In short: The iron-ore question produced a clear preference without a position. "They have a nice dividend," and on structure: "I prefer LIF long-term as less risky, because half of the income long-term are actually from royalty. So Labrador Iron Ore makes money from royalty but also from operation — they own a small equity on the operation as well. So it comes from dividends from that operation." The caveat closes it: "but anyway right now we're not involved in those two."
If he were to own iron ore, this would be the vehicle — and the reason is structural rather than a view on the price. Roughly half of Labrador's income long term comes from a royalty: a fixed slice of the revenue produced by a mine it does not operate. A royalty is paid off the top line, so it does not care about the mine's costs, cost overruns or capital spending. That makes it a materially lower-risk way to own the same commodity than owning the miner itself.
The rest of the income comes from dividends on a small equity stake in the operation, and the whole package pays what he calls "a nice dividend."
But the conclusion is unambiguous and applies to both iron ore names: "right now we're not involved in those two." A preference is not a position.
35:58They're selling their products mostly in Asia and Europe and many other places. So it's really a call on iron ore. I prefer LIF long-term as less risky, because half of the income long-term are actually from royalty. So Labrador Iron Ore makes money from royalty but also from operation — they own a small equity on the operation as well.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.