Tempted to invest in Japan

amcluesent

Yep, it's been a lemon for 20 years, but that's why I'm thinking about Japan now.

Seems to me that they've done better than us in side-stepping the social problems of mass immigration and have invested in robotics to maintain manufacturing capability with a shrinking/aging population.

The proximity to China will mean easier access to a growing middle-class market for cameras, hi-fi, cars etc.

They've been sensible with energy security - 33% of power is from nuclear plant. Outside of France, they've probably got the most nuclear expertise.

Assets in Yen look a better bet than GBP too.

gozomark

on the flipside

1.their debt to GDP ratio is one of the worst in the developed world
2. by not allowing significant immigration, they have a rapidly aging population, and no-one to pay the pensions
3. camera, hifi and cars are made in China now rather than Japan
4. Japan has a massive current account surplus, so can't export its way out of recession
5. the strong yen is killing many of its exporters - Toyota has massive problems

more importantly, in terms of investing, nothing of what either of us has written is new, and so why should it move the stockmarket ?

tradetime

Well I'm not one for investing personally, but as an intermediate term trading opportunity, it does seem to have possibilities, if for nothing else other than its absolute contrarian nature. For example, Asian banks largely sidestepped the US sub-prime debacle, and as a result have recovered very strongly, however Japanese banks have lagged this recovery, most funds have piled into China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, South Korea, et al, but they have largely ignored Japan, for this reason imo, it is quite possible that money in its continued quest for short term gains could target the laggard, even though there would be no reason to expect the economy to do particularly well, as has been pointed out, there is nothing new here to stop stocks playing catchup.

Jonbvn

IMHO, Japan looks like a good contrarian play. Interestingly, since the new gov't there have not been any significant moves in the market either way.

Certainly, don't bet the farm on it!

2010

Most Japanese companies have moved their production to China and that`s where you should be investing,if at all.

dunstonh

2010 wrote: »

Most Japanese companies have moved their production to China and that`s where you should be investing,if at all.

Even though fears of a bubble in China could see 2010 be a bad year? Although the problem with bubbles is that you never know when they will burst or even if a bubble exists.

Balance the portfolio and dont put all your eggs in one basket. For as many people that say xyz is the best area, there will be others that say its not.

ses6jwg

Immigration is good for the economy in the long term you clown. Most immigrants are young and of working age. Go and look up "UK Demographic time bomb"

But it creates all sorts of social and cultural problems.

opinions4u

ses6jwg wrote: »

Immigration is good for the economy in the long term you clown.

It depends on the skills of the immigrant, surely.

Unskilled and seeking benefits does little for the economy and merely worsens the demographic timebomb and place strain on the rest of a nation's soical infrastructure.

ses6jwg

opinions4u wrote: »

It depends on the skills of the immigrant, surely.

Unskilled and seeking benefits does little for the economy and merely worsens the demographic timebomb and place strain on the rest of a nation's soical infrastructure.

if the immigration from the eastern bloc is anything to go by, these people are highly skilled, young and willing to work, and breed like rabbits.

amcluesent

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

The only major inquiry ever conducted in the UK was carried out by the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords in 2007/08. In April 2008 they reported that "We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration - immigration minus emigration - generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population."

ses6jwg

I'd be interested to see if that argument still stands in 20 years time.



You see that big bulge around 43?

Tick tock tick tock.