Inflation Protection
*|MC:SUBJECT|*

Inflation Protection Model Portfolio

Monthly Portfolio Review: December 2024

Publication date: January 3, 2025

Current portfolio holdings

FOR SUBSCRIBER USE ONLY. DO NOT FORWARD OR SHARE.

Executive summary

  • The Inflation Protection portfolio delivered a total return of -7.5% in December as rising interest rates and dollar strength put substantial pressure on commodity-related sectors.

  • While the market cap weighted S&P 500 Index declined only 2.4%, a handful of mega-cap tech stocks are the main reason. The average stock within the S&P 500 delivered a much weaker performance.

  • Markets reacted negatively to the December 19th Fed meeting after officials signaled they expected fewer rate cuts in 2025.

  • Visa (V) generated a slightly positive return in December, capping off a strong year. We review the investment case.

  • Certain industrial and materials sector holdings detracted the most from portfolio performance.

  • Market sentiment took a dive in the final weeks of the year… but many stocks are now trading at pre-election levels.

  • We are optimistic about the potential for solid returns going forward with a pro-growth, pro-innovation administration returning to power.

Performance review

The Inflation Protection portfolio delivered a total return of -7.5% in December, while the S&P 500 Index returned -2.4%. For the six months ending December 31, 2024, the portfolio generated a total return of 0.0%, versus 8.4% for the S&P 500.


The portfolio’s top performing stocks in December were TransDigm Group (TDG), which returned 1%; Visa (V), which returned 0.3%; and Franco-Nevada (FNV), which returned -4%.


The worst performing stocks in the portfolio were WESCO International (WCC), which returned -14%; Freeport-McMoRan (FCX), which returned -14%; and Vulcan Materials (VMC), which returned -11%.

A challenging month for most stocks


December 2024 was a difficult month. Although the S&P 500 Index delivered a relatively modest decline of 2.4%, this masks a much more negative result for most stocks.


The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index declined 6.3% in December. The standard version of the S&P 500 Index is market capitalization weighted, which means the most highly valued companies have the largest impact on index returns. The equal weighted version attributes the exact same portfolio weighting (0.2%) to all 500 stocks.


The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index therefore represents the average stock in the index.


The reason the market cap weighted index outperformed so significantly is that a handful of mega-cap names did extremely well. Meanwhile, approximately 90% of the stocks that are included within the S&P 500 produced negative returns.


Over long periods of time, the two versions of the index actually tend to deliver similar results. Looking back over the 20 year period ending November 30, 2024, the equal weighted index only slightly lagged the market cap weighted index.


From 11/30/2004 through 11/30/2024, the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index delivered a compounded annualized rate of return of 10.48%, versus 10.67% for the standard S&P 500 Index.


The nearly 4% difference in returns between the two indices in December is relatively extreme but is a continuation of a pattern that emerged in mid-2023.


The main driver of the performance divergence over the past year or so has been NVIDIA (NVDA), which produced a 171% total return in 2024. NVDA ended the year with an approximately 7% weighting within the S&P 500 Index, just behind Apple (AAPL).  

Interestingly, NVDA took a back seat to other mega-caps in December and was not an important factor this time. NVDA shares fell approximately 2.9% in December.


Instead, three other mega-cap stocks were particularly relevant this month.


Broadcom (AVGO), a leading player in semiconductors which now has a $1 trillion market cap, advanced 43%. Tesla (TSLA), which has a $1.3 trillion market cap, rose 17%. Alphabet (GOOGL), the parent company of Google with a $2.3 trillion market cap, rose 12%.


All three stocks rallied on the heels of positive news flow related to AI growth. In other words, there were company-specific catalysts that drove upside in these stocks.


Since these three stocks now collectively represent more than 8% of the index, their strong performance had a material effect on total index returns.


Concentration within the S&P 500 Index has reached historically extreme levels. This has many investors concerned, in part because the last time we saw this was right before the dot com bubble burst.


The top 10 holdings of the S&P 500 currently represent nearly 40% of the total index; this figure was closer to 30% at the peak of the dot com era in 1999. The top 20 holdings of the 500 stock index represent almost 50% of the total value.


All but one of the top 10 holdings within the S&P 500 are technology or technology platform stocks. The lone exception is Warren Buffett’s conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway (BRK/B), which ranks tenth.


Buffett is known as an old school value investor, but ironically, his large and highly successful investments in tech stocks like AAPL are a major reason BRK/B is now a top 10 name in the S&P 500.


Without diving into the controversy around whether or not we are in bubble territory when it comes to these mega-cap tech names, we continue to believe most stock market investors have plenty of exposure to them through index funds and active funds that track major indices.


We therefore continue to believe stock pickers should focus their attention on opportunities outside these widely held names, many of which do have quite rich valuations.


What happened to the rest of the market?


As a reminder, November produced a very strong month for stocks in the wake of Trump’s victory and the Republican sweep of Congress.


In November, we saw strong positive performances across the market. The S&P 500 returned 5.9%. The Russell 2000 Index, which tracks small-cap stocks, advanced 11%.


This post-election optimism shifted abruptly on December 19, after the Federal Reserve meeting. Although the Fed did cut the Fed funds rate by 25 basis points, which was widely expected, the anticipated trajectory of future rate cuts changed.


Official projections for the Fed funds rate by end of 2025 were raised approximately half a percent, from 3.4% to 3.9%.


The prospect of potentially stickier inflation and tighter monetary policy dampened market sentiment, just as much of the professional investment industry was preparing for year end and time off for the holidays.


Over the course of December, the yield on the 10-year Treasury rose back to the 4.6% range, just about hitting April 2024 peak levels, after having started the month around 4.2%.


Concerns around interest rates led to widespread selling pressure. This was felt across most sectors.

Source: FactSet

The areas most impacted by the unexpected Fed pivot were cyclical sectors, like Industrials, Energy and Materials, and interest rate sensitive sectors, like Utilities and Real Estate.


Cyclicals traded off on concerns that higher rates could depress economic growth, while rate sensitive stocks priced in a marginally higher cost of capital.


The performance of stocks in December should also be seen in the context of a year that produced very strong returns. The S&P 500 ended the year up 25%.


The final weeks of the trading year often involve some degree of turbulence.


Many investors sell losing positions to realize tax losses. Some fund managers engage in “window dressing” (buying high performing stocks and selling poor performers). Hedge funds and traders take off risk.


Market liquidity also tends to dry up as we enter the holiday season.


What’s next?


While frustrating, the December reversal in the share prices of the vast majority of stocks can be seen as an opportunity.


All else being equal, easier monetary policy and lower interest rates are better for stocks than tight monetary policy and high rates. But easy monetary policy is not normally associated with a strong, growing economy.


To a large extent, the Fed anticipates a slower trajectory of rate cuts because it perceives a relatively healthy growth outlook and, importantly, less recession risk.


The market narrative has quickly shifted from optimism around the benefits of lower taxes, deregulation, greater energy production and leaner government to disappointment over less aggressive rate cuts going forward.


As a result, while a handful of mega-cap tech stocks have retained some momentum, many stocks can now be purchased at prices that are lower than where they were trading before we knew the outcome of the election.


The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index was actually slightly lower as of December 31, 2024 versus where it was on October 31, 2024, a week before the election.

Selected Stock Indices (10/31/2024 - 12/31/2024)

Anxiety around the trajectory of interest rates has taken some steam away from markets, but we continue to have a constructive outlook.


With the markets now having priced in a materially higher rate environment, we are optimistic that we can expect solid performance from our portfolio holdings as the incoming administration implements its pro-growth agenda.

Portfolio highlights

The top performing positions in the Inflation Protection portfolio in December were TransDigm Group (TDG), which returned 1%; Visa (V), which returned 0.3%; and Franco-Nevada (FNV), which returned -4%.


The worst performing stocks in the portfolio were WESCO International (WCC), which declined 14%; Freeport-McMoRan (FCX), which declined 14%; and Vulcan Materials (VMC), which declined 11%.

With a business model that is geared toward longer term purchase patterns and necessary maintenance, TDG was a relative safe haven in December and managed to deliver a positive return.


The Visa investment case


V was another rare stock that did not see downside in December and closed the year with a strong 22% total return.


Shares of V have performed especially well since the election, generating a 9% total return between 10/31/2024 and 12/31/2024, versus 3% for the S&P 500.


The company continues to benefit from a number of powerful structural drivers. The best way to think of V is as a toll collector in the vast global consumer economy.


V not only wins as the economy grows and consumers spend more, it benefits from inflation because it is ultimately just a middleman taking a percentage of transactions.


V’s revenues grow with nominal growth in the economy. If the entree at your favorite restaurant is 25% more expensive than it was 4 years ago, that is bad for you but good for V shareholders.


Similar to what we have written about Costco (COST), the bottom half of American households may be suffering, but the affluent are doing well, in no small part due to inflation-driven wealth effects.


With significantly more disposable income, affluent consumers naturally spend a great deal more on their credit cards than the average consumer and are a more relevant demographic for a company like V.


Residential housing prices and the stock market have risen sharply in recent years. These wealth effects are manifesting themselves in strong consumer spending, including areas like travel, and are supporting V’s double digit earnings growth trajectory.


V is not just a play on overall consumer spending. It also benefits from key changes that are taking place within the consumer landscape. These changes enable V to grow its revenues faster than the overall consumer economy.


First, there is an ongoing generational shift away from cash and checks to digital payments. Second, there are the continued market share gains within retail by e-commerce platforms, which rely heavily on credit card networks.


As cryptocurrency adoption grows, the credit card industry is sometimes depicted as a long-term loser. In this context, it is important not to paint the credit card industry with too broad a brush.


It is true that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (and the second layer payment networks that are being built on top of them) can lead to more efficient systems of digital payment. But these innovations will likely be more detrimental to banks and other financial institutions than payment network operators like V, which are in fact leading the charge in crypto adoption.


A typical credit card transaction can involve 2.5% to 3.5% of fees to the merchant, but only about 0.15% goes to a payment network like V. The vast majority is collected by the bank that issues the credit card and is effectively lending money to the consumer for a short time period.


The far-reaching global payment infrastructure that V has built over the decades is highly efficient and extraordinarily difficult to reproduce. As crypto-based transactions grow in importance, V stands to benefit with its already entrenched platform to support these transactions.


While the Bitcoin network, for example, is an exceptionally secure and efficient technology to execute larger financial transactions without third party involvement, it does not have the capacity to process the enormous number of small transactions that credit cards are used for everyday.


For perspective, the Bitcoin network currently processes a few hundred thousand transactions daily, whereas V processes around 150 million transactions per day.


One of the reasons V shares have outperformed since the election is that the Trump administration is expected to provide digital payment companies like V a more favorable regulatory environment.


V has been an active acquirer of crypto as well as AI-related fintech start-ups. From an antitrust perspective, the company will likely have more latitude to continue in this direction under Trump.


Crypto has the potential to be highly disruptive to the financial services industry, but we see V as a beneficiary of this phenomenon, whereas traditional financial institutions like banks may find themselves on the losing end.


Gold and commodities


FNV shares were down 4% during the month and outperformed precious metals streaming peers Royal Gold (RGLD) and Wheaton Precious Metals (WPM).


The price of gold declined approximately 1% in December. The streaming companies underperformed gold likely as a result of the heavy selling pressure on the broader materials sector, which was the worst performing sector in the S&P 500.


Although the value of gold streaming royalties theoretically has little to do with the larger commodity complex, gold mining and streaming companies are often affected by capital flows into or out of the sector.


In general, when these stocks trade down relative to the gold price, this just implies greater upside potential in the future as the relationship normalizes.


A strong dollar


With respect to gold and commodity prices in general, it is important to recognize the significant strength in the U.S. dollar that has been experienced over the last 2 months.


This is reflected in the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY), which measures the dollar in relation to a basket of other world currencies. The dollar is now at its highest level in approximately two years.

Recent dollar strength can be attributed to a number of factors associated with capital flows into the U.S. economy.


Foreign investors have been gravitating to U.S. stocks after the Trump victory. With long-term interest rates trending up (and Chinese bond yields moving in the opposite direction due to anemic growth), fixed income investors are also gravitating towards dollar-denominated bonds.


One side effect of Trump’s tariff policy is that it could also put upward pressure on the dollar, as foreign competitors potentially devalue their currencies to compensate for tariff impacts.


The strong dollar has been a headwind for the Inflation Protection portfolio this year, as many of the positions are linked to global commodities.


The weakness we saw in FCX in December is related to pressure on the copper price, for example, as copper becomes cheaper in dollar terms. A similar impact can be seen on energy prices.


Rising interest rates and a strong dollar led to particularly bad sentiment towards industrial and materials stocks, which drove the poor performance of WCC and VMC in December.


America’s debt burden


The Inflation Protection portfolio is our most differentiated strategy because of its exposure to more inflation sensitive sectors.


Rising interest rates and dollar strength have hurt relative returns this, but at some point, probably not far from where we currently are, will reach maximum levels.


Yields on 10-Year Treasuries are now at levels not seen since 2007. With $36 trillion of public debt that requires continuous refinancing, we may have reached or even exceeded the upper limit of what the Federal government can realistically sustain.


Excessive public debt in the U.S. is the primary reason long-term investors should seek to own inflation-sensitive assets that will benefit from the money printing that will ultimately be required to service and refinance this enormous burden.  

Key metrics

Valuation detail

Performance detail

Company snapshots

Brown-Forman (BF.B)

Costco Wholesale (COST)

Freeport-McMoRan (FCX)

Permian Resources (PR)

TransDigm Group (TDG)

Visa (V)

Vulcan Materials (VMC)

Diamondback Energy (FANG)

Floor & Decor Holdings (FND)

Franco-Nevada (FNV)

Royal Gold (RGLD)

WESCO International (WCC)

Wheaton Precious Metals (WPM)

The 76research Inflation Protection Model Portfolio emphasizes business models that are expected to perform well on a relative basis in periods of elevated inflation. Holdings are typically selected from industries based on supply constrained real assets, including commodity and energy businesses, or companies that otherwise demonstrate superior pricing power. Drawing from an investable universe of expected inflation beneficiaries, specific holdings are chosen based on valuation and general business quality, growth and risk considerations. 

FOR SUBSCRIBER USE ONLY. DO NOT FORWARD OR SHARE.