What would you do with E38,000?

Glacier

I have an investment of E38,000 that matures next January and think I should start thinking what to do with it. I know things aren;t good, Any ideas?

ixus

I've considered pressing that warning/reporting button attached to posts.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055345964
You were only on the other day asking something similar and you never respond to any advice.

What are you at?

Glacier

No, now I'm just asking specifically about this money.

Pawwed Rig

Audi TT

pocketdooz

Open a US dollar based online trading account and buy these stocks.

Amcol International
ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES
BIOSANTE PHARMS.
Caliper Life Sciences
Cabot Corp.
Emcore
FLAMEL TECHS.SPN.ADR 1:1
FEI
HEADWATERS
JMAR Tech
MTS Systems
Nanometrics
NANOPHASE TECHS.
Nanogen
NVE
Universal Display
Pharmacoeia
SkyePharma
SYMYX TECHS.
Ultratech
HARRIS & HARRIS GP.
VEECO INSTRUMENTS
Westaim



Wait 10 years.

Retire.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pocketdooz

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They are a well diversified portfolio of companies and vc's whose future profits are tied to the nanotechnology and biotechnology industries.

For more info. PM me if you want

turf

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Audi TT

fek that. coke and hookers party.




stay away from hedge funds anyway for now, i see their accounts at work and they're droppin like flies..

irish_bob

the only people who make money out of funds are fund managers, they get paid even they make lousy choices of where to put other peoples money

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pocketdooz

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

DaveIRL - it would be a portfolio of stocks that play on the nanotechnology and biotechnology industries. You're investing in the industry as whole. That's why there are Powershares / VCs etc. in the list.

Because of the number of stocks in the portfolio, you are spreading your investments over different sectors whose future profits are tied to those industries (semiconductors / clean energy / renewable energy / high-tech manufacturing / security etc.etc.) That is what I mean by diversified.

I'm sure we already knew "By definition that's not diversified" and I'm sure we all knew what I meant. With regard to pump and dump companies - if you have the time - just take a look at the companies listed above and you will see that they are not pump and dumps.

See excel sheet attached for further info - check the E(R) - expected return, variance and standard deviation of these stocks. These are very volatile stocks. It is my belief (after much work on the subject) that the next investment boom in the United States is going to be in the Life Sciences / Nanotechnology / Biotechnology / Clean Energy industries.

You may not agree and that's fine - IF I'm right though, these companies I have listed will be at the forefront of this investment boom (and Zyvex if it ever goes public).

By the way, my post says "companies and vc's whose future profits are tied to the nanotechnology and biotechnology industries" not that I would advocate to "pump 38k into biotech" - big difference.

Time Magazine

pocketdooz wrote: »

It is my belief (after much work on the subject) that the next investment boom in the United States is going to be in the Life Sciences / Nanotechnology / Biotechnology / Clean Energy industries.

Of course you may be right, but I don't really see the potential in nanotechnology. Well of course I see the potential, but I think they've already been evaluated into the pricing mechanism and they represent just another over-hyped technology.

As for clean energies, I really only see nuclear coming to the fore in terms of public policy.

pocketdooz

Antithetic wrote: »

Of course you may be right, but I don't really see the potential in nanotechnology. Well of course I see the potential,

but I think they've already been evaluated into the pricing mechanism

and they represent just another over-hyped technology.

As for clean energies, I really only see nuclear coming to the fore in terms of public policy.

That's a very interesting post.

1. Do you ? . . . or Don't you see the potential ?

2. What "they" have already been "evaluated into the pricing mechanism" ?

3. What does that even mean "evaluated into the pricing mechanism" ?

4. Really, they represent just another over-hyped technology ? Could you explain what (if anything) you know about nanotechnology please ?

5. You don't see hydro power, solar power, wind power or biofuels coming to the fore in terms of public policy ?

Time Magazine

pocketdooz wrote: »

That's a very interesting post.

1. Do you ? . . . or Don't you see the potential ?

I see the possibilities of the technologies, much like I see the possibilities of lunar exploration. It does not mean I consider it an optimal investment strategy, though. Of course I am approaching it with an open-mind; there's a chance that something huge will come of it. But I've seen too many reports of "Look at the possibilities!" rather than "Look at the profitabilities" to be convinced.

2. What "they" have already been "evaluated into the pricing mechanism" ?

The possible breakthroughs by the probabilities of them occurring. The potential commercial viability of polymer templating, etc.

Most likely "they" have not even been discovered yet.

3. What does that even mean "evaluated into the pricing mechanism" ?

You know, that pricing of risk thing that we talk about sometimes. A fundamental element of this is that breakthroughs often occur from universities-borne start-ups, fed from VC. Your portfolio of "diversified technology stocks" would not have included Google in 1998. There's a reasonable likelihood of the same absence in any portfolio of nanotech.

4. Really, they represent just another over-hyped technology ?

In my opinion, yes. Academia is as subject to bubbles as the market.

Could you explain what (if anything) you know about nanotechnology please ?

Unfortunately I imagine exaplaining all I know about nanotechnology would be a waste of half an hour of my time. Ub light of the construction of CRANN, I've read up quite a bit on what this new boat-like building is part of and it doesn't hurt that one of my buddies is doing his PhD in physics. He has told me plenty about polymers and programmable matter. All of this is still frontier technology with few realised results. Sure, if you want to jump into that boat you're welcome to. You might get lucky. Or you could be unlucky and end up realising that the Google-equivalent nano-stock has not been formed yet, nevermind floated.

5. You don't see hydro power

No. There seems to be almost no appetite for it in the US.

solar power

Possibly. Seems the most marketable to a populace and the RES is making political ground in California in particular, but I still see nuclear as the most likely option in large, industrialised nations.

wind power

No.

biofuels

Absolutely not. The impact on food prices are far too damaging.

Antithetic

Antithetic wrote: »

Possibly. Seems the most marketable to a populace and the RES is making political ground in California in particular, but I still see nuclear as the most likely option in large, industrialised nations.

Nuclear power is the only proven, reliable and scalable power source that works, is clean* and doesn't need huge tax exemptions to work.

Solar power is very expensive and not that scalable and not reliable. And I don't really see it becoming the primary enegry in Western Europe.

Same for wind power, its not reliable enough yet. Hyrdo is (I think, I don't know much about it) but its not popular and won't really work in Ireland as we don't have the rivers for it.

*When compared to fossil fuels.

pocketdooz

Antithetic wrote: »

I see the possibilities of the technologies, much like I see the possibilities of lunar exploration. It does not mean I consider it an optimal investment strategy, though. Of course I am approaching it with an open-mind; there's a chance that something huge will come of it. But I've seen too many reports of "Look at the possibilities!" rather than "Look at the profitabilities" to be convinced.

The possible breakthroughs by the probabilities of them occurring. The potential commercial viability of polymer templating, etc.

Most likely "they" have not even been discovered yet.

You know, that pricing of risk thing that we talk about sometimes. A fundamental element of this is that breakthroughs often occur from universities-borne start-ups, fed from VC. Your portfolio of "diversified technology stocks" would not have included Google in 1998. There's a reasonable likelihood of the same absence in any portfolio of nanotech.

In my opinion, yes. Academia is as subject to bubbles as the market.

Unfortunately I imagine exaplaining all I know about nanotechnology would be a waste of half an hour of my time. Ub light of the construction of CRANN, I've read up quite a bit on what this new boat-like building is part of and it doesn't hurt that one of my buddies is doing his PhD in physics. He has told me plenty about polymers and programmable matter. All of this is still frontier technology with few realised results. Sure, if you want to jump into that boat you're welcome to. You might get lucky. Or you could be unlucky and end up realising that the Google-equivalent nano-stock has not been formed yet, nevermind floated.

No. There seems to be almost no appetite for it in the US.

Possibly. Seems the most marketable to a populace and the RES is making political ground in California in particular, but I still see nuclear as the most likely option in large, industrialised nations.

No.

Absolutely not. The impact on food prices are far too damaging.

Well written answer. I suppose we just have different opinions on how promising Nanotech is.

TommyGunne

Nanotech has huge variance. Advising an investment of what is likely a considerable portion of the OPs fund into an industry with such high variance without saying this is irresponsible imo.

pocketdooz

TommyGunne wrote: »

Nanotech has huge variance. Advising an investment of what is likely a considerable portion of the OPs fund into an industry with such high variance without saying this is irresponsible imo.

Tommy, see post 11

pocketdooz wrote: »

you are spreading your investments over different sectors whose future profits are tied to those industries (semiconductors / clean energy / renewable energy / high-tech manufacturing / security etc.etc.)

See excel sheet attached for further info - check the E(R) - expected return, variance and standard deviation of these stocks.

These are very volatile stocks.

. . . . How can I put it more clearly than "these are very volatile stocks" ?

I also included a spreadsheet of all monthly closing prices of these stocks for the past 5 years with their variance and standard deviation laid out.








.

cj.oneill

If you're looking at high risk and potential for good profits then maybe consider buying a few stocks in the following sectors:
Renewable energy - Solar (thin film in particular), Geothermal, Ocean, Wind (although wind is now a fairly mature industry without the same potential for explosive growth and with lower margins).

I would disagree that solar is not very scaleable - it's currently experiencing exponential growth and some companies costs are becoming competitive with fossil fuels, which are forecast to decline in availability.

Some solar related stocks that may be worth exploring further are:
AMAT, ASTI, AXTI, SOL, ESLR, STP, LDK, CSIQ, ASTI.

Geothermal WGP - very speculative.

Miners supplying polymetals (Gallium, Germanium, Telluride, Indium( etc.) that will be used in next generation thin-film solar and battery technology could be a good play as these metals are very rare.
Potentials for looking into include: PCU, KGA, GCU, ELM

Molybdenum miners could be a good play - molybdenum is used for hardening e.g. steel. Supply is not keeping up with demand and demand will increase further as oil and gas explorers start looking in more extreme environments. Also good infratructure play. TC has good reserves and looking undervalued.

Water invesments probably a good idea given current and forecast situation. There are some good etf's e.g. PHO. But also desalination, leak detection, water purification etc.

Long term zinc, but there is an oversupply at present. Keep an eye on it because may start experiencing tighter supply over next 2yrs.

Agriculture equipment suppliers are a good way of playing food price and biofuels boom without investing directly in soft commodities and therefore affecting food prices - equipment manufacturers such as DE or CAT, or fertiliser companies (preferably vertically integrated one). Interesting ones (currently undergoing a bit of a pullback): AGU, MOS. A lot of potash exploration is being carried out, so there may be an oversupply a few years down the line, or the increase in cost of petrochemicals may mean demand for potash increases.

Precious metals have had a fairly substantial correction and there is huge potential for upside right now. ETF's such as GLD or SLV. Also gold or platinum miners with large reserves in stable countries. NG, AQP. There are double leveraged funds that you could look up, although you're playing with fire there.

Pharma stocks are often a good bet in turbulent times. BQE is looking undervalued given they are pioneering a treatment system for MRSA in hospitals.

If you look into the above sectors with a 5-10yr outlook then you could see very good returns. A lot of it is highly speculative and high risk given current economic outlook.

pocketdooz

cj.oneill wrote: »

If you're looking at high risk and potential for good profits then maybe consider buying a few stocks in the following sectors:
Renewable energy - Solar (thin film in particular), Geothermal, Ocean, Wind (although wind is now a fairly mature industry without the same potential for explosive growth and with lower margins).

I would disagree that solar is not very scaleable - it's currently experiencing exponential growth and some companies costs are becoming competitive with fossil fuels, which are forecast to decline in availability.

Some solar related stocks that may be worth exploring further are:
AMAT, ASTI, AXTI, SOL, ESLR, STP, LDK, CSIQ, ASTI.

Geothermal WGP - very speculative.

Miners supplying polymetals (Gallium, Germanium, Telluride, Indium( etc.) that will be used in next generation thin-film solar and battery technology could be a good play as these metals are very rare.
Potentials for looking into include: PCU, KGA, GCU, ELM

Molybdenum miners could be a good play - molybdenum is used for hardening e.g. steel. Supply is not keeping up with demand and demand will increase further as oil and gas explorers start looking in more extreme environments. Also good infratructure play. TC has good reserves and looking undervalued.

Water invesments probably a good idea given current and forecast situation. There are some good etf's e.g. PHO. But also desalination, leak detection, water purification etc.

Long term zinc, but there is an oversupply at present. Keep an eye on it because may start experiencing tighter supply over next 2yrs.

Agriculture equipment suppliers are a good way of playing food price and biofuels boom without investing directly in soft commodities and therefore affecting food prices - equipment manufacturers such as DE or CAT, or fertiliser companies (preferably vertically integrated one). Interesting ones (currently undergoing a bit of a pullback): AGU, MOS. A lot of potash exploration is being carried out, so there may be an oversupply a few years down the line, or the increase in cost of petrochemicals may mean demand for potash increases.

Precious metals have had a fairly substantial correction and there is huge potential for upside right now. ETF's such as GLD or SLV. Also gold or platinum miners with large reserves in stable countries. NG, AQP. There are double leveraged funds that you could look up, although you're playing with fire there.

Pharma stocks are often a good bet in turbulent times. BQE is looking undervalued given they are pioneering a treatment system for MRSA in hospitals.

If you look into the above sectors with a 5-10yr outlook then you could see very good returns. A lot of it is highly speculative and high risk given current economic outlook.

Nice - what do you do CJ ? Good post - I'm thinking along similar lines at present. I've a huge amount of research done on biotech, nanotech and clean energy stocks and have started buying them over the past year. Feel free to send a PM and get in touch if you like