“As I’ve written in past memos, I have an indelible recollection of the first book I read as a Wharton freshman in 1963. The book was ‘Decisions Under Uncertainty: Drilling Decisions by Oil and Gas Operators’ by C. Jackson Grayson, Jr. (who in 1971 would take on the role of “price czar” in the Nixon administration’s efforts to get inflation under control).
“The best and most lasting thing I took away from Grayson’s book – and the first thing I remember learning in college – was the observation that you can’t tell the quality of a decision from the outcome. This revelation had a profound influence on me as a 17-year-old and represented the first critical building block in my understanding of how the world works.
“As Grayson explained, you make the best decision you can based on what you know, but the success of your decision will be heavily influenced by (a) relevant information you may lack and (b) luck or randomness. Because of these two factors, well-thought-out decisions may fail, and poor decisions may succeed. While it might seem counterintuitive, the best decision-maker isn’t necessarily the person with the most successes, but rather the one with the best process and judgment. The two can be far from the same, and especially over a small number of trials, it can be impossible to know who’s who.”
- Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital, ‘You Bet !’
Get your Free
financial review
As the late great value investor Peter Cundill once remarked – and it became the title of one of his biographies – ‘There’s Always Something to Do’. The more pessimistically inclined can, of course, take the flipside of that argument, and invert it, such that There’s Always Something to Worry About. In 2025, the list of legitimate concerns could plausibly include any and all of the following, namely:
- The highest global debt levels ever
- Credit ratings are now much lower than in the past – more than 50% of investment grade bonds are now rated “BBB” (the lowest rung in the category)
- Tariffs and trade wars
- Transfer of jobs from humans to machines and AI
- Softness of economic growth
- Mistrust of capitalism (and democracy)
- Rising support for socialism.
So it’s important to discriminate between what’s worthy of worry, and what should, as far as possible, simply be ignored, or at least accepted as something we cannot alter. We’ve cited in the past Reinhold Niebuhr’s Serenity Prayer:
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”
There is probably a loose connection somewhere in humanity’s mental wiring whereby some of us – ourselves included – get distracted by the thought of worry itself. In his book ‘The Psychopath Test’, Jon Ronson writes amusingly of discovering something called DSM-IV-TR, which is:
“.. an 886-page textbook published by the American Psychiatric Association that sells for $99. It sits on the shelves of psychiatry offices all over the world and lists every known mental disorder. There are currently 374 known mental disorders. I bought the book.. and leafed through it, searching for disorders that might compel the sufferer to try and achieve a position of power and influence over others. Surprisingly, this being such a vast book packed with so many disorders, including esoteric ones like Frotteurism (‘rubbing against a non-consenting person in a public transportation vehicle while usually fantasizing an exclusive, caring relationship with the victim, most acts of frottage occur when the person is aged 12-15, after which there is a gradual decline in frequency’) there was nothing at all in there about psychopaths. Maybe there had been some backstage schism in the psychopath-defining world ? The closest I could find was Narcissistic Personality Disorder, sufferers of which have ‘a grandiose sense of self-importance and self-entitlement’, are ‘preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success’, and are ‘exploitative’, ‘lack empathy’ and require ‘excessive admiration’, and Antisocial Personality Disorder, which compels sufferers to be ‘frequently deceitful and manipulative in order to gain personal profit or pleasure (e.g. to obtain money, sex or power)’.
“..‘I wonder if I’ve got any of the 374 mental disorders ?’ I thought.
“I opened the manual again.
“And I instantly diagnosed myself with twelve different ones.
“General Anxiety Disorder was a given. But I hadn’t realized what a collage of mental disorders my whole life has been, from my inability to grasp sums (Arithmetic Learning Disorder) and the resultant tense homework situations with my mother (Parent-Child Relational Problem) right up to the present day, to that very day, in fact, which I had spent so much of getting jittery with the coffee (Caffeine Induced Disorder) and avoiding work (Malingering). I suspect it was probably unusual to suffer from both General Anxiety Disorder and Malingering, unproductiveness tending to make me feel anxious, but there it was. I had both. Even sleep offered no respite from my mental disorders. There was Nightmare Disorder, which is diagnosed when the sufferer dreams of being ‘pursued or declared a failure’. All my nightmares involve someone chasing me down the street whilst yelling, ‘You’re a failure !’
“I was much crazier than I had imagined. Or maybe it was a bad idea to read DSM-IV when you’re not a trained professional. Or maybe the American Psychiatric Association had a crazy desire to label all life a mental disorder..”
Howard Marks implies that investing is essentially a game. But that implies a degree of randomness and chance and sheer good or bad luck about the world of investing that we refuse to accept. Yes, in the short term especially, luck plays a huge role in our investment success, or lack thereof. But over the longer term, the financial market is simply not a casino. Or if it is, there are undoubtedly ways to tilt the odds firmly in your favour. As Albert Einstein said, albeit in a somewhat different context,
“God does not play dice with the universe.”
The longer we spend in financial markets, the more convinced we are that people get from the markets precisely what they want. That is to say, if you seek excitement, you will almost certainly get it – but that is not the same thing as investment success. What is the point of gambling if you only ever win?
One of our favourite quotes on this topic derives from Seth Klarman about the US value fund managers at Tweedy Browne:
“There’s a wonderful story – Chris Browne at Tweedy Browne tells a story of how they were interviewing somebody to come join their firm. And after the interview he’s walking the fellow to the elevator and the fellow says ‘You know it’s amazing here at Tweedy Browne, at most firms you can tell from the atmosphere and the place whether the market’s up or the market’s down. At Tweedy Browne you can’t even tell if the market’s open.’”
In other words, if you want the thrill of the casino, go visit a casino. But given that most of us, when it comes to our investments, are dealing with irreplaceable pots of capital, our life savings, it probably makes sense to adopt an approach to “the Great Game” that almost completely strips emotion out of the process.
We’ve discussed in the past Harry Browne’s “Permanent Portfolio”. The bespoke discretionary portfolios that we manage are not slavishly tied to the Permanent Portfolio, but they are certainly relatives of a sort.
As a reminder, Browne advocated a portfolio approach “for all seasons”. He recommended putting a quarter of your assets into cash, another quarter into bonds, another quarter into stocks, and a quarter into gold.
The reasonable premise – at least when he offered this approach back in the 1970s – was that each segment of the portfolio provided something distinct by way of risk attributes and each segment protected investors against different economic outcomes. Cash and bonds were deflation hedges; equities were a claim against the real economy and would likely perform well during periods of modest inflation; gold would protect against an unruly outbreak of high inflation or a systemic shock. Browne recommended rebalancing the portfolio annually to maintain those 25% target weights.
The problem today, of course, is that the world has changed out of all recognition compared to the world that Browne knew. Browne died in 2006. He did not live to see the global financial crisis that ignited during the following year, nor the shock reduction in interest rates, nor the colossal experimentation in government and corporate debt purchases as part of quantitative easing. So he did not live to see a world in which fully half of the Permanent Portfolio – both cash and bonds – became essentially obsolete.
The primary investment objective of our managed portfolios is capital preservation, in real terms, followed closely by absolute (that is to say, positive) returns.
Bonds – whether government or corporate – we consider uninvestible. They are now the opposite of riskless assets. They are the financial equivalent of insects in search of windscreens.
Cash may not contribute meaningfully to a portfolio return in 2025, but it does give you optionality. It gives you a choice. It offers you dry powder for when real, compelling investment opportunities present themselves. Right now they are somewhat thin on the ground.
In terms of direct investments, what we look for are high-quality businesses run by principled, shareholder-friendly executives with a proven ability to allocate capital well. If they are in the form of family-owned businesses, so much the better. Family-owned and family-run businesses tend not to play the Wall Street game, and can therefore concentrate on capital preservation and capital growth over the longer term. If it’s possible to buy shares in such companies at no great premium, again, so much the better.
If we’re looking at individual companies, here are the sort of hard metrics that we find interesting:
How we define value – MARGIN OF SAFETY
For us, margin of safety means specifically:
- 10% cashflow from operations (CFO) yield
- Price / earnings < 15
- Price / book < 1.5x
- Debt: Total Assets < 30%
- Cash from Operations growth
- Return on Equity > 8% per annum on average
- Share buybacks at appropriate valuations.
The legendary value investor Benjamin Graham coined the phrase “margin of safety” to denote the fundamental characteristic of stocks that he was most interested in acquiring. Ben Graham was an absolute return type of investor. He wasn’t interested in beating the market so much as in securing decent returns and preserving capital. As he himself said (emphasis ours),
“An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative.”
Note those words. Graham clearly distinguishes between investing (and the attendant thorough analysis required), and speculation. If you are buying the market using a cheap exchange-traded fund, you are getting cheap market access, but you are also getting a portfolio of indiscriminately selected stocks that will depend for its future returns on the market continuing to go up. You are, in other words, speculating without realising it.
At a time when debt markets cannot be trusted, we see especial merit in absolute return / uncorrelated funds. Our favourites here are systematic trend-following funds, primarily because of that word uncorrelated. Their returns have historically been weakly correlated to the performance of stocks and bonds, or not correlated at all.
If you want a balanced and properly diversified portfolio, you want your component parts to be uncorrelated to each other. For some years now, stocks and bonds have essentially been joined at the hip, their prices increasingly driven higher as interest rates have collapsed, courtesy of our friends at the central banks. But what happens when interest rates and inflation start to rise – perhaps in a disorderly manner ?
We have written of late of our concerns about inflationary pressure. If inflation does turn out to be a higher risk factor, or if you are simply seeking portfolio insurance for your cash and other investments, then all roads lead to gold, and precious metals more generally.
Our favourites are the monetary metals, gold and silver, because we are increasingly concerned about the possibility of central banks losing the confidence of market participants in the paper money system. Gold and silver, to our thinking, are not so much commodities as alternate forms of money that, unlike conventional money, cannot be printed on demand.
Investors in gold have fared well since the US dollar was unyoked from gold in 1971 under Richard Nixon.
But we have to acknowledge the extent of drawdowns (peak to trough losses in price). The post-1980 drawdown in gold was brutal. As was the post-2011 drawdown.
To stay in gold, you need to have a strong constitution. But if our fears about our monetary system (and the likelihood of Modern Monetary Theory being rolled out) are correct, it will warrant a place in any investor’s portfolio over the years to come.
Modern economics has claims to being a science. It is not, in fact, a science at all. Nor can it be, not least because it fails to fulfil the definition of science offered by the one practitioner, perhaps, who more than anyone else helped to popularise science during the 20th century: Richard Feynman. Feynman’s scientific method refers to a process of thought based on integrating previous knowledge, observation, measurement and logical reasoning:
“Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it [audience laughter], no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.
So in response to the concerns facing all of us, we try and behave as scientifically as possible. In the context of overall asset allocation, we believe in diversification. You may not wish to use the same sort of allocations to the above asset classes that we do, but the important thing is to maintain some diversification over time, because the future is simply uncertain.
And at the level of individual stocks – still the bedrock of the portfolio – we try to follow Ben Graham’s precept: “Buy not on optimism, but on arithmetic”. Buy good companies at cheap enough prices and you will seldom go far wrong.
Meanwhile, we are all beset by news flow and any number of variously rational – and irrational – fears. Which is why one tenet that we increasingly focus on is a belief in limiting your exposure to news altogether. Avoid dangerous and pointless distractions about things you can’t change anyway.
As Richard Feynman said,
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
………….
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 and also in systematic trend-following funds.
“As I’ve written in past memos, I have an indelible recollection of the first book I read as a Wharton freshman in 1963. The book was ‘Decisions Under Uncertainty: Drilling Decisions by Oil and Gas Operators’ by C. Jackson Grayson, Jr. (who in 1971 would take on the role of “price czar” in the Nixon administration’s efforts to get inflation under control).
“The best and most lasting thing I took away from Grayson’s book – and the first thing I remember learning in college – was the observation that you can’t tell the quality of a decision from the outcome. This revelation had a profound influence on me as a 17-year-old and represented the first critical building block in my understanding of how the world works.
“As Grayson explained, you make the best decision you can based on what you know, but the success of your decision will be heavily influenced by (a) relevant information you may lack and (b) luck or randomness. Because of these two factors, well-thought-out decisions may fail, and poor decisions may succeed. While it might seem counterintuitive, the best decision-maker isn’t necessarily the person with the most successes, but rather the one with the best process and judgment. The two can be far from the same, and especially over a small number of trials, it can be impossible to know who’s who.”
Get your Free
financial review
As the late great value investor Peter Cundill once remarked – and it became the title of one of his biographies – ‘There’s Always Something to Do’. The more pessimistically inclined can, of course, take the flipside of that argument, and invert it, such that There’s Always Something to Worry About. In 2025, the list of legitimate concerns could plausibly include any and all of the following, namely:
So it’s important to discriminate between what’s worthy of worry, and what should, as far as possible, simply be ignored, or at least accepted as something we cannot alter. We’ve cited in the past Reinhold Niebuhr’s Serenity Prayer:
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”
There is probably a loose connection somewhere in humanity’s mental wiring whereby some of us – ourselves included – get distracted by the thought of worry itself. In his book ‘The Psychopath Test’, Jon Ronson writes amusingly of discovering something called DSM-IV-TR, which is:
“.. an 886-page textbook published by the American Psychiatric Association that sells for $99. It sits on the shelves of psychiatry offices all over the world and lists every known mental disorder. There are currently 374 known mental disorders. I bought the book.. and leafed through it, searching for disorders that might compel the sufferer to try and achieve a position of power and influence over others. Surprisingly, this being such a vast book packed with so many disorders, including esoteric ones like Frotteurism (‘rubbing against a non-consenting person in a public transportation vehicle while usually fantasizing an exclusive, caring relationship with the victim, most acts of frottage occur when the person is aged 12-15, after which there is a gradual decline in frequency’) there was nothing at all in there about psychopaths. Maybe there had been some backstage schism in the psychopath-defining world ? The closest I could find was Narcissistic Personality Disorder, sufferers of which have ‘a grandiose sense of self-importance and self-entitlement’, are ‘preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success’, and are ‘exploitative’, ‘lack empathy’ and require ‘excessive admiration’, and Antisocial Personality Disorder, which compels sufferers to be ‘frequently deceitful and manipulative in order to gain personal profit or pleasure (e.g. to obtain money, sex or power)’.
“..‘I wonder if I’ve got any of the 374 mental disorders ?’ I thought.
“I opened the manual again.
“And I instantly diagnosed myself with twelve different ones.
“General Anxiety Disorder was a given. But I hadn’t realized what a collage of mental disorders my whole life has been, from my inability to grasp sums (Arithmetic Learning Disorder) and the resultant tense homework situations with my mother (Parent-Child Relational Problem) right up to the present day, to that very day, in fact, which I had spent so much of getting jittery with the coffee (Caffeine Induced Disorder) and avoiding work (Malingering). I suspect it was probably unusual to suffer from both General Anxiety Disorder and Malingering, unproductiveness tending to make me feel anxious, but there it was. I had both. Even sleep offered no respite from my mental disorders. There was Nightmare Disorder, which is diagnosed when the sufferer dreams of being ‘pursued or declared a failure’. All my nightmares involve someone chasing me down the street whilst yelling, ‘You’re a failure !’
“I was much crazier than I had imagined. Or maybe it was a bad idea to read DSM-IV when you’re not a trained professional. Or maybe the American Psychiatric Association had a crazy desire to label all life a mental disorder..”
Howard Marks implies that investing is essentially a game. But that implies a degree of randomness and chance and sheer good or bad luck about the world of investing that we refuse to accept. Yes, in the short term especially, luck plays a huge role in our investment success, or lack thereof. But over the longer term, the financial market is simply not a casino. Or if it is, there are undoubtedly ways to tilt the odds firmly in your favour. As Albert Einstein said, albeit in a somewhat different context,
“God does not play dice with the universe.”
The longer we spend in financial markets, the more convinced we are that people get from the markets precisely what they want. That is to say, if you seek excitement, you will almost certainly get it – but that is not the same thing as investment success. What is the point of gambling if you only ever win?
One of our favourite quotes on this topic derives from Seth Klarman about the US value fund managers at Tweedy Browne:
“There’s a wonderful story – Chris Browne at Tweedy Browne tells a story of how they were interviewing somebody to come join their firm. And after the interview he’s walking the fellow to the elevator and the fellow says ‘You know it’s amazing here at Tweedy Browne, at most firms you can tell from the atmosphere and the place whether the market’s up or the market’s down. At Tweedy Browne you can’t even tell if the market’s open.’”
In other words, if you want the thrill of the casino, go visit a casino. But given that most of us, when it comes to our investments, are dealing with irreplaceable pots of capital, our life savings, it probably makes sense to adopt an approach to “the Great Game” that almost completely strips emotion out of the process.
We’ve discussed in the past Harry Browne’s “Permanent Portfolio”. The bespoke discretionary portfolios that we manage are not slavishly tied to the Permanent Portfolio, but they are certainly relatives of a sort.
As a reminder, Browne advocated a portfolio approach “for all seasons”. He recommended putting a quarter of your assets into cash, another quarter into bonds, another quarter into stocks, and a quarter into gold.
The reasonable premise – at least when he offered this approach back in the 1970s – was that each segment of the portfolio provided something distinct by way of risk attributes and each segment protected investors against different economic outcomes. Cash and bonds were deflation hedges; equities were a claim against the real economy and would likely perform well during periods of modest inflation; gold would protect against an unruly outbreak of high inflation or a systemic shock. Browne recommended rebalancing the portfolio annually to maintain those 25% target weights.
The problem today, of course, is that the world has changed out of all recognition compared to the world that Browne knew. Browne died in 2006. He did not live to see the global financial crisis that ignited during the following year, nor the shock reduction in interest rates, nor the colossal experimentation in government and corporate debt purchases as part of quantitative easing. So he did not live to see a world in which fully half of the Permanent Portfolio – both cash and bonds – became essentially obsolete.
The primary investment objective of our managed portfolios is capital preservation, in real terms, followed closely by absolute (that is to say, positive) returns.
Bonds – whether government or corporate – we consider uninvestible. They are now the opposite of riskless assets. They are the financial equivalent of insects in search of windscreens.
Cash may not contribute meaningfully to a portfolio return in 2025, but it does give you optionality. It gives you a choice. It offers you dry powder for when real, compelling investment opportunities present themselves. Right now they are somewhat thin on the ground.
In terms of direct investments, what we look for are high-quality businesses run by principled, shareholder-friendly executives with a proven ability to allocate capital well. If they are in the form of family-owned businesses, so much the better. Family-owned and family-run businesses tend not to play the Wall Street game, and can therefore concentrate on capital preservation and capital growth over the longer term. If it’s possible to buy shares in such companies at no great premium, again, so much the better.
If we’re looking at individual companies, here are the sort of hard metrics that we find interesting:
How we define value – MARGIN OF SAFETY
For us, margin of safety means specifically:
The legendary value investor Benjamin Graham coined the phrase “margin of safety” to denote the fundamental characteristic of stocks that he was most interested in acquiring. Ben Graham was an absolute return type of investor. He wasn’t interested in beating the market so much as in securing decent returns and preserving capital. As he himself said (emphasis ours),
“An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative.”
Note those words. Graham clearly distinguishes between investing (and the attendant thorough analysis required), and speculation. If you are buying the market using a cheap exchange-traded fund, you are getting cheap market access, but you are also getting a portfolio of indiscriminately selected stocks that will depend for its future returns on the market continuing to go up. You are, in other words, speculating without realising it.
At a time when debt markets cannot be trusted, we see especial merit in absolute return / uncorrelated funds. Our favourites here are systematic trend-following funds, primarily because of that word uncorrelated. Their returns have historically been weakly correlated to the performance of stocks and bonds, or not correlated at all.
If you want a balanced and properly diversified portfolio, you want your component parts to be uncorrelated to each other. For some years now, stocks and bonds have essentially been joined at the hip, their prices increasingly driven higher as interest rates have collapsed, courtesy of our friends at the central banks. But what happens when interest rates and inflation start to rise – perhaps in a disorderly manner ?
We have written of late of our concerns about inflationary pressure. If inflation does turn out to be a higher risk factor, or if you are simply seeking portfolio insurance for your cash and other investments, then all roads lead to gold, and precious metals more generally.
Our favourites are the monetary metals, gold and silver, because we are increasingly concerned about the possibility of central banks losing the confidence of market participants in the paper money system. Gold and silver, to our thinking, are not so much commodities as alternate forms of money that, unlike conventional money, cannot be printed on demand.
Investors in gold have fared well since the US dollar was unyoked from gold in 1971 under Richard Nixon.
But we have to acknowledge the extent of drawdowns (peak to trough losses in price). The post-1980 drawdown in gold was brutal. As was the post-2011 drawdown.
To stay in gold, you need to have a strong constitution. But if our fears about our monetary system (and the likelihood of Modern Monetary Theory being rolled out) are correct, it will warrant a place in any investor’s portfolio over the years to come.
Modern economics has claims to being a science. It is not, in fact, a science at all. Nor can it be, not least because it fails to fulfil the definition of science offered by the one practitioner, perhaps, who more than anyone else helped to popularise science during the 20th century: Richard Feynman. Feynman’s scientific method refers to a process of thought based on integrating previous knowledge, observation, measurement and logical reasoning:
“Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it [audience laughter], no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.
So in response to the concerns facing all of us, we try and behave as scientifically as possible. In the context of overall asset allocation, we believe in diversification. You may not wish to use the same sort of allocations to the above asset classes that we do, but the important thing is to maintain some diversification over time, because the future is simply uncertain.
And at the level of individual stocks – still the bedrock of the portfolio – we try to follow Ben Graham’s precept: “Buy not on optimism, but on arithmetic”. Buy good companies at cheap enough prices and you will seldom go far wrong.
Meanwhile, we are all beset by news flow and any number of variously rational – and irrational – fears. Which is why one tenet that we increasingly focus on is a belief in limiting your exposure to news altogether. Avoid dangerous and pointless distractions about things you can’t change anyway.
As Richard Feynman said,
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
………….
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 and also in systematic trend-following funds.
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