Pretty cool milestone to share. Due to the success of the weekly online articles, my ASX Trader column will now also be published in print every Tuesday across the major News Corp newspapers. So if you're old school like me and still enjoy grabbing a physical paper, keep an eye out each Tuesday in publications including The Courier-Mail, The Daily Telegraph, the Herald and other News Corp papers around Australia. The print edition will be a condensed version, to fit on one page, of my weekly online article, breaking down what I'm seeing across markets, where money is flowing and the areas I'm watching next. This week we're looking at why the miners are starting to outperform the metals themselves, particularly across gold and silver, and why Australia's emerging companies (small caps) could be approaching an important period. There's still something pretty cool about seeing your work in an actual newspaper. Grab yourself a copy every Tuesday. 🗞️📈

These economists are always late to the party. I Wrote about it 18months ago when they had just been cutting. couriermail.com.au/business/…

AUSTRALIAN PROPERTY VS SHARES: IS ANOTHER MAJOR ROTATION COMING? I've put together this chart using historical data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED), comparing Australian residential property prices with Australian share prices since 1970. What I find fascinating is how clearly it highlights the long-term cycles between these two asset classes. FIRST, HOW DO YOU READ IT? The bottom chart measures the property-to-shares price ratio. 🔴 RED ZONE (Above 1.17): Property has significantly outperformed shares. Historically, this has been a potential opportunity to rotate from property into shares. 🟢 GREEN ZONE (Below 0.65): Shares have significantly outperformed property. Historically, this has been a potential opportunity to rotate from shares into property. 🟢 WHEN PROPERTY WAS RELATIVELY CHEAP Three important historical readings: • 1987: Ratio 0.41 • 2000: Ratio 0.60 • 2007: Ratio 0.63 These periods were followed by stronger relative performance from Australian property. For example, from the 2007 share market peak through to early 2026: 🏠 Australian property: +147% 📈 Australian shares: +35% That's property outperforming shares by approximately 112 percentage points in price growth. 🔴 WHEN SHARES WERE RELATIVELY CHEAP Now look at the opposite extremes: • 1974: Ratio 1.45 • 1982: Ratio 1.27 • 2009: Ratio 1.16 • 2022: Ratio 1.25 Following the elevated readings in the 1970s and early 1980s, Australian shares went on to significantly outperform property over the longer term. The ratio eventually fell from 1.27 in 1982 to just 0.41 in 1987, showing how dramatically relative performance can change. WHERE ARE WE IN 2026? The ratio currently sits around 1.18, putting it back in the historical red zone. This tells us that Australian property has once again become relatively expensive compared with Australian shares, based on this historical measure. Does that mean property must crash? No. It simply suggests that, based on previous cycles, Australian shares could be better positioned for relative outperformance over the coming years. Remember, this chart compares price growth only. It excludes dividends, rental income, costs and leverage. WHY I BELIEVE AUSTRALIAN SHARES COULD OUTPERFORM PROPERTY You'll notice that sentiment towards Australian shares is generally pretty negative. Everyone seems to think the US is the only place worth investing. But that's exactly the type of sentiment I like to see when looking for long-term opportunities. Australia is one of the most resource-rich countries in the world, and if you saw me speak at the Australian Gold Conference last week, you'll understand why I believe the commodity supercycle is only just heating up. For example, our small cap index, which is majority a resources sector isstill trading significantly below it's GFC peak, having spent nearly two decades in a major accumulation phase. Think about that. Almost 20 years of going nowhere while other asset classes have soared. Sometimes the best opportunities are hiding in the markets nobody wants to own. From 1980 to 2007, Australian shares generally outperformed property. Since the GFC, Australian property has significantly outperformed shares. Now we're back at a historical extreme that has previously been associated with major changes in market leadership. This is why understanding market cycles and relative valuations is so important. The best-performing asset class of the last 20 years isn't necessarily going to be the best-performing asset class of the next 20. As the great Wayne Gretzky famously said, "Skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been." The same applies to investing. The biggest opportunities often come from positioning yourself for the next market cycle, rather than chasing the winners of the last one.

AUSTRALIAN PROPERTY HAS SMASHED SHARES SINCE THE GFC. BUT WILL IT CONTINUE? Here's a fascinating chart comparing Australian residential property prices with Australian share prices over several decades. And it highlights something I've spoken about for years. MARKET CYCLES MATTER. From around 1980 until the GFC in 2008, Australian shares generally experienced stronger price growth than residential property. But since the GFC, the tables have turned. Australian residential property has significantly outperformed Australian shares in terms of capital growth. LET'S LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. If you invested near the pre-GFC share market peak in late 2007 and held until early 2026, here's how the two asset classes performed: 🏠 Australian property: +147% 📈 Australian shares: +35% That's a staggering difference of 112 percentage points! Think about that. If you bought Australian shares near the peak of the pre-GFC share market boom in 2007, the share price index has increased by just 35% over more than 18 years before inflation and excluding dividends. Not exactly spectacular capital growth, is it? Meanwhile, Australian residential property prices have increased approximately 147% over the same period. SO WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN? Different asset classes go through periods of outperformance and underperformance, sometimes lasting decades. Interest rates, credit availability, economic growth, population growth, corporate earnings and investor sentiment all influence these cycles. For example, Australia's standard variable mortgage rate reached approximately 17% in 1989, before falling to around 6% by 2002. Lower borrowing costs helped support property prices, while Australian shares experienced their own periods of strong growth, particularly during the resources boom. But here's something important. PRICE GROWTH IS NOT THE SAME AS TOTAL RETURNS. This chart measures changes in asset prices. It doesn't include rental income from property or dividends from shares. It also doesn't account for borrowing costs, maintenance, transaction costs, taxes or the impact of leverage. These can make a significant difference to an investor's actual returns, particularly when dividends and rental income are reinvested. And there's another important consideration. YOUR STARTING POINT MATTERS. Here's something fascinating. Change the starting point from the pre-GFC share market peak in late 2007 to the share market bottom during the GFC in early 2009, and the results look remarkably different. 🏠 Australian property: +158% 📈 Australian shares: +154% Almost identical capital growth! Same two asset classes. Same ending date. Completely different conclusions depending on when you invested. An investor buying an asset at historically cheap valuations can experience a very different outcome from someone buying the same asset at historically expensive valuations. Even if both hold for the same number of years. This is why looking at historical performance alone doesn't necessarily tell us what will perform best in the future. Markets move through cycles, economic conditions change, and capital moves between asset classes. And luckily, these cycles don't last forever. What outperformed over the previous 10 or 20 years won't necessarily outperform over the next. SO HERE'S MY QUESTION. Looking at where Australian property and Australian shares sit today, which do you think will deliver the strongest returns over the next 10 years? 🏠 Australian property 📈 Australian shares And more importantly, WHY? I'm interested in hearing both sides of the argument before I share mine with data.

Ouch!

MARKETS DON'T CRASH. THEY MEAN REVERT. One of the most common sayings in investing is "time in the market, not timing the market." And honestly, I think it's one of the most misleading sayings in investing. It completely ignores valuations, market cycles and the price you're paying for an asset. Whether it's property, equities, precious metals or commodities, they all go through the same process. Markets are forward-looking. Investors price in years of future growth, and during major bull markets, prices can run well ahead of their long-term averages. Eventually, they get too expensive. And what happens next? MEAN REVERSION. I've studied markets across multiple asset classes for years, and one thing I've learned is that what people call a "crash" is often just an asset returning towards its long-term average. It probably should never have reached those extreme prices in the first place. LOOK AT 100 YEARS OF THE S&P 500 The chart tells an incredible story. Look at the red circles. 1929, the late 1960s, 2000 and now. These were periods when US equities were historically expensive, following enormous bull markets. What followed those earlier extremes? Years of disappointing returns, particularly once inflation was taken into account. And here's what people often miss. Markets don't always need a massive sell-off to reset valuations. They can correct sharply, or they can spend 10 to 15 years going sideways while earnings and fundamentals catch up. Either way, valuations eventually reset. NOW LOOK AT THE GREEN CIRCLES These represent periods when valuations were much more attractive. Think about the early 1930s, the 1940s, the early 1980s and the GFC. Investors buying around those major valuation lows generally enjoyed much stronger long-term returns. Same market. Same companies. Completely different starting valuations. That's why I believe the price you pay matters enormously. WE'VE SEEN THIS EVERYWHERE Remember the Nasdaq in 2000? It fell nearly 80% from its peak. People called it a crash. I see it as mean reversion. Technology valuations had become completely disconnected from reality. Look at silver's recent run towards $120 and subsequent fall towards $55. Again, people call it a crash. My view? It simply ran too far, too quickly. Even US property during the GFC followed a similar pattern. Land values in many markets had become extremely stretched relative to historical norms, and the subsequent correction helped unwind those excesses. Different assets. Different cycles. Same underlying behaviour. SO WHAT ABOUT TODAY? Look at the Shiller P/E ratio on the chart. We're sitting around 41. That's historically expensive. 2nd highest in history. Now ask yourself something. If you had a large amount of capital to invest today, would you rather buy equities when they're historically expensive or when they're historically cheap? It's the same question I'm asking about Australian property. Are we looking at historical buying opportunities, or are we looking at markets where years of future growth have already been priced in? Warren Buffett built much of his investing philosophy around the idea of a margin of safety. Why shouldn't we apply that same thinking to entire asset classes? I'm not saying markets can't continue higher from expensive valuations. Of course they can. But the more expensive an asset becomes, the more future growth you're paying for today, and the less room you have for things to go wrong. And when the cycle eventually turns, you need to be prepared to weather the storm. Because what the headlines call a crash may simply be the market returning to a more reasonable valuation. The biggest risk isn't necessarily a market correction. It's paying too much for an asset in the first place.

WHAT HAPPENED TO PROPERTY DURING THE GFC? Most people know US property prices crashed during the Global Financial Crisis, but very few understand what actually happened beneath the surface. When you buy a property, you're buying two things. The land and the dwelling sitting on it. What's fascinating is how the relationship between these two changes throughout major property cycles. Research published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis examined US residential land and building values from 1975 to 2012. In 1998, land accounted for approximately 30% of total residential property values. But by late 2005, that ratio had climbed to a staggering 48.5%! Almost HALF the value of residential property was now attributed to the land. So what happened when the property cycle reversed? Between 2006 and 2012: 🏡 Land values COLLAPSED approximately 69% 🏗️ Aggregate building values actually ROSE approximately 3% 📉 Total residential property values fell approximately 31% Following the crash, the land-to-property value ratio had fallen all the way back to 21.3%. From almost 50% to just over 20%! The buildings themselves hadn't experienced the same collapse in aggregate value. It was the land that absorbed most of the correction. And this is why understanding property cycles is so important. Did it crash or did it just return to the historical average? Land can become extremely expensive during a boom, particularly when cheap credit, speculation and strong buyer demand push valuations higher. But when those conditions reverse, land values can experience enormous corrections. It raises a very interesting question. What proportion of Australian property values today is actually land, and how does that compare with historical levels? Because understanding what happened in previous property cycles might tell us far more than simply looking at house prices. I'll share tomorrow.

NASDAQ: WHY I'M PLAYING DEFENCE! I'm seeing some warning signs in the Nasdaq that suggest we could be heading into a decent correction. Most people watch the Nasdaq 100, but the problem is that a handful of big tech companies can hide weakness across the rest of the market. That's why I also watch the equal-weighted Nasdaq (NDXE). A few things concern me: 1. Bearish RSI divergence, showing momentum is weakening. 2. Multiple failures to break resistance around 10,300–10,400. 3. The September low around 9,800 is critical. If that breaks, the technical picture becomes much more bearish. Does this mean we're definitely going lower? Of course not. But trading is about probabilities, not predictions. Right now, I think the risk of a decent correction is high enough to justify playing defence. I'll happily turn bullish again when the charts give me confirmation. Until then, protecting capital is my priority. Remember, you don't need to catch every rally. Sometimes the best trade is simply staying out of trouble. What do you think? Another leg higher or a bigger correction coming?

Tung and I presenting at the Australian Gold Conference, showing @RealRickRule an abundance of data supporting exactly what he'd just been speaking about! What a great man. So much knowledge and experience, and someone I have enormous respect for. Really enjoyed listening to his insights and getting the opportunity to have a one-on-one chat with him afterwards. An absolute legend in the resources industry!

IMAGINE BASING YOUR ENTIRE PROPERTY INVESTMENT THESIS ON HOUSING SHORTAGE. What if the government changes and immigration gets slashed. Both One Nation and the Coalition are proposing major cuts. But don't worry, everyone absolutely LOVES Labor right now. No chance of a change in government. 😉 Here's the problem. Property bulls keep telling us prices can't fall because of supply and demand. But what happens when DEMAND changes? Higher interest rates, rising unemployment, stretched affordability and potentially massive immigration cuts. Suddenly, those fundamentals don't look so bullish. Remember, the fundamentals that drove prices UP can also drive them DOWN. Just ask Canada. Markets look forward. Fundamentals often look backwards. Skate to where the puck is going to not where it's been!

Gold falls but the miners are telling a different story... Gold and silver may still be early in a broader precious metals bull market Mining stocks are showing relative strength as investors rotate further down the risk curve Seasonal trends could support another precious metals rally into early next year Gold and silver have pulled back sharply from their recent highs, leaving investors questioning whether the precious metals rally has run its course. David Bird from Mastering the Markets argues the broader cycle may still have further to run, pointing to historical valuations that suggest gold remains relatively cheap compared with equities, even after its substantial gains. Bird says the next phase of the cycle could depend on whether investment begins rotating from physical metals into mining companies. He argues gold producers have started to show relative strength during the recent pullback, while smaller miners and explorers have yet to experience the same degree of outperformance seen during previous precious metals bull markets. He believes improving profit margins could make miners increasingly attractive as metal prices rise faster than production costs. Seasonality is another factor Bird is watching, with historical patterns suggesting precious metals often face weakness between February and June before strengthening later in the year. He says the recent correction fits that pattern, while the period from mid-to-late October through to February or April has historically been more supportive. The key question now is whether improving momentum across mining stocks signals the next leg higher for metals. ausbiz.com.au/media/gold-fal…

CAN PROPERTY PRICES FALL BELOW THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION? LET'S LOOK AT HISTORY. One argument I keep hearing about Australian property is that prices can't fall significantly because construction costs keep rising. It's a reasonable argument, but history suggests there's another side worth understanding. GOLD: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PRICES FALL BELOW PRODUCTION COSTS? Gold peaked in 1980 before experiencing a major bear market. Within two years, prices had fallen dramatically, approaching the production costs of some miners. By the late 1990s, gold was trading at levels where some producers struggled to cover their full costs. Prices remained depressed for years. This is what major bear markets often do. They remove the excesses created during the previous boom. High gold prices had attracted speculative companies, inexperienced operators and plenty of leverage. When the cycle turned, weaker businesses struggled, while those with lower costs and stronger balance sheets were better positioned to survive. We've seen this pattern across asset classes throughout history. NOW, LET'S LOOK AT HOUSING. During the US housing crash, the national median existing-home price fell to US$176,600 in 2012. According to the National Association of Home Builders, constructing a new home in 2011 cost approximately US$184,125, excluding land. Add the average land cost of US$67,551, and you're looking at US$251,676. That's almost 30% more than the median existing-home price! Of course, these aren't identical properties, so it's not a direct comparison. But it illustrates how existing property prices can disconnect from new construction economics. Ireland, Spain and Japan also experienced major property downturns, with distressed properties in some markets selling below replacement costs. Different countries, same lesson. Construction costs don't guarantee property values. NOW, BACK TO AUSTRALIA. During property booms, rising prices attract developers, agents, investors and leverage. Anyone else notice how everyone wanted to become a real estate agent over the past few years? Of course, the houses practically sold themselves! But when the cycle turns, financing becomes harder, margins shrink, and those relying on continually rising prices can find themselves under pressure. HERE'S WHAT I FIND MOST INTERESTING. Australia's aggregate land-to-building value ratio has increased from approximately 1.3:1 in the 1980s to around 3:1 in recent years. That means land represents roughly 75% of the combined value of Australia's housing stock. Think about that. Construction costs could remain at record highs, yet property prices could still fall significantly through a correction in land values alone. For example, a 30% fall in land values would mathematically translate into approximately a 22.5% decline in total property values, assuming buildings retain their value and using that national 75% land share. I'm not suggesting that's necessarily what will happen, and the ratio varies between properties. But it shows why rising construction costs don't guarantee rising property prices. Higher construction costs may discourage new supply, but they don't prevent existing property values from falling. Ultimately, prices are determined by what buyers are willing and able to pay. Interest rates, household incomes, credit availability and market cycles all matter. I'm not suggesting Australia must follow the US, Ireland, Spain or Japan. Every market is different. But studying historical cycles teaches us what's possible, rather than assuming something can't happen simply because we haven't experienced it recently. Perhaps the better question isn't whether construction costs are rising. It's whether the land component of Australian property has become overvalued relative to household incomes and borrowing. Property values can fall through land repricing, even while construction costs remain high.

GOLD MINERS VS JUNIOR MINERS: WE'VE HAD NO SPECULATION. One of the most important things to understand about commodity bull markets is how money rotates as the cycle develops. Typically, it follows a pattern: • Gold moves first, attracting the initial capital. • Larger gold miners follow, as rising gold prices improve profit margins. • Junior miners and explorers take off, as confidence builds and investors chase greater returns. It's usually towards the euphoric end of a major bull market that the juniors massively outperform the larger producers. But here's what's interesting. We haven't seen that yet. GDX tracks the larger gold miners, while GDXJ provides exposure to smaller, more speculative miners. The GDXJ/GDX ratio has essentially moved sideways for years, even during the extraordinary precious metals rally. Think about what that tells us. Gold has surged, yet miners haven't established sustained long-term outperformance against gold. And within the mining sector, juniors haven't meaningfully outperformed the larger producers. Money hasn't fully rotated down the speculative risk curve. If this were the euphoric end of the commodity cycle, I'd expect the opposite. Investors would be aggressively chasing returns through the miners and increasingly through the juniors. A TOP, OR THE TOP? We've certainly seen periods of excess in gold and silver, followed by some brutal corrections. But when I zoom out across the broader commodity complex, I'm not seeing the widespread speculative behaviour I'd expect at the end of a major secular bull market. Not yet. That doesn't guarantee the cycle continues, but it's an important piece of the puzzle. Remember, a major correction can mark the end of a wave without marking the end of the entire bull market. That's why understanding relative strength and where money is rotating matters so much. There's a big difference between calling A top and calling THE top. Top of a wave maturing of the cycle. Miners shoukd outperform from this point of the cycle.