volumes. That said, I must confess I am not familiar enough with MIAX to give you an intelligent opinion -- I'll put it on my list of names to look at further.
Larry W.
2:17
Good morning gentlemen. Is Northland Power (NPIFF) a good place to invest? I know it’s Canadian, which doesn’t bother me, but what are its prospects? Thanks for your invaluable insights and advice! 
Cheers!
AvatarRoger Conrad
2:17
Hi Larry and happy holidays. Northland Power's decision to cut its dividend this fall to an annualized rate of 72 cent Canadian didn't sit well with investors--and the stock has sold off sharply. But doing so, it's also more or less market proofed its aggressive construction program--including potential higher costs at the Hai Long offshore wind project in Taiwan. If it can avoid further delays at that project, it will have a large cash cushion after CAPEX to pay down debt and accelerate work elsewhere.

I have pretty extensive notes on Northland in the December Conrad's Utility Investor, and rationale why I think it's a buy up to USD15 for more aggressive investors. I think it's a well run company that facing headwinds from higher for longer interest rates. But the assets are good and I think they'll pay a much higher dividend in 2-3 years.
AvatarRoger Conrad
2:21
As an aside--I absolutely agree with Elliott's comments on fuel cells. And generally speaking, if an energy company doesn't have real earnings it's trading on hype alone and usually best avoided.
Alex M.
2:29
Hi Elliot.  What are your general thoughts on the recent price action in the AI space?  Is this an opportunity to buy the "chip dip"?  Thanks.
AvatarElliott Gue
2:29
We're definitely seeing some sector rotation and change of leadership underway. Most of the Magnificent 7 names, as well as names like AVGO and ORCL, just haven't acted well since their earnings releases. My view has always been that a stock's reaction to news is more important than the news itself and I think the downside we've seen in some of these stocks despite good earnings in some cases, is telling. Meanwhile, decidedly Old Economy and cyclical groups like financials, industrials, small caps and even energy have been leading lately. My sense is that the ultimate peak for these stocks still lies ahead but this rotation out of the semis/AI plays could certainly continue for a while longer. The situation is much like what we saw in the late 1990s with leadership groups and names of that era like CSCO -- gains were huge overall but there were some nasty dips and corrections along the way. So, I think there will likely be a tradeable bottom but I'm not convinced we're there just yet. For right now,
AvatarElliott Gue
2:29
in our trading services like CT Trader and Elliott's Options we've been finding more opportunities in groups outside tech like financials, industrials/auto, regional banks, construction, and in ETFs like iShares silver (SLV). In the longer term services like Creating Wealth/Free Market Speculator ourt biggest gains this year have been in some of the same groups. And, of course, as we write about in the Energy & Income Advisor Issue released earlier today, I believe 2026 could be the year when energy beats both the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100.
Randy H.
2:33
Roger,

I read your review of REIT performance this year with interest and agree with your long-term view. Do you have any thoughts on Sabra Health Care REIT (SBRA)? Thanks for holding these chats.
AvatarRoger Conrad
2:33
Hi Randy. Sabra is probably one to add to coverage of Dividends Premium REITs/The REIT Sheet at some point, though I do already feature quite a few REITs now riding the SHOP recovery in the coverage universe--including Ventas (VTR), which has a nice gain since I added it to the First Rate REIT list.

Comparing Sabra to VTR and Welltower--which is the largest in the space--it's seeing bettering than expected investment, strong cash NOI growth (15.9% in Q3). The big differences are it's less SHOP focused (26%) and assets are generally of lower quality--as indicated by some impairment costs and a big boost in SHOP operating costs. Also, you a barely investment grade balance sheet (Baa3).

The yield is of course about twice VTR and more than that for WELL. But risk is higher as well. And again it's not a SHOP pure play but has exposure to other properties like skilled nursing that have less favorable economics currently.
Alex M.
2:37
Even with the notable decline in energy prices, energy stocks seem to be holding up relatively well.  What do you think is fueling their buoyancy with the expectation that oil may remain in this lower for longer range?
AvatarElliott Gue
2:37
We wrote about this at some length in the Energy & Income Advisor issue that went out this morning. Basically, crude oil futures (front-month crude oil futures are the most common proxy for the price of oil) are traded based on near-term supply and demand conditions. Right now, and through Q1 2026, the view is that there's oversupply of crude oil, so prices are weak. However, energy stocks trade based on the market's view of the longer term sustainable price of oil. So, if the market believes that the current price of oil is unsustainable (too high or too low to be sustainable) energy stocks won't  follow the commodity. We covered some historical examples in the issue -- for example, in 1990 the price of oil soared after Iraq invaded Kuwait, but energy stocks were flat or only rose slightly. That was the market's way of saying that the rise in oil was a temporary spike that didn't reflect long-term supply and demand fundamentals. Sure enough, oil prices fall sharply starting in October 1990, even before the
AvatarElliott Gue
2:37
US, UK and other allies commenced airstrikes in January 1991. In contrast, when energy stocks dramatically outperformed oil in December 1998 and late 2008, this was a bullish sign -- energy stocks didn't follow oil lower because investors didn't believe low oil prices were sustainable. Sure enough these were good buying opportunities for oil and energy stocks. Given the extreme recent outperformance for energy stocks over oil, we believe this is a signal that oil prices under $60 are unsustainable long-term and we see this as bullish for energy into 2026.
Load More Messages
Connecting…