Raymond Chan, head of research at Morgans, joined Switzer Investing TV this week and gave his verdict on a handful of market movers. Here’s where he’s seeing value, what’s on his “wait and see” list, and the stocks that might need a little more patience.

Just remember, this isn’t financial advice—do your own homework and talk to a pro before acting on anything here.

The Buy List

CSL (CSL)

Chan is unambiguously positive on CSL, viewing the current price as an opportunity with limited downside. He points to strength in plasma-based medicines and a discount valuation versus history:

“I think we have a buy, on CSL. I think at the current level, the downside risks, limited… The key part is now the plasma-driven drugs division, which is almost 70% of the total revenue that we think will continue to grow, quite well… At the moment, they are trading at a P/E which is at a discount to the long-term average. We don’t think there’s too much of the downside risk for CSL at this stage. So for us it’s a buy.”

While the vaccine division faces some challenges, Chan believes the core business is strong and that current levels represent good value.

Goodman Group (GMG)

A familiar favourite, Goodman gets Chan’s endorsement—especially on recent share price weakness. He sees the company’s low gearing as a buffer against volatility:

“Goodman I actually like this name at the current price… Goodman on the headline, the gearing is very low… Also, the stock’s has meaningfully pulled back from its recent high… I think what we need for Goodman is in the next set of update is they start to upgrade the outlook a little bit, and the market will start to love Goodman again. So I think the current pullback will likely be a buying opportunity for Goodman especially is below $30.”

Pro Medicus (PME)

While he prefers to buy PME on further weakness, Chan is fundamentally positive and highlights the company’s market position and contract “stickiness”:

“We a[n]alyst always like this company… the growth, suddenly, meaningfully. And in the US, they have a market share… those contracts are very sticky. That’s what we like… We like this company that, you know, it is suddenly, worth look at, you know, if there’s price weakness on Pro Medicus, in the current market.”

For Chan, Pro Medicus remains a top pick if you can get it a little cheaper.

The ‘Maybe’ List

Sometimes, great companies just need a little more time—or a little more clarity. Here’s where Chan isn’t rushing in, but isn’t closing the door either.

NEXTDC (NXT)

Chan isn’t ready to call NXT a buy at current levels, citing valuation and sector sentiment:

“NextDC… at the current price, they suddenly [are] not cheap… the company [has] a strong track record… Now… they’re partnering with capital partner to develop the offshore area such as Japan… if the sentiment move[s] toward data centre again… we may see a bounce… but at the moment, NextDC is likely to trade sideways before a more clear direction… So it’s not a screaming buy at the moment, but further weakness likely to create opportunity.”

Chan sees NXT as a watchlist name unless there’s a price pullback.

Xero (XRO)

While growth investors might find Xero appealing, Chan is cautious about the near-term outlook due to its US expansion and ongoing cash burn:

“Xero is a little bit interesting… Xero is a growth company. When they make the acquisition… with aim to expand into… the US market… it will probably would take some time before Xero can deliver to the long term plan, which I think is important for them. For us, I think at this stage, we’ll have a hold recommendation on Xero.”

For Chan, the thesis is long-term but requires patience and a strong stomach for volatility.

Life360 (360)

No formal coverage, but Chan shared an anecdote and seemed open to the company’s growth prospects, referencing the product’s “playoff certainty” for families:

“Life360… we don’t have coverage on the company, but my dog is using it. We use it to track where he’s going… We think this a playoff certainty.”

While not an outright buy, there’s a nod of approval to the product’s value and potential.

We're mere weeks away from the Albanese government's social media ban for teens heading into effect. The US Congress has gotten word that its companies are about to face a tricky legal snag in a foreign country, and as such, a staunch Trump ally has summoned our e-Safety Commissioner to testify, saying that the law could threaten free speech. The real question, however, is are we headed for retaliatory tariffs?

In a letter dated November 18 and emailed to e-Safety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant by House Judiciary Committee Chair, Congressman Jim Jordan, the Congress is calling for senior testimony on the proposed social media ban. Set to kick in from December 10, the social media 'ban' as it's being dubbed, makes it illegal for children and teens under a certain age to access popular social media platforms. The aim, according to the Australian government and eSafety Commissioner Inman-Grant, is to protect young people from online harms such as bullying, exploitation, and exposure to harmful content.

The ban would require platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and X to implement strict age verification measures for all Australian users. It would also give the eSafety Commissioner significant powers to investigate and enforce compliance backed by the threat of large fines for companies that fail to remove prohibited content or prevent access by underage users.

According to the US House Judiciary Committee, however, the law is a little too broad for their liking. Congressman Jordan specifically singles the Australian Online Safety Act (OSA) and the Commissioner’s approach to enforcing it as central to his concern, arguing that its “expansive interpretation” could “directly threaten American speech” if the law is enforced beyond Australia’s borders. After all, these laws we're proposing directly impact companies that are moored well-and-truly in the US.

His concern over "free speech" isn't entirely unfounded, either. Julie Inman Grant's e-safety office and the Australian government has previously pushed for platforms to remove objectionable content worldwide (not just for Australian users), and the OSA grants the Commissioner power to issue takedown notices that could affect American companies, users, and the principle of free speech beyond Australian borders.

The letter cites concerns over “extraterritorial jurisdiction” and accuses Inman Grant of being a “zealot for global takedowns,” warning that Australia’s approach may be influencing or encouraging other governments, including Brazil and the European Union, to escalate their own online censorship regimes. The Committee sees this as part of a global shift toward regulatory overreach by foreign governments, with direct consequences for Americans’ constitutional rights.

The e-Safety Commissioner has already been in a tussle with Elon Musk's Twitter (I will never call it X, Elon), over demands to censor tweets relating to violent videos showing an attack in a Sydney church earlier in the year. Inman-Grant's office said it wouldn't fight the case until - you guessed it - the new laws came in on December 10.

Tariff threat?

The real question for market-watchers is whether or not this new law would trigger a tariff-based response from Trump's office.

In recent months Donald Trump has made clear he is prepared to use tariffs not just as economic tools, but as instruments of geopolitical and ideological leverage. For example, in August 2025 he said he would take strong retaliatory measures (including tariffs and export restrictions) against countries that impose digital taxes or regulations he believes discriminate against US tech companies. He also warned that the US would adopt “reciprocal” tariffs on imports from any country that “targets our products” and fails to treat American trade fairly. 

So yes: the idea that the US might threaten tariffs against Australia in response to the proposed legislation by Julie Inman‑Grant and her office is not just a flight of fancy. If the our law is viewed through Washington’s lens as a “regulation that limits American advancement” (especially of US tech companies) or undermines free speech, then it could trigger some form of pressure, and tariff threats are part of that toolkit.

The risk of new tariffs is ratcheted even higher when you consider that PM Albanese basically stepped out of his Oval Office meeting with Trump and started once again campaigning for US tech companies like Google and Meta to pay their fair share for Australian news run on their platforms.

A wider conspiracy

The letter does go a little off the rails when Congressman Jordan starts accusing our e-Safety Commissioner of colluding with foreign governments to limit speech in America, however.

Jordan accuses Inman Grant of “colluding with pro-censorship entities in the United States,” referencing a non-public Stanford University roundtable in September 2025 that brought together foreign officials—including those from the EU and Brazil—who have “directly targeted American speech.” He claims that the event’s purpose was to facilitate cooperation between global censorship regimes, raising alarms about potential threats to the First Amendment in the U.S.

Further, Jordan draws attention to the eSafety Commissioner’s recent announcement of an academic advisory group led by Stanford University to evaluate Australia’s new minimum age requirements for social media. The letter describes the university’s involvement as “troubling,” given its past efforts to “launder government censorship requests to social media platforms” in the lead-up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election—a charge that echoes Republican concerns about alleged bias and censorship by tech companies and their partners.

Congressman Jordan is a close confidante of President Trump, so we shouldn't be too surprised to see a little score-settling in this one I guess. And Jordan has form in this Congress, too. He's already taken shots at the EU's Digital Services Act, Brazil's censorship laws and pretty much any nation looking to propose a tax on digital services.

Either way, our e-Safety Commissioner  is being urged

New data show wages have risen by a bit more than inflation, but overall real wages are still languishing near 2011 levels.

Over the year to September, wages rose 3.4% in seasonally adjusted terms. That’s according to the latest wage price index data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), released on Wednesday.

That’s slightly more than the rate of inflation over the same period – 3.2% – meaning real wages are up by 0.2% over the year to September.

For the Reserve Bank of Australia, it means an interest rate cut in the near term remains unlikely. However, overall wages growth is nowhere near enough to make up for the huge decline in real wages over the past five years.

What is the wage price index?

The wage price index measures the average change in Australian wages and salaries every quarter. To do this, it tracks a fixed “basket” of jobs across a wide range of industries in both the public and private sector.

It doesn’t include bonuses, and it doesn’t include wage growth that comes about from people getting promoted, switching to better-paid occupations, or moving to other regions.

---

To illustrate, imagine a world where half of all workers were labourers and the other half were managers.

If the labourers’ hourly wage increased from $30 to $33 (a 10% increase), and the managers’ hourly wage increased from $80 to $84 (a 5% increase), the wage price index would increase by 7.5%. That is the average of 5% and 10%.

It’s an important index, but it doesn’t tell us everything. For example, it doesn’t give us the full story on wage growth, because many people grow their incomes by moving to better-paid jobs or occupations.

In our example, if an individual labourer became a manager, their wage would increase from $30 to $84 – an obvious improvement. But this change is not counted in the index.

It doesn’t tell the full story

The wage price index doesn’t give us the full story on labour costs either.

The Reserve Bank is tasked with setting interest rates to keep annual consumer inflation in a target range of 2–3%, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI).

Labour costs aren’t directly included in the CPI. But the Reserve Bank still keeps a close eye on wage growth, because higher wages can lead to higher costs for employers and create inflation.

But productivity growth – the continual improvement in our ability to produce more output from the same inputs – reduces labour costs relative to the amount of income a business can generate.

The chart below shows over most of the past three decades, labour costs have fallen, because productivity growth has been stronger than wage growth. The uptick in labour costs since 2023 shows wage growth has been stronger than productivity growth for the past two years.

Have we really had a pay rise?

It feels good to get a pay rise, and governments and employers enjoy the optics.

A joint statement from Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Employment Minister Amanda Rishworth noted annual real wages have now grown for eight quarters in a row:

the longest period of consecutive annual real wage growth in almost a decade.

But how healthy are Australians’ earnings really?

When wages grow faster than consumer prices, wage earners are able to get more bang for their buck. Until June 2020, this was the case over most of the past few decades.

But when consumer prices grow faster than wages, even if wages are rising, consumer purchasing power goes backwards. This has been the case from mid-2020 until very recently.

As the above chart shows, after accounting for inflation, Australians’ wages have roughly the same purchasing power now as they did back in 2011 – when the iPhone 4 was state-of-the-art and a Donald Trump presidency was a mere thought bubble.

The post-COVID decline in real wages is by far the largest in recent history, but it’s not the only one. In 2000, when the goods and services tax (GST) was introduced in Australia, a jump of almost 4% in the CPI led to a steep dip in real wages, which took about four years to unwind.

A lost decade

A horror stretch starting in 2020 saw an entire decade of real wage growth reversed in just three years. Today’s result consolidates a cautious return to real wages growth.

We will need to wait until the gross domestic product (GDP) figures come out next month to see whether the growth is supported by productivity gains.

While workers will welcome growth in real wages, we must be careful about what we wish for. When wage growth is not supported by productivity growth, employers will often reduce costs by laying off workers.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is currently 4.3%, a low level historically, but it is trending upwards. Ongoing modest wage growth and low unemployment will help workers win back the lost decade.

Janine Dixon, Director, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

These are troubled times for British Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July 2024, Starmer’s government swept to power on the back on a landslide win.

Labour won 411/650 seats in the parliament, and had a commanding 174 seat majority. Starmer was elected on a platform for “change”, but the most likely change at the moment is that he’ll be cast aside as prime minister.

Where has it all gone so wrong?

First, Starmer’s majority was both thin and created a paradox. While he has a strong majority of MPs, Labour only secured a record low of 33.7% of the popular vote (the Conservatives received a dreadful 23.7%, a resurgent Reform secured 14.3%, and the Lib Dems 12.2%). In short, British politics fragmented.

The paradox for Starmer is despite the majority, he was gifted a multitude of MPs who sit on very thin majorities, and on current polls, face electoral oblivion. Labour could be reduced to just over 100 seats. Many have nothing to lose, except their seats.

Second, Starmer and his government have made a series of mistakes, missteps and u-turns, which have eroded public confidence. Controversially, his government pledged a series of welfare cuts targeting the Personal Income Payments (PiP), which led to over 120 MPs signing a “wrecking amendment” to his flagship welfare bill.

In the context of pledges to increase defence spending, this was seen to be at the expense of some of the most vulnerable Britons. Likewise, Rachel Reeves, who casts herself as something of an iron chancellor (equivalent to the Australian treasurer), was forced to reverse her decision to cut winter fuel payments to pensioners.

Labour pledged not to increase a number of key taxes when elected in 2024. But Reeves is now suggesting she’ll have to break the tax pledge for the imminent budget.

Labour has also had to shift positions on a suite of other issues, including gender identity and the controversial issue of “grooming gangs” in the UK, which involves allegations of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation that mostly occurred between the 1990s and 2010s.

Third, there have been personnel changes and issues. The resignation of popular deputy leader Angela Rayner was damaging, and her successor Lucy Powell was not the leader’s chosen replacement. Starmer has been drawing on New Labour stalwarts to steady his ship, but his pick of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador backfired spectacularly with his links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Fourth, the Labour prime minister has faced a series of structural economic problems that requires low and patient re-calibration. To give a sense of the challenge, when Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997, government debt as a share of GDP was a healthy 35%. By 2004 it was 96%.

Yet, critics argue that part of this is a problem of Starmer’s and Reeves’ own making, because their fiscal conservatism is seen to be overreaching. By accepting the National Insurance tax cuts of her Conservative predecessor, Jeremy Hunt, Reeves gave herself no wriggle room for spending commitments.

What would it take to depose Starmer?

Labour party rules stipulate a leadership contest can be triggered if 20% of Labour MPs back an alternative leader, up from 10% before 2021. Currently, this would require 81 MPs. Further rule changes mean the Labour leader can now be challenged at any time. To date, no sitting Labour prime minister has been removed as party leader.

Experienced British Labour MPs will be aware of the Australian experience, where Labor experienced particular turbulence from 2007-2013, with the change from Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard and back to Rudd.

Rudd then introduced leadership rule changes to tighten up the process for changing the leader. For Australian Labor, the threshold is high, with a spill requiring 75% of caucus members when in government, and 60% when in opposition.

Risks and challengers

Any potential challenger to Starmer will be frantically weighing up the costs and benefits of forcing a change. While a new leader might enjoy a honeymoon period in the polls, they would quickly need to show deeper results if Labour is to have any chance of re-election at the 2029 general election.

Moreover, unless the leader wants to shift the current fiscal orthodoxy and engage in deeper structural reform, they’ll only present as a new face to the same problems Starmer is facing. Starmer has driven Labour to the centre, and the cohort of left and “soft-left” MPs are the ones most ill-at-ease with how the party is tracking.

Westminster politics is awash with rumours of manoeuvres from both the left and right of the party.

What seems to have backfired for Starmer are the background briefings against Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Streeting would have the backing of the right of the party, and is articulate where Starmer is not. Former deputy leader Angela Rayner has been lauded as a potential “stop Wes” candidate.

In the run up to the recent party conference, popular Manchester mayor Andy Burnham was routinely cited as a potential leader, but will need to find a parliamentary seat.

A “stalking horse” candidate might emerge, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood touted. Yet, the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party and the prospect of a one-term government might be worth the risk for any challenger. For Starmer to hold on, he’ll need Reeves to deliver a strong budget, sort out discipline within Number 10, and hope for better local election results in May 2026.

Rob Manwaring, Associate Professor, Politics and Public Policy, Flinders University and Emily Foley, Postdoctoral research fellow, Flinders University; University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A new “complete” monthly consumer price index (CPI) will be released next week, and will become Australia’s primary measure of inflation.

This new release will finally bring Australia into line with the other advanced economies in the Group of 20, which all publish inflation data every month. It will make it easier to compare inflation trends with other nations.

For the Reserve Bank of Australia, headline inflation from the complete monthly CPI will become the new target for monetary policy.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has been publishing a monthly CPI “indicator” since 2022. But it only had a partial coverage.

The inflation report measures price changes in a fixed “basket” of goods and services each month.

In an updated explanation of the new data published on Tuesday, the bureau said prices of 87% of the CPI basket of goods and services will be updated each month. That’s up from 50% previously.

A quarterly series (an average of the three months) will continue to be published.

What does the new monthly measure mean for our understanding of inflation?

The monthly series will be more volatile

A monthly consumer price index can swing a lot reflecting temporary fluctuations in the volatile prices of goods such as petrol, fruit and vegetables. These get smoothed out somewhat – but not totally removed – in a quarterly index.

The inflation rate based on the new monthly series will therefore be more volatile than that based on the quarterly. We will need to build up some history before we know just how much more volatile. But the experience with the partial monthly measure (and experience in other countries) provides a guide.

The Reserve Bank has commented it “will take time to learn about the properties of the monthly CPI data”.

The Reserve Bank will “initially continue to focus on measures of underlying inflation from the quarterly CPI”. It will forecast the quarterly rather than the monthly CPI.

The monthly index will sometimes give earlier warning of a changing trend in inflation. For example, in mid-2025 the jump from 1.9% in June to 3.0% in August was a warning that inflation was no longer falling.

But it can also give misleading signals. In late 2022, the monthly index showed inflation jumping from 7.4% to 8.4%. But the quarterly index revealed inflation had peaked at 7.8% in the December quarter.

In mid-2023, the monthly index showed inflation picking up from 4.9% in July to 5.6% in September; yet the quarterly index showed inflation was continuing to decline.

In mid-2025 the monthly index showed inflation was down to 1.9%, below the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band, leading some commentators to expect a run of further interest rate cuts. But we now know (underlying) inflation has been staying stubbornly near the top of the Reserve Bank’s band.

The Melbourne Institute has produced a monthly Australian inflation gauge since 2002. But it isn’t much quoted, perhaps because of the volatility.

Too much information?

Encouraging the media and the public to pay more attention to the monthly index might create the impression there’s more inflation than there is.

Behavioural economics says people are “loss averse”. They pay more attention to bad news (high inflation) than good news (low inflation). The monthly figures mean the media will be reporting inflation news 12 times a year, rather than four.

Media reporting each month might amplify things. When the monthly number is low, this may get less attention. Some commentators might even succumb to the temptation to “annualise” a month’s movement, multiplying by 12. This can present a misleading, or alarming, picture.

Over the longer term, the more volatile annual inflation rate based on the monthly data may be within the 2-3% target band less often than the rate calculated from the quarterly data.

The Reserve Bank’s task of restraining inflationary expectations may therefore become harder with the focus shifting to the new monthly measure.

John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Millennials and Gen Z are a lot of things, but one thing they almost definitely are is economically worse-off than their parents. But you can give them a leg-up with their eventual inheritance, right? Not if you take the words of David Koch to heart, who says that those damn kids just have to work it out for themselves, and that you don't owe them a damn thing.

You know Koch from his longtime stint as host of the Channel Seven breakfast program Sunrise. Dubbed "Kochie" to liven him up a bit, David James Koch AM had a storied financial journalism career before taking his spot on that comfy sofa for a 20+ year stint.

Koch has long styled himself as a straight shooter on money issues, but his latest advice to parents isn’t pulling any punches.

He argues that millennials and Gen Z (often caricatured as entitled or “soft”) need to stand on their own two feet. Forget about soft landings or family bailouts. According to Koch, parents have done their job by raising their kids and giving them a start. Beyond that, it’s up to the next generation to build their own wealth, no matter how much tougher the economic environment has become.

From his piece:

"Nobody wants to see their children struggle. But I’m a little concerned that guilt ridden Baby Boomer parents could end up putting their retirement lifestyles at risk, by digging a little too deep."

"It’s extremely generous, but personally I don't think you owe your kids any sort of inheritance."

Thanks, David! I don't know about you but I'd be shifting a little nervously in my seat if I were one of Koch's four kids. Especially considering their Dad's ascent into the upper tax brackets over recent years. Not only did he spend 21 years on the set of Sunrise (with a few other shows on Seven here and there), but he recently sold his own financial content house - Pinstripe Media - for what can only be assumed was a tidy yet undisclosed sum before taking up a job as head numbers man/spruiker-in-chief for comparison site Compare The Market, You've seen their ads, surely. All the money they save by animating irritating meerkats spruiking insurance seems to have gone to pay for their new, big-time economic director, David Koch.

This message lands at a time when young people face a radically different set of financial headwinds than their parents did: ballooning property prices, flat wage growth, casualised work, and record student debt. For many families, the old path of study hard, get a job, buy a house is lying on the floor in pieces.

I'm fascinated he mentions boomer "guilt" in this piece as a reason that some older Australians might want to dig a little deeper for their kids. I think almost every boomer knows in their bones that they're leaving their kids and their kids' kids in a bit of a hole.

The numbers are hard to ignore. When boomers were entering adulthood in the late 1970's, wages were rising faster in real terms, home ownership was realistically achievable on a single income, and house‑price‑to‑income ratios were a fraction of what they are today. A young worker could expect strong wage indexation, a stable job market and a deposit hurdle that felt tough but possible.

Roll forward to 2025 and the story flips.

Wages crawl along at about one per cent above inflation, housing sits at nine or ten times the average income in major cities, and home ownership among thirty‑somethings has fallen from the mid‑sixties percent range in the seventies to about fifty percent now. Wealth is increasingly concentrated among older Australians, while younger Australians face higher rents, higher debts, slower wage growth and a far narrower path into the wealth‑building machinery of housing.

Boomers didn’t design all these settings, but they benefited enormously from them on the way up, and for decades Australian policy has continued to reward asset‑holders over asset‑seekers. That is the quiet source of the guilt Koch gestures toward. It’s the uneasy recognition that opportunities once taken for granted have been sealed off behind them, and that the next generation is being asked to climb a ladder their parents already pulled up.

Yet, despite the data (of which he's clearly familiar with) Koch’s feelings here are pretty clear: inheritance shouldn’t be seen as a safety net or a delayed down payment on adult life. If anything, he frames it as a bonus, not a right. His stance reflects a broader debate about generational responsibility and the limits of parental support, especially as cost-of-living pressures bite harder than ever.

Honestly? I don't disagree with him on his core point. You can't take it with you as they say, but you certainly don't have to give your kids a red cent on your way out. It's just a little hard to hear someone like Kochie say the quiet part so, so loud after receiving so much from a system that he trusts still exists for his kids.

Markets have seen billions splashed around on big AI deals over the last quarter. But when it comes to the investment habits of the world's biggest billionaires, they spent the last quarter going defensive. Here's what they bought and sold.

We're able to pour over what billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett bought and sold thanks to the power of transparency.

US securities law requires large investment managers to publicly disclose their equity holdings each quarter through SEC Form 13F filings. These regulatory filings provide a transparent record of what billionaire traders and major funds bought and sold in the most recent quarter, allowing investors and analysts to track their portfolio moves with a lag of just a few weeks. Without these disclosure rules, the trading activity and strategy of the world’s top investors would remain largely hidden from view. After the recent filing deadline, we're now able to take a look at Q3 2024-25 investments to see the patterns that are emerging. And it's one of uncertainty.

Here's how the money moved.

The trends

In the September quarter, the world’s most-watched billionaire investors dialled down risk, with portfolio activity across the Gates Foundation, Icahn Capital, Pershing Square, and Berkshire Hathaway (the cross-section we looked at) showing a clear tilt toward selling rather than buying.

All four funds trimmed key holdings rather than adding new names or doubling down on old ones. Most of the moves were reductions in position size among the biggest and most recognisable stocks in their portfolios, with no evidence of broad new bets or sector rotations.

There were no major fresh buys, no splashy new ideas, and no shifts into untested themes. Instead, the quarter was defined by defensive actions. That is, selling down portions of long-held winners, banking profits, and tightening the concentration around core ideas. The message from these billionaire investors is clear: keep exposure to proven winners, but don’t let risk get out of hand when valuations are high and uncertainty is rising.

Let's take a look at four of the biggest to see how these defensive moves shook out from portfolio-to-portfolio.

Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway kept its reputation for concentration and selective bets, but there were more signs of portfolio reshaping in the September quarter than casual observers might expect. Apple remained by far the dominant holding, accounting for nearly half the entire portfolio, but Buffett trimmed the stake by around 12 percent. That’s the largest cut to Apple he’s made in years and a major event for Berkshire’s famously sticky portfolio. Despite the trim, the position is still so large it would take years of selling to shift the balance meaningfully.

Elsewhere, Buffett took profits and reduced stakes in several of his blue-chip mainstays—Chevron and HP were both slashed by over 20 percent, while the Amazon holding was pared back by a modest 2.5 percent. The portfolio’s old-guard financials—Bank of America, American Express, Coca-Cola and Moody’s—were left largely untouched.

There were no blockbuster new buys. Instead, there’s evidence of Buffett’s caution and a hint that he sees valuations running ahead of fundamentals in key sectors, especially big tech. He’s willing to lighten up on the high-fliers when the numbers get stretched, but he isn’t rushing to redeploy cash into fresh themes.

Bill Gates

The Gates Foundation Trust pared back almost every major holding during the third quarter of 2025. The largest single holding, the aforementioned Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B), was cut by nearly 10 percent, leaving it at just under 30 percent of the overall portfolio. Waste Management (WM), another anchor position, was trimmed by 10.2 percent, while Canadian National Railway (CNI), Microsoft (MSFT), and Caterpillar (CAT) all saw reductions in the range of 5 to almost 14 percent. These weren’t symbolic moves—the dollar value of these reductions ran into the hundreds of millions or more.

Deere, Ecolab, Madison Square Garden Sports, PK, and Danaher were left unchanged, suggesting no fresh buying or new bets among secondary holdings. Smaller holdings like Walmart, FedEx, Kraft Heinz, Hormel, and Waste Connections were all trimmed, but again, there was no outright liquidation or big rotation.

Not a single holding was added to or initiated. The only activity was a systematic reduction in position size, with no moves into new names or sectors. Over 80 percent of the portfolio remains concentrated in the top five holdings even after these cuts, so the fund’s risk profile and focus haven’t shifted much in substance.

Carl Ichann

Icahn Capital’s portfolio saw notable shifts in the September quarter, with investor legend Carl Icahn making both targeted reductions and increases in his tightly focused holdings. His dominant position, Icahn Enterprises (IEP), rose by 4.5 percent, reinforcing it as the overwhelming anchor of the portfolio at more than 48 percent of total assets.

CVR Energy (CVI), the next largest stake, was left unchanged. In contrast, Icahn made a decisive cut to his third-largest holding, Southwest Gas Holdings (SWX), reducing it by almost 19 percent. This marks a significant scale-back rather than a routine rebalance.

Other moves were smaller in dollar terms but clear in intent: FirstEnergy (FE) and Herc Holdings (HRI) were both trimmed by about 5 percent. Dana Incorporated (DAN) was reduced by nearly 7 percent. Meanwhile, the fund slightly increased its position in Bausch Health Companies (BHC) by 2.7 percent, but this remains a minor part of the overall portfolio.

Importantly, there were no new stocks added and no new themes introduced. Every action was either a reduction in existing holdings or a marginal increase in positions Icahn already owned. The fund remains extremely concentrated, with the top two holdings making up over 65 percent of assets.

Bill Ackman

Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Holdings made modest, precise reductions to its portfolio in the September quarter of 2025, but kept its existing positions and strategy intact. No new stocks were added, and there were no dramatic reallocations or exits.

The top holding, Uber Technologies, was reduced by a fraction, just 0.1 percent, remaining above 20 percent of the total portfolio. Brookfield Asset Management, the next largest position, was trimmed by 0.5 percent, and Howard Hughes Holdings by 0.6 percent. All three are still substantial weightings and remain the fund’s top bets.

The only material cut was to Alphabet (GOOG), down by 9.6 percent. This was the largest move Ackman made all quarter, but even after the reduction, Alphabet is still a core holding. Restaurant Brands International was reduced by 0.4 percent, and Amazon by 0.2 percent—both so minor they look more like routine rebalancing than any change in view.

Ackman’s actions for the quarter reflect a steady, risk-managed approach. No positions were increased, no new names appeared, and no sectors were added or dropped. All the activity was in minor reductions, with the single exception of the more significant trim to Alphabet.

This week we've been talking about whether the sizeable downturn in global markets is just a wobble or a massive correction - maybe even a bubble on the verge. While stock volatility is one way to take the market's temperature, there's another way to help us check how traders are really feeling.

We've talked about it before, but it's our good friend: the global Volatility Index, also known as the VIX. 

It's basically the stress-index for global markets. It estimates the expected volatility of the S&P 500 (and locally, provided you look at the right one) over the next 30 days. Under normal conditions the index might hover in the teens. Average conditions - which we kind of haven't had for a while - put the VIX on a simmer at around 20. But in In times of major upheaval, the VIX can spike dramatically. 

During the early onset of COVID‑19 in March 2020 it closed at an all time high of just over 82. In early March 2022 when Putin and his forces started their ill-advised Ukrainian sojourn, the VIX rose from around 28 to 37.5 the next day. For the hostilities in Gaza following the October 6 attacks and onward into 2023, the VIX oscillated in the 30s.  

Each of these events are not only geopolitically sensitive, but also market-sensitive. One link in the global supply chain drops and it risks the whole global economy. Great system we have here, right! So what has the most recent downturn, sparked by sticky inflation, Powell's comments about interest rates and a growing concern that AI ain't what the market thinks it is, done to the index?

Over the last week, the S&P500's VIX (above) has jumped over 38% from a tepid 18 points at the start of last week through to a peak of over 25 yesterday.

Australia's VIX (below), which hovers around 10 points at its most calm yesterday spiked up to 14 points. To give you an idea of how that reflects on our local market's feelings, when Donald Trump first announced his tariff package on "Liberation Day" back in April, the local index spiked to 19.3.

So while the market isn't panicking like people are pointing weapons at each other, the numbers show that the culture of fear has definitely taken over global trading floors.

TenCap founder and stock picker extraordinaire, Jun Bei Liu, showed us her buy list this week. Here are the stocks that she's copping, and some others that she's dropping right now.

Here’s why she rates these stocks now. Or, why she doesn't!

Remember, this isn't advice, and you should do your own research before making any decisions to invest, and consult a licensed financial professional!

The Buy List

Goodman Group (GMG)
Liu isn’t shy about her conviction here, even with sentiment on expensive growth stocks under pressure. She points to Goodman’s strength in data centres as a differentiator:

“Goodman Group is a buy. It got caught out in all these expensive companys being sold off. If you want to actually make money from out of a data centre, this is the one that actually has real clients, real pipeline. It looks very cheap.”

For Liu, Goodman is a rare case of a quality business trading below its value, with a robust pipeline and real clients—not just AI hype.

Pro Medicus (PME)
This high-flyer has been volatile, but Liu remains bullish, emphasising contract wins and sector leadership.

“That’s a buy. The company is young. If you look at all the earnings that they just won another contract today. This is the highest quality company can find in this market. It’s expensive I know but it’s come off a lot. It’s just hard to find growth companies here in Australia!”

Despite its premium valuation, Liu sees Pro Medicus as one of the highest-quality names in a local market starved of true growth stories.

Life360 (360)
Despite a rocky response to its record results recently, Life360 is on Jun Bei's buy sheet. For her, it's a classic case of a stock delivering upgrades and ticking all the right boxes, yet still facing scepticism from some corners.

Liu doesn’t hesitate:

“Yeah, that’s a buy. This company has delivered earnings upgrades that ticked every box. And then people looking for a reason to sell a that’s a buy.”

JB Hi-Fi (JBH)
Jun Bei Liu has recently added more JB Hi-Fi to her fund, seeing it as a standout among retailers heading into the crucial sales period. She acknowledges the share price pullback but argues the outlook is resilient, with consumer electronics set to benefit from upcoming sales events:

“I think one of the latest ideas that I add more to it is, JB Hi-Fi. I think share price has come off a lot. And, you know, it was very expensive, but, I think [a lot of discretionary companies] are heading into their biggest sale period, which is November. You know, consumer electronics is a big component in that whole 'cyber weekend', which is the latter part of this month. I think we’ll track very well.”

Liu points to strong recent trading and healthy consumer demand as reasons JB Hi-Fi could outperform, even if interest rate cuts are less likely than hoped. For Liu, JB Hi-Fi is a beneficiary of both strong consumer appetite for bargains and disciplined management, making it a timely addition as the retail sector heads into its busiest stretch of the year.

The 'Maybe' List

Have you ever bought something just because it was the right price or would fit some future need? That's what's informing Jun Bei Liu's "maybe" list right now.

Pilbara Minerals (PLS)
Despite volatility in the lithium sector, Liu sees improving fundamentals and finds the current setup attractive:

“Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Is Abi so lithium prices really turn the corner now even though, look, we still have the some of the large lithium mine coming back online, so normally there could be a bit of disruption and people get a shock because so much supply. But the demand for the energy, storage solution, you know, the battery and the like around the world is picking up massively, off the low base. But that is seems to be soaking up some of the demand weaknesses, for this lithium. So I actually think that looks really, really interesting. Look, you know, same as Mineral Resources and others.”

She links the positive outlook here to accelerating global demand for energy storage and batteries, noting it’s enough to offset some of the supply shocks in lithium.

TPG Telecom (TPG)
Liu calls this a “speculative buy,” highlighting how its new pricing strategy could produce a strong earnings uplift in the second half:

“Yeah, that one’s actually quite hard. It looks quite cheap, looks very cheap. And I truly believe this business is incredible. The new pricing strategy, they just adopted a month ago, actually will generate significant earnings uplift, which we won’t see in the first half. It will be in the second half. I think it’s, I think the challenge is there, you know, would there be any more news headlines? But I will probably put it here as a speculative buy here. You know, it looks very, very, you know, it looks very cheap.”

Even with uncertainty around news headlines, she thinks the fundamentals and valuation justify a position for those comfortable with some risk.

Mineral Resources (MIN)
Another “speculative buy,” given the company’s leverage to strong commodity prices and rapid deleveraging, though Liu cautions about ongoing investigations:

“Yeah. Even though the share price has gone up a lot, it actually still look very cheap. And then how quickly it’s deleveraging. It’s quite incredible. Now again, this one’s got an ASIC investigation going on. So you know, you probably put on the speculative buy up of given both of its commodity are doing really well and it’s leveraged so in the price, you know, in the environment where both earnings are going higher. The that the you know, the commodity are going higher. This company’s earnings will be so leveraged, so sensitive, you know, and so the upgrade will be enormous in the next 12 months. You know, should this, trend continue? So I’ll put that that one on the spec but probably not a huge position because of the asset, investigation.”

Liu’s position here is clear: the upside is compelling, but any position should be sized carefully due to regulatory uncertainty.

The "Avoid" list

Not everything makes the cut for Jun Bei Liu. This week, she flagged three names she’s either actively avoiding or remains unconvinced by, citing everything from competitive pressures to red flags around recent news.

Keep in mind that word 'avoid'. She's not saying it's time to sell up, but she's not about to run and place a market order for these ones.

CSL (CSL)
Once a market darling, CSL has fallen out of Liu’s favour for now. She’s wary of repeated downgrades and the company’s apparent inability to regain its growth mojo:

“Neutral. I'm not sure what's going on with their mojo. They’ve they’ve been losing share to their competitors and they blaming everything else but themselves. I want to understand why that is for a growth company that’s losing share [and] not growing as it should be. I don’t know what’s going to make it become a quality company again. They used to be! [Perhaps] was one off issues. But they certainly did not communicate that [and] after so many downgrades, it has led me to believe maybe culturally, there’s something wrong with it.”

Until CSL proves it can address these deeper issues, Liu isn’t prepared to put it back on her buy list.

DroneShield (DRO)
Despite having invested in the past, Liu is now keeping her distance from DroneShield, concerned about governance and recent price action after senior directors recently dumped their positions:

“That one's hard. I remember I was invested in this one maybe a year and a half ago. And, you know, and then we sort of took profit, made money, and then we more recently had this massive rally. We just felt it was too hot. And now the with them, you know, they announced a [new] contract [then withdrew it]. And then everybody, the directors and company, CEO sold all [that there was to sell]. It just feels, there’s something there that might lead to a lot of investigation, which is normally not great for share price, especially for the speculative ones.”

With questions still to be answered, Liu’s message is clear: too risky, at least for now.

Xero (XRO)
Xero didn’t get an outright thumbs down, but Liu’s assessment was lukewarm at best. Concerns about recent acquisitions, complexity, and lack of a clear growth story keep her on the sidelines:

“Wait is [where] I think I am [on Xero]. I'm warming up to it now because the result I have to say, is little bit disappointing where they met expectations on capitalising more earnings. Most analysts put on the buy, maybe even more of a soft buy, if you like. But I don’t feel strongly about it. They acquired this new company, Melio that they just bought. Very expensive, and still loss-making. They spent $4 billion on it! There’s a lot of messy components going on. I need a bit more clarity. I’m more of a soft buy.”

Unless there’s more clarity and execution, Xero remains a “wait and see” in her book—not a buy.

In 2015, soon after he had rolled Tony Abbott to become prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull was heckled when, with a straight face, he told New South Wales Liberals, “We are not run by factions”.

Once, there had been a contrast, at least in degree, between the factionally-organised Labor party and the Liberals. But those days are long gone.

Today the difference is that factions in the federal Labor Party are externally well behaved – albeit sometimes internally brutal as Ed Husic and Mark Dreyfus can attest – while the Liberal factions are currently creating havoc for their party.

On Monday, Turnbull gave the ABC his latest take on the Liberals’ internals. Ley, he said, was in a fish tank whose occupants “want to eat each other. They have the memory of goldfish and the dining habits of piranhas”.

The conservatives have taken over the party. After being trounced on net zero, moderates are angry with Sussan Ley for mishandling the issue: if she had brought things to a head months or even weeks ago she might have achieved a compromise. On the other hand, if the moderates undermine her they just aid conservatives Angus Taylor or Andrew Hastie to become leader, probably bringing all sorts of other policies they don’t like.

Against this background, Monday’s Australian carried a front page lead claiming: “A growing number of moderate Liberal MPs are pulling their support for Sussan Ley and are backing Andrew Hastie to be the next leader, arguing she has caved to his agenda and he has a better chance of lifting the Coalition’s stocks electorally”.

The story went on to say two senior moderates had said a majority of moderate MPs would vote for Hastie against Ley.

It looked like some in the moderates were having a hissy fit, or declaring they were generally stuffed, or perhaps engaging in some unfathomable plot to stymie Hastie.

As a punchdrunk Ley hit yet another morning media round, other moderates then sought to get the faction back on a more even keel.

Senator Anne Ruston, as close to a leader as the faction has, and Senator Maria Kovacic in a joint statement rejected the media reporting.

“We, along with an overwhelming majority of our moderate colleagues, continue to strongly support Sussan’s leadership. This matter was resolved in the party room six months ago and Sussan will lead us strongly to the next election,” they said.

Ruston then went on Sky News to further defend Ley, days after trenchantly fighting to head off the ditching of net zero.

“I’ve spoken to a lot of my colleagues this morning, and I can confirm that every single one of the moderates I spoke to supports Sussan Ley as the leader of our party,” Ruston said.

Ley’s tactic when on the defensive is to go out and do more and more media, even if it looks like a losing battle.

On the ABC she was asked about her message to future generations, now net zero has been abandoned by the Coalition. “I want to reassure people listening who care about the climate, that I do too.”

On 2GB during her interview, presenter Ben Fordham played talkback calls from September, when people had been asked whether they would prefer Ley or Hastie as leader. Those played all said Hastie.

Fordham then asked Ley, “what’s that like to listen to?” When she fobbed him off, he persisted, “Does that hurt though?”

He went on, rather bizarrely: “Don’t get me wrong, we all have it in our jobs. I have the same thing here, not everyone wants me hosting the breakfast show, but they’re stuck with me, and the Liberal voters are stuck with you.”

Ley said she wasn’t “here for a sense of ego about me”.

Fordham, after inviting her back, presumably to be pummelled again, threw her a final question.

“You’re tough enough to withstand any pressures coming from the likes of Andrew Hastie or Jacinta Price or anyone else who’d like to see you as a former opposition leader, not the current one?”

To which she replied: “Ben, I’ve been underestimated a lot of my life. I remember when a lot of blokes told me I couldn’t fly an aeroplane and did a lot to keep me out of the front seat. I flew an aeroplane, I flew a mustering plane in very small circles, very close to the ground, and that was pretty tough at the time.”

Ley is once again flying very close to the ground. She knows she may not be able to keep herself aloft, but she appears determined to make Taylor and Hastie’s chase for the leadership as difficult as she can.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia's property prices are back on a runaway train. October delivered the fastest home value rise since mid-2023. But according to Cotality, it's the cheaper end of the market that continues to see the strongest gain.

By the numbers

Australia’s cheapest homes are still rising faster than the rest of the market, and the gap widened again in October.

Cotality’s Home Value Index shows dwellings sitting under the new 5 percent deposit price caps rose 1.2 percent for the month. Properties above the caps rose 1 percent. Just so we're all on the same page: the "cap" here is the maximum property price under the five per cent deposit scheme in that particular region. Those caps vary depending on where you're looking to buy. See the below from Cotality to help make sense of it.

Moving on!

In October, houses showed the clearest distinction between cheaper, sub-cap properties surging in price compared to those above the cap. Sub-cap houses lifted 1.3 percent. Houses above the cap lagged by 32 basis points. Units showed a smaller but still clear difference, with sub cap stock up 1 percent and a 19 basis point premium over higher priced units.

One would think that the more prestigious the property, the more you'd see values increase, right? Not so fast, because in this instance, the price premium on so-called 'cheaper property' is being driven entirely by more competition. Investors are going up against families pushed down the ladder by unaffordable housing and young couples looking for their first home.

Cotality observes that these conditions have been in place for almost two years, which is why cheaper homes have been outpacing the broader market for so long. And now that the Home Deposit Guarantee Scheme is nationwide, it's only going to add more contenders come auction day.

Of course, this means that owners on the lower rungs are the winners. The capital gains are landing fastest in markets once seen as entry level.

You can dive deeper into the report (even go suburb by suburb!) on Cotality's website.

Is this just a market wobble—or the start of something more serious? In this episode, Peter Switzer sits down with Jun Bei Liu (TenCap) and Raymond Chan (Morgans) to break down what’s really driving the recent volatility.

The panel debates whether we’re seeing a healthy pullback, a full-blown correction, or the signs of a bigger crisis—maybe even an AI bubble burst.

Plus: which stocks the pros are backing, which to avoid, and why the macro outlook for 2026 could defy the usual rules.