NWS has looked "cheap" on a sum-of-the-parts basis for many years. There are many reasons for this, not least the tendency of the Murdochs, with their gerrymandered voting structure, to pay themselves very well and do deals that public shareholders do not support. There is also tax inefficiency in holding Aussie assets via a US company that adds a layer of US tax and loses the franking credits from REA.

On News Corp: Approaching an inflection point -

Bottled water doesn't just face competition issues, it also suffers from the inherent flaws in the product. Watch the ABC's "War on Waste" episode to see why bottled water is such a ridiculous and environmentally damaging product. If I could, I'd love to short CCL. https://iview.abc.net.au/show/war-on-waste

On A tale of two shorts -

This is self-serving nonsense from a fund manager trying to look after the interests of his clients and himself. Franking credit refunds were introduced by John Howard during the mining boom as a reward to rich old people, part of the Liberal Party's base. Sadly, that boom is now long gone. If elected, the Shorten government will need to make hard decisions about the large debt and deficits it will inherit. The question about franking credit refunds should be thought of as the following question: Should the government spend $5bn a year on: a) Government services like health, education or defence or b) Reducing the deficit (Liberals don't talk about that anymore) or c) Gifting the money to a small group of mostly old rich people to make them even richer. I suspect that if the question was put like that, most people, especially the more than 90% who aren't affected, would regard either (a) or (b) as far better than (c). The government and Dr Hamson argue that Shorten's proposal is unfair because many recipients of franking refunds are low income earners. This is highly misleading because the whole point of franking credits for many old people is to reduce one's taxable income toward zero even if one has a large superannuation balance. It also ignores the question of whether "welfare" money should be targeted at wealthy people who have managed to reduce their taxable incomes toward zero, or to genuinely poor old people with little or no assets. As a fund manager myself, I recognise that these comments won't be popular in this forum. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to speak uncomfortable truths.

On Robbing Granny in the name of Paul -

The fact that some fund managers underperform is neither a bearish nor a bullish signal. It is entirely normal. In every market some fund managers outperform and (usually) a larger number underperform.

On Is the stock market in a bubble? -