Discussion in 'Stocks & Derivatives' started by AgStalker, Aug 27, 2020.
Thanks for adding to the discussion. Your advice much appreciated also.
Yeah there are plentiy of blue chip stocks still available at very depressed prices that are very very good bets to double ones money or at least not to lose out over 5 year Horizon.
There's nothing evil about them and they’re certainly not environmental terrorists.
Well it is my view, you can have your view, much like tobacco, junk food or soft drink companies they are unnecessary but it's not illegal and if I can get my cut, I will happily own their shares.
Everyone has opinions, whether they're justified or not.
On the topic of ESG, brand perception is a key driver in innovation:
The companies with the best ESG will find the fewest barriers as they push ahead.
Share commissions isn't an issue for me as I don't trade, only buy and sell once in a blue moon. The primary issue I have with US companies is the dividend tax of 37%. I'm still looking for a way to reduce that tax.
To me, coal and natural gas are a hedge for oil stock. If the world is going to switch to electric cars, they will need to double the amount of electricity that is going to be produced. This is obviously impossible with the all the blackouts happening in the developing world, there isn't even enough electricity to begin with. The only way is to build more power plants which uses natural gas and coal.
They could go nuclear, but nuclear plants take decades to build and commission, never mind it's dirtier than fossil fuel. But in the end, it might be cheaper, not to mention cleaner, to make pollutant filters to remove all the carbon and sulphur than to build nuclear plants.
Coal is nonetheless a risky play so I'm basically treating it like a lottery bet and I'm prepared to lose the investment.
Interesting take on the future of energy.
Seems like a "hedging" strategy to me. Perhaps Uranium would be a more promising side-bet?
I bought a small stake of uranium stock soon after the Fukushima daichi nuclear disaster and sold it only recently taking a loss. There might be an opportunity in Uranium but it will take lots of research to understand why the price keeps falling.
@AgStalker and others, I'm not sure if you've availed yourself of "Thunder Said Energy's" email updates, but the latest one I've received is a free downloadable report on CO2 Pricing.
I won't link it here as these reports contain links in them to products that you have to pay for, but from the opening statement:
It's quite critical of the current system in the US, arguing that many of the incentives for technologies aimed at reducing the emissions of CO2 are akin to bribery, labelling them as "sacred cows receiving unique incentives or exemptions", and yes Tesla is part of the problem though not specifically mentioned.
They claim that their research and policy suggestions can completely decarbonise the environment by 2050. That's likely to be at the end of my life-span, I would truly like to see how their claim stands up.
Mark Moss (US analyst) argues that low interest rates for the foreseeable future, combined with the possibility of rising inflation will mean that funds will have to go to the stock market in order to see any gainful returns for their clients that beat the inflation tax. He's also well-known in the crypto community so would see this as an increasingly likely event amongst fund managers:
And of course, gold will have a place. Though I'm personally not buying any more having spent the past decade accumulating all I need or am willing to buy. But for anyone who hasn't already established a position in gold it's probably a good focus.
Interesting the mention of nuclear power,
Why we haven't invested in this here is beyond me. It's a no brainer. We have the land mass and the Uranium. We have the scientific tech too. Of course the coal barons will have a fit
"There are several legal hurdles impeding consideration of nuclear power for Australia. NSW has a Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibition) Act 1986, and Victoria has a Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983. Federally, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1988 will need to be amended to remove prohibitions against effective regulation of nuclear power.*
* The ARPANS Act 1998 has section 10 Prohibition on certain nuclear installations, and the EPBC Act 1999 much the same in section 140A. ARPANS Act section 10:"
excerpt from: https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...m resources are,one-quarter of energy exports.
And so the question remains, why have we barred ourselves from this pursuit with stupid laws when nations of lesser repute are free to explore. Isnt science a human right?
I’m not against nuclear power but why would Australia need nuclear when you have lots of NG and lots of land suitable for solar farms? Nuclear power is also one of most expensive source of electricity even without considering the risk of an accident.
Gas is the go.
Also I bought some Genex shares last week, speculative acquisition. They’re developing battery storage facilities with the intention of of supplementing the grid in times of high demand with power produced by their solar farms and hydro facility.
They just bought a patch of land next to a substation about an hour from where I live.
I’ll be able to keep an eye on its development every so often and offer advice over the fence if they ask.
Thunder Said Energy on decarbonisation, and cautions us on hydrogen technology.
I personally think that it's insanity that Australia isn't running its energy infrastructure on the abundant natural gas reserves that we have.
here’s the right link:
https://www.energy.gov.au/data/electricity-generation#:~:text=Total electricity generation in Australia,use by businesses and households.&text=Renewables contributed 19% of total,, and solar (5%).
Maybe it's probably more profitable to export NG than to use it domestically? Whether you burn coal or NG, it still becomes CO2 and sulphur exists in NG as well.
I seriously can't see why can't power plants scrub off the pollutants from the emission when they are already doing it for petrochemical plants. They probably can and it can be done cheaply, but as with Hydroxychloroquine, it's more profitable to sell expensive wind turbines and battery system which in addition to the capital cost, will also cost a fortune for yearly maintenance, just as it is more profitable to sell a $500 a dose Remdesivir than a 50 cents a pill Hydroxychloroquine.
Separate names with a comma.