Investing in future hotspots

[Whakamole]

Not necessarily geographical, but sectors.

I'd like to know what people think around here.

Dent was pushing financial, health care and leisure.

Right now I'm looking at:
- water. Friend of mine was in the water industry, there is incredible growth there as water reservoirs drop and more people want and need fresh water. Lots of investment opportunities, from those who make pipes and purification systems to utilities and operations management.
- nuclear. Gas and oil and starting to run low. Unless we go back to coal, nuclear is the best bet for generating power and lots of it. There are improved technologies that make plants safer and cleaner, and they're working on waste disposal too. I don't see any real alternative right now, solar and wind are relatively expensive for the amount of power you get.

 

[charlie]

Both Bernstein and Swedroe think that picking sectors
is only a little less risky than picking individual stocks.
Bernstein thinks that REITS and precious metals are
the only sectors worth considering because of their
low correlation with the total market and inflation
protection.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I'm getting old around here. I remember we had a thread somewhere around here about this same topic about 6-8 months ago. Went on for some time.

There are also a couple of funds that specialize in this sort of thing, and change the sectors. I think one of them was called 'new age'?

 

[wabmester]

In order for a sector bet to pay off, you have to pick a sector that will grow faster than everybody else thinks it will grow.

Despite Bernstein's claims to the contrary, this was true for the tech sector and for health care over the last 20 years.   Obviously, if you pick a timeframe long enough, all sectors eventually revert to the mean, but most people know better than to continue to hold a sector too long.   I'm sure nobody here thinks railroad stocks are still a good bet.    Likewise, tech has probably run it's course, and health care can't sustain hypergrowth much longer.

Energy has been a great play over the last couple of years and might be sustainable, but I think too many people are making that bet, and it might be a good time to take some money off the table.

 

[Nords]

I remember when nuclear energy was the answer.

Unfortunately we have yet to adequately define the question.

The world already has a water problem. Scientific American did a great column last month on Bangladesh drilling hundreds of wells in villages and backyards-- unfortunately the water is contaminated with arsenic.

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse....4C3123C-2B35-221B-66683A5B0ECF5F0D&sc=I100322

"Water investing" could be a great niche. The Navy is moving from steam-fired evaporators to reverse-osmosis desalinators (over 250K GPD) and the Army has been using a similar system for several years. Hawaii has been leisurely experimenting with a desalination plant but several countries depend on them every day to avoid civil unrest. Maybe the technology is a better investment than the project.

In the 1950s/60s, nuclear utilities were going to produce power so cheaply that no one would bother metering it-- the meters would be too expensive!

Unfortunately we neglected to consider the realistic costs of design & construction plus refueling. But "otherwise" it was really cheap...

Solar might be worth another look. Arrays are more efficient & flexible, and one company even makes roof tiles that double as solar panels. I've been looking at a 20-year payback on the capital expense, but I didn't include 5-10% annual inflation or $50 oil in that calculation. Hawaii's unlikely to build a nuclear utility and we sure can't import the power from other states' grids, so solar is looking better every day.

Maybe this is the thread that th alluded to: http://early-retirement.org/cgi-bin...s_board;action=display;num=1087969949;start=0

 

[Brat]

Nuclear power generation isn't dead

Ah yes, too cheap to meter - I remember that claim. It seems that there are two approaches to nuclear power, the other may be worth considering. Read this:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html?pg=1&topic=china&topic_set

Note that this also generates hydrogen.

 

[unclemick]

Interesting - I saw my first pebble bed reactor using Helium about ?20 + yrs. ago on PBS tv - demo model in Germany. I suspect China doesn't suffer from European politics.

 

[John Galt]

I saw my first major bed reaction about 40 years ago.
As I recall we used Budweiser to produce the desired
result, although at that age I hardly needed any extra fuel

John Galt

 

[Brat]

The initial use of bed reactors will probably be in China. If we think the availability of energy in the future is a problem to the USA consider the impact on China! I would love to buy a few shares of the company that builds those reactors.

As a kid I wanted to be a physicist. When I learned that the opportunities for women were limited I booked a degree in mathematics in short order and got on with life. However, the social/political impact on physics research has always facinated me.

<<As I recall we used Budweiser to produce the desired result>> In my neighborhood we would have used Oly.