In short: Unchanged since the January rotation: "we continue to favor Canadian oil sands names. I like good long-lived assets in a friendly jurisdiction." He is Canadian, has lived in the US 24 years, and still rates both "good places to do business" measured against the rest of the world.
Oil sands are exactly what they sound like: deposits in Alberta where the oil is mixed into sand, expensive to get started but, once built, producible for decades at a fairly steady rate. That is the whole appeal — "good long-lived assets in a friendly jurisdiction." A shale well is largely depleted in a couple of years, so a shale company must keep drilling just to stand still; an oil sands project keeps producing without that treadmill.
The second half of the argument is political rather than geological. In a world where a strait can close and cut off a tenth of global supply, where your barrels physically sit matters as much as what they cost to produce. Rozencwajg — a Canadian who has lived in the US for 24 years — argues that despite the recent friction, "Canada and the United States are still good places to do business" when you compare them with the rest of the oil-producing world. This has been his largest oil exposure since before the war and he hasn't changed it.
34:08So, we haven't really changed too much in terms of how we're positioned. Maybe tweaked a little bit around the edges, but we continue to favor Canadian oil sands names. I like good long-lived assets in a friendly jurisdiction. I'm Canadian. I've lived in the United States for 24 years, but I still consider Canada and the United States to be friendly jurisdictions to one another despite everything that's been happening.
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.