Article
Stocks and equity indices that receive the most attention in the media are showing increasingly lower returns when measured against the actual revenues or profits of the underlying companies. This discrepancy led me to start looking elsewhere – toward opportunities that are talked about far less.
Over time, I have been paying more and more attention to sectors that follow a certain internal logic and exhibit relatively recurring cycles. Cycles that are visible both in market behaviour and in the development of accounting data. In some cyclical sectors, stock prices can fall all the way down to book value, or very close to it. At such moments, the balance between risk and potential return begins to change for me. Not because I expect a quick rebound, but because at these levels further declines often become less likely. What tends to be more probable is either a prolonged period of stagnation or a turning of the cycle. To be clear: I am referring here to the book value of companies across an entire sector. I am interested in the sector as a whole, not in individual companies, as company-specific outcomes are usually far less predictable.
I therefore focus on the sector as a whole and its recurring cycles. Time plays a crucial role in this approach. Waiting for a cycle to turn, watching prices move sideways for months or even years, is ultimately a matter of discipline and patience. On the surface, nothing particularly interesting seems to be happening, and that is precisely what many people find most difficult. Paradoxically, however, this phase is psychologically easier for me than constantly moving from one “growth opportunity” to another.
Before I began to observe these types of situations more systematically, I tended to diversify more broadly across different growth sectors. Today, when I see a logically cyclical opportunity and prices are hovering around book value, I am more inclined to concentrate a larger portion of my portfolio.
Continue reading
Enter your email to unlock this article and join the newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime.
Disclaimer
This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial advice, a recommendation to buy or sell any securities, or a guarantee of future market performance. The views expressed are solely those of the author, who may also be an investor. Investing in financial markets involves risk, and each reader should make their own decisions independently and, if necessary, consult with a licensed professional.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
What are cyclical stocks?
What is the price-to-book ratio and why does it matter for cyclical investing?
How does cyclical investing differ from growth investing?
How long can a cyclical bottom last?
Should investors try to time the top of a cycle?
Is cyclical investing suitable for everyone?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
Related articles
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data — yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset — and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
If I take a certain risk, how much can I gain — and how much can I lose?
These two steps are, right now, shaping my life and the direction I am heading in.
More articles
Prague, 13 May 2026. On my way to work I started thinking about something that stayed with me for days. If most routine work on a computer disappears in the next ten years, and a large share of repetitive manual work disappears with it, what happens to the flow of money? Who pays whom for what? Which economic layers will exist, how large will they be, and what relationships will run between them? This is the six-layer map I sketched as an answer.
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed — but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
One hour. Fifty-five minutes. That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code. Not a prototype. Not a proof of concept. A working tool — the one the company actually needed. By the evening of the same day, it was running on staging. This is not about Claude Code. It is about what Claude Code exposes.
I have conducted roughly one hundred and fifty practical interviews over the past four years. Fifty for data specialist roles. A hundred for advertising and performance marketing specialists. Almost every one of them involved sitting down with a candidate over a practical task — something close to a real problem we actually need to solve at the company. Not theory. Not trivia. Applied problem-solving. Over time, I started noticing a pattern.
Before you can teach AI to understand anything, you need to see what it is hiding from you.
The moment other people needed access to it, the problem changed completely. It was no longer about whether the agent could learn. It was about who gets to teach it.
I wanted to build an agent that doesn't just assist. One that acts.
This is what I learned about local vs cloud AI, and why I switched to Claude Code.
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.