#valuewalk

Along with your submission please include a picture of yourself or an image relating to the essay topic, which we can post on our site to go along with your essay. The winner will be required to provide proof of successful acceptance to a Higher Institute of Learning, College or University. Payment will be made directly to the applicant's college. If you have additional questions, please contact us.

View On WordPress

Via ValueWalk

Otherwise disparate voices in the two major political parties are seemingly unified on one score — a newfound skepticism of free trade. It’s difficult to find a more counterproductive issue on which to agree. America’s essential embrace of free trade over the centuries has been an enduring source of strength and economic expansion. Photo by geralt (Pixabay) Anti-Trade Many have rightly criticized Donald Trump’s proposed 45% tariff on Chinese and Mexican goods. For American families hoping to buy certain top-tier washing machines, however, the tax is already here. In a preliminary ruling last summer, the Commerce Department slapped a 111% tax on imports of Samsung’s best clothes washers and a 48% tax on LG’s nicest models. In December, Commerce reduced Samsung’s tax to 52%, but the point remains. The case now proceeds to the International Trade Commission for the “injury phase,” where the ITC will try to tease out the complex economics of the industry to judge whether U.S. firms are being unfairly harmed. But first a little background. The charge from Commerce is that Samsung and LG are “dumping” the smart-washers in the U.S. at below market prices, thus hurting rival Whirlpool, which brought the complaint. Dumping is a common charge by firms facing import competition. And Washington (and other national capitals) are all too gullible when a U.S.-based firm (and constituent) asks for an investigation of non-constituents with foreign sounding names. It’s a tale as old as time, which points to the very purpose of free trade agreements: to mitigate the temptations of protectionism and elevate economic activity over politics. In this case, Commerce, as is typical, massaged the numbers to make a predetermined case. To prove dumping, it needed to show the “real” cost of producing the Samsung and LG washers was higher than the selling price. But the washers, which are assembled in China, are made from many hundreds of parts. So Commerce attempts to estimate prices for all those component parts in a market economy country — in this case, Thailand — and arrive at a sum total of what the washer “should” cost. As you can imagine in a political investigation, the estimates can be wildly off the mark. Pretending we can accurately label products and firms “foreign” or “domestic” is folly. Modern businesses are exceedingly complex and international. In the U.S., for example, 15 of the 20 cars with the highest content of “domestic” parts are built by non-Big Three — that is, “foreign” — auto makers. Whirlpool buys washing machine components from China, and Samsung builds microchips in Texas. Which is the American firm? The ITC investigation now hinges on the intricacies of product pricing and profitability. For example, the ITC in a preliminary review found that Whirpool sells domestic washers at a loss. But the ITC ignored the common industry practice of selling washers and dryers in pairs, half the total price attributed to each. In reality, however, washers are more complex and costly, and only generate a “loss” in an accounting sense. The simpler and cheaper-to-make dryers are more profitable (again, in an accounting sense) and making up the difference. But you might be wondering: do we really want Washington judging these things? Recent political rhetoric far exceeds the actual anti-trade sentiments of American workers and voters. Yes, manufacturing jobs have declined as knowledge and service jobs have risen. But most people know, contrary to what they hear in stump speeches, that America still “makes things” and that we make more high-value goods and fewer low-value goods than before. In the last 20 years, since NAFTA came online and China entered the World Trade Organization, U.S. manufacturing output is up 40% in real terms. The U.S. is the world’s second largest manufacturer and third largest exporter. If U.S. manufacturing were a nation, it would be the world’s eighth biggest economy. The idea that we need to “protect” the U.S. economy is backwards. Between 2000 and 2015, U.S. firms invested $739 billion in international manufacturing facilities. But international firms during this period invested nearly twice as much — $1.35 trillion — in U.S. manufacturing. Sometimes firms invest abroad because it’s cheaper to build products there. Sometimes it’s the location of natural resources or the nature and size of a labor force. Apple, for example, says some of its China manufacturing could not be performed anywhere else, regardless of price. Other times, the purpose is to build products close to where you sell them. Toyota and BMW, for example, build plants in the U.S. in part to show they are committed to the U.S. market. Regardless, America’s place as the prime destination for international capital (both human and financial) has been a strength for several hundred years. And it is this very capital surplus that helps the American economy grow and, in turn, allows American consumers to buy more nice things like smartphones and washing machines. Some call this a “trade deficit,” but it’s really called wealth. Contrary to those stump speeches, most Americans know how much value they and their families get by buying the best products at the lowest prices from anywhere in the world. But if we cut ourselves off from the world, others will do the same. And because we buy more, and also receive more investment, from abroad, we’ve got more to lose. Many American workers and families are experiencing real economic hardship, as wages and incomes have stagnated. And trade is not the problem. Forcing American families to pay twice as much for a high-quality washing machine is not going to fix the U.S. economy in the ways it needs fixing. Dumping investigations are almost always a way for Washington to transfer dollars from unsuspecting American consumers to favored interests. Meantime, it only reinforces anti-trade sentiment, which is threatening to spin out of control and jeopardize our economic recovery. Article by Bret Swanson, Inside Sources The post Tech Products Get Caught In Anti-Trade Tide appeared first on ValueWalk.

Cobalt key to your phone battery, Tesla and more… How does your mobile phone last for 12 hours on just one charge? It’s the power of cobalt, along with several other energy metals, that keeps your lithium-ion battery running. The only problem? Getting the metal from the source to your electronics is not an easy feat, and this makes for an extremely precarious supply chain for manufacturers. Our infographic today comes to us from LiCo Energy Metals, and it focuses on where this important ingredient of green technology originates from, and the supply risks associated with its main sources. What is Cobalt? Cobalt is a transition metal found between iron and nickel on the periodic table. It has a high melting point (1493°C) and retains its strength to a high temperature. Similar to iron or nickel, cobalt is ferromagnetic. It can retain its magnetic properties to 1100°C, a higher temperature than any other material. Ferromagnetism is the strongest type of magneticism: it’s the only one that typically creates forces strong enough to be felt, and is responsible for the magnets encountered in everyday life. These unique properties make the metal perfect for two specialized high-tech purposes: superalloys and battery cathodes. Superalloys High-performance alloys drive 18% of cobalt demand. The metal’s ability to withstand intense temperatures and conditions makes it perfect for use in: Turbine blades Jet engines Gas turbines Prosthetics Permanent magnets Lithium-ion Batteries: Batteries drives 49% of demand – and most of this comes from cobalt’s usage in lithium-ion battery cathodes: Type of lithium-ion cathode Cobalt in cathode Spec. energy (Wh/kg) LFP 0% 120 LMO 0% 140 NMC 15% 200 LCO 55% 200 NCA 10% 245 The three most powerful cathode formulations for li-ion batteries all need cobalt. As a result, the metal is indispensable in many of today’s battery-powered devices. Mobile phones (LCO) Tesla Model S (NCA) Tesla Powerwall (NMC) Chevy Volt (NMC/LMO) The Tesla Powerwall 2 uses approximately 7kg, and a Tesla Model S (90 kWh) uses approximately 22.5kg of the energy metal. The Cobalt Supply Chain Cobalt production has gone almost straight up to meet demand, and production has more than doubled since the early 2000s. But while the metal is desired, getting it is the hard part: No native cobalt has ever been found in nature. There are four widely-distributed ores that exist, but almost no cobalt is mined from them as a primary source. Most cobalt production is mined as a by-product. Mine source % cobalt production Nickel (by-product) 60% Copper (by-product) 38% Cobalt (primary) 2% This means it is hard to expand production when more is needed. Most production occurs in the DRC, a country with elevated supply risks: Country Tonnes % Total 122,701 100.0% United States 524 0.4% China 1,417 1.2% DRC 67,975 55.4% Rest of World 52,785 43.0% (Source: CRU, estimated production for 2017, tonnes) The Future of Cobalt Supply Companies like Tesla and Panasonic need reliable sources of the metal, and right now there aren’t many failsafes. The U.S. hasn’t mined cobalt in significant volumes since 1971, and the USGS reports that the United States only has 301 tonnes of the metal stored in stockpiles. The reality is that the DRC produces about half of all cobalt, and it also holds approximately 47% of all global reserves. Why is this a concern for end-users? The DRC is one of the poorest, corrupt, and most coercive countries in the planet. It ranks: 151st out of 159 countries in the Human Freedom Index 176th out of 188 countries on the Human Development Index 178th out of 184 countries in terms of GDP per capita ($455) 148th out of 169 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index The DRC has had more deaths from war since WWII than any other country on the planet. Recent wars in the DRC: First Congo War (1996-1997) – A foreign invasion by Rwanda that overthrew the Mobutu regime. Second Congo War (1998-2003) – The bloodiest conflict in world history since WW2 with 5.4 million deaths. Human Rights in Mining The DRC government estimates that 20% of all cobalt production in the country comes from artisanal miners – independent workers who dig holes and mine ore without sophisticated mines or machinery. There are at least 100,000 artisanal cobalt miners in the DRC, and UNICEF estimates that up to 40,000 children could be in the trade. Children can be as young as seven years old, and they can work up to 12 hrs with physically demanding work, earning $2 per day. Meanwhile, Amnesty International alleges that Apple, Samsung, and Sony fail to do basic checks in making sure the metal in their supply chains did not come from child labor. Most major companies have vowed that any such practices will not be tolerated in their supply chains. Other Sources Where will tomorrow’s supply come from, and will the role of the DRC eventually diminish? Will Tesla achieve its goal of a North American supply chain for its key metal inputs? Mining exploration companies are already looking to regions like Ontario, Idaho, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories to find tomorrow’s deposits: Ontario: Ontario is one of the only places in the world where cobalt-primary mines that have existed. This camp is nearby the aptly named town of Cobalt, Ontario, which is located halfway between Sudbury – the world’s “Nickel Capital”, and Val-d’Or, one of the most famous gold camps in the world. Idaho: Idaho is known as the “Gem State” while also being known for its silver camps in Couer D’Alene – but it has also been a cobalt producer in the past. BC: The mountains of British Columbia are known for their rich gold, silver, copper, zinc, and met coal deposits. But cobalt often occurs with copper, and some mines in BC have produced cobalt in the past. Northwest Territories: Cobalt can also be found up north, as the NWT becomes a more interesting mineral destination for companies. 160km from Yellowknife is a gold-cobalt-bismuth-copper deposit being developed. Article by Jeff Desjardins, Visual Capitalist The post Cobalt: A Precarious Supply Chain [INFOGRAPHIC] appeared first on ValueWalk.

Leave it to the media, which spent the latter half of 2016 highlighting how outrageously expensive Obamacare premiums were becoming, to suddenly shift gears in 2017 and stress the health law’s many “pluses.” Such was the case in a recent interview with Heritage President Jim DeMint, in which CNN anchor Carol Costello suggested that lawmakers would need to preserve the so-called benefits of Obamacare if they repealed it. In Costello’s words: For example, this is according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve in Dallas. Preventative care provided by Obamacare … saves money and health care costs overall. In 2015, the cost of health care services increased 0.5 percent. The typical price increase before Obamacare, it was around 3 to 4 percent. Obamacare will lower the deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years. So, there are pluses to Obamacare. So, how do you keep the pluses and get rid of the minuses? Image source: Wikimedia Commons DeMint shot back that those “facts” could fall “under the category of fake news.” This set Costello off to correct him that the numbers had come from the Congressional Budget Office. Well, here’s what the Congressional Budget Office actually said about the cost of preventative care in 2009: “Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.” For Americans paying premiums, this year’s price increases speak for themselves. According to the Obama administration, on the exchanges, the average increase this year in the benchmark plan premium is 25 percent across the 39 states that use the HealthCare.gov platform. Certainly this cannot be considered a “plus,” even by the law’s most zealous supporters. It is true that the Congressional Budget Office did originally say that the law would reduce the deficit, but that analysis was always based on questionable assumptions and the double-counting of Medicare savings. Indeed, in 2014, the Senate Budget Committee went back and used the Congressional Budget Office’s same scoring conventions and found that Obamacare would increase the deficit by $131 billion over the next decade. Americans now have fewer insurer options, higher insurance deductibles, and higher premiums than prior to Obamacare. Although the details of this year’s repeal bill are not yet known, the Congressional Budget Office’s latest score of an Obamacare repeal—based on the reconciliation bill passed by the last Congress, which repealed the law’s major spending provisions and tax increases—was projected to reduce federal deficits by roughly $516 billion over the 2016-2025 period, accounting for the economic benefits that would result. But on CNN, Costello wasn’t finished. “So, all those 20 million people enrolled in Obamacare, they’re all going broke and it’s not working for any of them?” she asked. Actually, 20 million is a debatable enrollment figure, given that it is based on survey data that can be off by millions of people. Using actual insurer enrollment data, which is only available through the end of 2015, there was an increase in coverage of only 14 million Americans from 2013 to 2015, with the vast majority (11.7 million) being pushed into Medicaid coverage. Moreover, the actual net increase in private coverage during this period was only 2.3 million due to a decline in employment-based coverage, which offset the increase in the individual health insurance market. Furthermore, Costello forgot about all of the people (over 10 million) who purchase coverage in the individual market and receive no Obamacare subsidy. These people have been getting hammered by premium increases caused by Obamacare every year and have to pay the full cost on their own. Costello asked, “How do you take care of people much better than they’re taken care of now?” Considering that many Americans are now facing fewer insurer options, higher insurance deductibles, and higher premiums than prior to Obamacare, the need for real cost relief is immense. The first step in providing relief is to quickly repeal the law and then do the legislative work that will allow for patient-centered reforms. Republished from The Daily Signal. Alyene Senger Alyene Senger focuses her research and writing at The Heritage Foundation on the intricacies of health care as a policy analyst in the Center for Health Policy Studies. Read her research. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. The post The Media’s Fake News About Obamacare appeared first on ValueWalk.

Mike Gleason (Money Metals Exchange): We are fortunate today to be joined by Frank Holmes, CEO and Chief Investment Officer at U.S. Global Investors. Just recently Mr. Holmes received another award from the Mining Journal and was named America’s Best Fund Manager for 2016, one of many awards he’s received now in the mining industry for his fantastic track record. He is also the co-author of the book The Gold Watcher: Demystifying Gold Investing and is a regular guest on CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox Business, as well as right here on the Money Metals Podcast. Frank Happy New Year to you and it’s great to have you back with us and thanks for joining us again. Frank Holmes (U.S. Global Investors): It’s good to be with you all and yes, Happy New Year and wishing everyone buckets of laughter and gold this year. Mike Gleason: Well to start out here, we’ll talk about gold specifically and I want to get your comments from a technical analysis standpoint in the gold market as we begin the new year. I know you’re pretty optimistic about where prices may be headed saying that gold was significantly oversold at the end of the year. You wrote a great piece recently for your website on the subject. So, if you would please share with our listeners why you’re looking for a reversal and a move higher in the metals. Frank Holmes: One of the things we like to do is try and remove the emotions of markets and apply some basic statistical analysis. One of the most simple ones is the oscillator and it’s looking at the rate of change over a specific time period. In 60 trading days, which we published on and that’s looking over a basically 90 calendar days which is a quarter. You go back over 10 years, 20 years, and it doesn’t matter if gold was in a micro-rising trend or a falling trend, things will overshoot both to the upside and to the downside. There are these extreme pivot points that investors should look at and what we’ve seen here is that gold is down two standard deviations. That’s just forecasted over the next 60 trading days, the odds are they have a 90% of a probability of a reversal back to the mean. It also comes at year end and usually gold rallies in January going into the Chinese New Year, so it appears that we start this rally. Mike Gleason: Yeah we’re certainly looking good here as we’re speaking on Wednesday of this week. The first week of the year does appear to be positive for metals which of course is a nice sign for many folks who’ve been worn out over the last few months with the price action. On one of the fundamental drivers you watch carefully when it comes to the precious metals is real interest rates. We’ve talked about that a lot with you. All other factors aside higher real interest rates tend to weigh on gold prices because gold doesn’t generate a yield. We’ve seen yields move higher since November and that is one of the factors weighing on the metals. We have the Fed targeting three to four rate hikes in 2017 but we know that what they say and what they do are often two very different things. Last year at this time, Janet Yellen was telegraphing four hikes and delivered one and that was in the final month of the year. So, what is your outlook for interest rates in 2017? Frank Holmes: I think that they backed up very quickly and I think that we’re going to have inflation. Historically whenever you have such a big fiscal stimulus and its very demand focused domestically, domestic demand, and we’ve this short in the small cap stock arena, then the odds favor that inflation will be higher. Here the magic is, how high can rates stay ahead of inflation without stifling a recession? And I don’t think they can go much higher, and I think that’s the inflection point. Right now, if you take a look at the spike in the short two-year government bond, which most currencies trade off of, you see an extra 80 bases points – an unexpected rally in that yield. And that would have basically on a debt rollover take the debt servicing up to 3.5% of GDP. So, I think that that would be fragile to say the least. I think the other things where investors need to recognize is that if Trump does go with his tariffs and doing all this stuff, some of these thoughts are out there, this will trigger inflation and we’re going to see gold participate in a big rally. The last thing I want to share with the investors was that this time last year when everyone was so bearish and bleak and gold started this rally. The gold stocks that cleansed all themselves to balance sheet and started on a spectacular run. When they were up 40% most of Wall Street was telling me, “Oh, it’s up too high.” I would do interviews and it’s up 80% and, “Oh that’s up way too high.” Now, our funds are up 100%, “That’s just impossible.” And still we’re up, or gold (stocks) were up 70% I think for the past year and that was still too high. We still have this per base of negativity towards gold and talking down gold as an asset class. I think that that’s another factor that lends itself that we can get this surge of short covering in gold stocks. Mike Gleason: Leading me right into my next question. Last year was a real rollercoaster for the mining industry. You obviously follow that sector very closely, so will 2017 look more like the first half of 2016 for the miners where they ascended rapidly and the environment was very positive? Or will it look like the second half of the year when they pulled back and gave back much of those gains? Basically, how are things setting up for the mining sector this year? Frank Holmes: It’s a good question. When you do time series analysis that is, what is the core relation over 20 trading days between gold and the gold stocks? We’re talking about a 95% core relation. So, if you want to understand the gold stocks you really have to understand the price the gold and where the direction it’s going. Our forecast in gold stocks most times is a forecast on gold. What the difference is currencies and right now the cheapest gold stocks in the world on an operating cash flow enterprise value are populating in South Africa and Australia. If you take a look at to the multiples as compared to North America and if you look at just having a basket of those names last year and rebalancing them and being a scavenger even though the gold rally was taking place, buying the cheapest operating cash flow to enterprise value, you far outperformed everything, the top 10 names. In running a mutual fund, we have to have at least 21 names and it ends up being more. Coming The post Frank Holmes: Gold Rally Extremely Likely In January And February appeared first on ValueWalk.

Opus Capital Management monthly market overview, titled, “Quantitative Review Of U.S. Small Cap Value.” Also check out hidden small cap value stocks Key Takeaways Continuing their momentum, U.S. small cap equities rose 2.8% in December, piggybacking off an 11.2% gain in November. Small caps have outperformed U.S. large caps a total of nine (9) months this year. For the year, small caps beat large caps by the widest margin since 2010, outperforming by 9.4%. This return has recovered much of the last two years’ weak relative performance. Historically, when small caps beat large caps by more than 5% in a year, they tend to slightly lag the following year. The Russell 2000 (R2K) is trading at 20.5x P/E, up from 17.4x at the start of the year and well above the 15.7x historical average. Small caps reached an all-time high on December 9th, up 3.0% from the previous record set on November 25th of this year. December has been a historically strong month and this year did not disappoint. For 2016, the Russell 2000 Value Index (R2KV) has outperformed the Russell 2000 Growth Index (R2KG) in nine (9) of twelve (12) months. Combining both December’s and November’s performance, Value outpaced growth by 7.1%, capping off a great performance for a year in which Value outperformed Growth by 20.4%! The outperformance was the largest victory by Value since 2001 when the “Tech Bubble” burst. Much like November, December’s performance was bolstered by the R2KV’s overweight in banks. The R2KV has over 19% more exposure to banks than the R2KG. Furthermore, the R2KG’s performance was not helped by its exposure to Biotechs, which dropped over 22% for the year. Historically, when Value wins by such a large margin, it tends to keep the momentum going forward into the following year. In December, Energy and Financials continued their momentum from November, driving the R2KV’s performance. Banks alone, contributed to 42% of the benchmark’s return. Energy continued to see ETF inflows, propelling performance, after both OPEC and non-OPEC countries agreed on a production cuts at the end of November. Over the last six months, Energy has either been one of the top performing sectors or the worst performing sector during a given month. Counterintuitively, interest-rate-sensitive sectors, Utilities and REITs, performed well even after the Fed decided to raise interest rates for the first time in a year. Finishing the year, Materials & Processing continued its dominating performance, outpacing the second best performing sector, Energy, by 18.6%. Every sector in the R2KV was positive for the year. Fund flows was the theme for the fourth quarter as we saw increased inflows into ETFs. Small cap ETFs took in $17.5B for the year with over $12B in the fourth quarter alone, boosting the smallest market cap names by 27%. Active Managers continue to see outflows, aggregating over $1.5 trillion since 2005. Value managers had the worst showing in small caps with only 10.2% of managers beating the index for the year. The fourth quarter saw a slightly higher figure at 23.2%. The R2KV finished the year with the same theme of favoring lower quality stocks with an emphasis on companies that do not have any earnings. U.S. Small Cap Value With earnings remaining weak and small caps appreciating over 20% this year, valuations have climbed to their highest level ever. The Russell 2000 (R2K) sports a P/E of 20.5x, well above the 17.4x to begin the year. The Russell 2000 Value (R2KV) also recorded its highest valuation ever at 19.6x, towering over its historical average of 13.4x. It has been widely speculated that the new administration will lower corporate taxes, which may propel small caps out of their five (5) quarter earnings recession. December’s factors came in mixed, due to the market favoring certain sectors over others. For example, Banks, which rocketed 30% in the fourth quarter, tend to sport higher than average ROEs and a heavy weight within the R2KV, skewing the market to favoring higher ROEs for the month. Most managers, who are significantly underweight banks and tend to be higher quality, may not have seen a benefit. Fund flows propelled the lowest market cap, which outperformed for the month and the year. Fund flows was the theme for the fourth quarter as we saw increased flows into ETFs. Small cap ETFs took in $17.5B for the year and over $12B in the fourth quarter alone, boosting the smallest market cap names by almost 40%. Value managers had the worst showing in small caps with only 10.2% of managers beating the index for the year. The fourth quarter was slightly better as this figure was 23.2%. Value managers were crushed by an underweight in banks and not owning the “right” Materials & Processing names. These two items contributed to the worst showing for Value managers since 2006, where only 6.8% outperformed the R2KV. It should be noted that the following year, 85.4% of managers outperformed the index. Russell 2000 Value Sector Performance Investors have been encouraged by the thought that President-elect Trump will reignite the economy as this helps Value more than Growth. The R2KV rallied 31.7% in 2016, outpacing the R2KG, which suffered its worst defeat to Value since the “Tech Bubble” in 2001. The R2KG was only up 11.3% during this period. For the year, every sector in the R2KV finished in positive territory, which cannot be said for the R2K and R2KG as Health Care finished negative. Health Care has been pummeled in both of these indices as Biotech, a significant underweight in the R2KV, dropped over 22% for the year. Energy and Financials Services continued their momentum from November into December. Financials Services were propelled by Banks, which increased almost 8% and contributed to 42% of the R2KV’s return due to its 23% benchmark weighting. Interest-rate-sensitive REITs, led by lodging, and Utilities rallied after a poor November, with the U.S. 10-Year Treasury Note being slightly up even after the Fed decided to raise rates and its interest rate forecast for 2017. Not only did Energy and Financial Services drive performance in the month of December, they also drove performance in the fourth quarter. Energy continued to be propelled by the announcement of an OPEC production cut, along with the participation from non-OPEC countries. This boost may be short-lived as the deal may not be enough to reduce the glut, especially if countries fail to comply. During the year, there have been massive sector rotations driving performance. Low volatilty sectors led in the first half of the year, while Financials and Energy rotated in to propel returns in the second half. Materials & Processing continued to climb all year, returning a staggering 62.5% for the year outpacing the second best returning sector, Energy, by 18.6%. Opus Capital Management This monthly market overview focuses on quantitative factors that have impacted the small cap market over the prior period. This is a standardized report on factor behaviors from the previous month along with trends that the market has recently exhibited. Be sure to subscribe to our Insights blog to follow along with our latest thinking. The post Opus Capital Management – Quantitative Review Of U.S. Small Cap Value appeared first on ValueWalk.