Stocks to Hold for Next Ten Years.

AnotherJoe

BrockStoker said:

Old_Lifer said:

The best performing company over the next 10 years may well be a small company which few today will have heard of ,  which in 10 years time and with the benefit of hindsight,   lots of  investment  'experts' and share tipsters will be happy to recommend.

I'm only going to give one "tip". You can see what else I like if you find my thread on this forum. I pretty much exclusively invest in biotech (where individual stocks are concerned), and the sector is very much in a sweet-spot right now.

The company I'd recommend is Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ARWR?p=ARWR

So I currently hold around 15 biotech stocks, and this one stands out from the others like a sore thumb, because:

- It has a proprietary platform based on RNAi technology (just coming of age) which is best in class in the industry, and it keeps churning out "golden eggs". This one has the big boys of the industry worried, it's so disruptive and aggressive. Two of it's RNAi competitors (there are only 4 or 5 that I'm aware of), with a combined marked cap significantly larger that ARWR recently joined forces to take on ARWR, but I don't think they stand much of a chance! ARWR even has Vertex (a major biotech with a very profitable Cystic Fibrosis monopoly) worried with it's new CF drug which is looking like it will eclipse all of Vertex's CF drug portfolio. ARWR could very well sweep the rug right from under Vertex, and ARWR know this - it's already hinted at being aproached by "big pharma" (probably Vertex and some others) who all want to get their hands on the drug, which if given the nod by the FDA, could be worth 10's of billions.

-Their pipeline is second to none! There is a HUGE list of potential targets for their platform, and ARWR have been very busy patenting anything and everything that they can on that list. Their CF drug (mentioned above) is just the tip of the (very large) iceberg, so they have MULTIPLE shots on goal, and only need a few to succeed in order to grow significantly - but, in all honesty, all of them look promising looking at early data.

-They have strong finances, with revenue from partnerships/milestone payments coming in already (they are just becoming profitable - a great time to get in on the story). They did have some "deferred revenue", but their CFO recently said that they are expecting to have that revenue in their coffers before the year is out, giving them enough cash to keep them going for 4-5 years without any further income (which obviously won't be the case now). Cash burn rate is usually the largest problem for small biotechs, but in this case it's not an issue.

-Multiple data readouts (catalysts) for the second half of this year, and the pace is going to pick up after.

-Investor friendly management dedicated to adding shareholder value at every possible opportunity.

-Strategic partnerships with the big boys (J&J, and Amgen to name two), but they are clever not to partner too much - only what they need to.

-Lastly, and very importantly, early data shows that RNAi tech is extremely effective, targeted, and free from adverse side effects. It's a very new tech, and EASILY has the edge over all else that has come before it in terms of medicine. That is a big statement to make, and I do not say it lightly. It is my honest opinion.

Edit to add one more:

-They are very undervalued currently!

I'm sure I'm missing multiple points here, but they are all covered if you go to the link I posted above and spend some time going through the message board there - it's worth spending a few nights reading through older posts - one of the best boards, if not the best, that I have come across. There is also a bit more info on my own thread, but it all came from the Yahoo board.

Risks? Well, there are always risks with individual stocks, but as far as small biotechs go, this is easily the least risky one I hold currently, which is why I have significantly overweighted it, to the point where it makes up 1/3 of my portfolios value at this time. I bought at an average of just over $29.50 p/s (correction - that's what my portfolio tracker says, but it's actually more like $25 since I had to sell/re-buy due to a mix up with my contributions in one of my wrappers) and it's already up nearly 50% for me, but I suspect it will be double that soon (EOY probably), and will go much much higher in years to come I have no doubt. Any company can fail, but I don't think this one will. Patience may be required as biotechs can be volatile (be warned!), but if you don't mind some volatility, and can stay with it, I think anyone investing now will be very happy with the return in a few years, if not sooner! It's already starting to go up, so if you want to buy, waiting (for a dip) may be futile, but I could be wrong.

I wouldn't normally rave about a company, but I really do think there is something special here, worth raving about! Hope it helps someone!

Edit to add - just saw this new analysis (although I strongly believe the analyst is significantly undervaluing ARWR - see the message board linked above for supporting evidence):

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4356075-arrowhead-pharmaceuticals-is-long-term-investment-to-consider

What happened last October - January ? 

Ciprico

AnotherJoe said:

Old_Lifer said:

Hydrogen.     There are already hydrogen powered cars  and buses ( London has ordered some).

Hydrogen is dead for anything smaller than trucks and most likely for trucks also (we'll see in a few months when Tesla  start shipping their large truck in the USA and see if Musks promises stand up).

H2 is fundamentally 3x more expensive to run than direct electric into a battery, and 5-10x more expensive to put filling stations in. This is why its obsolete, economics. Shanghai alone has something like 10,000 electric buses. London has pointlessly spaffed a few million on maybe a dozen H2 buses.

As an aside H2 is also (currently) not "green" in that most is made by breaking down gas and releasing CO2. To make it without creating CO2  means using electricity to electrolyse it out of H2O and then reverse the process in a fuel cell into battery, losing something like 60% efficiency along the way, hence the 3:1 advantage direct electricity into the battery has. For buses its especially pointless since you know what mileage a bus will do so there's not even the canard that you can fill a tank in 5 minutes as opposed to 5 hours for a battery, since you recharge the batteries at night (using cheap electrity to boot).and the battery is sized to do a full days work.

Real possibilities for H2 are ships and maybe larger aircraft simply because batteries wont scale that way for a considerable time.

Apparently ITM use excess electricity from solar/wind, which currently can't be stored, for electrolysis so making H production relatively cheap and green....

MaxiRobriguez

Sleep easy at night: Amazon
Dream wildly: MnG

Which feels odd writing that as they should be the other way round...

Eco_Miser

kinger101 said:

Old_Lifer said:

Hydrogen.     There are already hydrogen powered cars  and buses ( London has ordered some).

I wasn't sure whether AJ's "name just one..." related to alternatives to batteries or limitations.  I suspect the latter as hydrogen was already alluded to when mentioning Nikola.

Personally, I'm skeptical about hydrogen.  Diesel has a density of 38.6 MJ/L.  The most energy dense form of hydrogen available has a density of around 10 MJ/L.  But the reality is most vehicles will use compressed rather than liquid hydrogen.  At around 350 bar, that gives about 2.5 MJ/L.  On a par with with best lithium ion batteries.  I would seem there's more room for battery technology to improve than hydrogen technology, though charging likely needs to be part of that solution.  But that seems a more tractable problem than the infrastructure that would be required for hydrogen, and the folly of needlessly wasting electricity to covert water to hydrogen (it's not 100% efficient) and then using even more to compress it when the electric motor already exists.

Infrastructure for Hydrogen should be solved in about ten years, if the proposals for switching domestic gas to Hydrogen, currently being trialed, go ahead.
Doesn't invalidate your other arguments.

BrockStoker

AnotherJoe said:

What happened last October - January ? 

Buyout rumors basically. But there were also data readouts that helped, so it wasn't all "hot air". Since then some analysts have also noted that that company has fundamentally changed, from speculative to actually earning money, part of what is driving the recent share price increase.

There is also a significant change to the investment thesis due to this news which came to my attention after my previous posts on here:

https://www.studyfinds.org/accidental-discovery-leads-to-parkinsons-disease-cure-in-mice/

This is an indication that ARWR will be able to pursue with their technology, and I have no doubt they will be moving fast to add it to their pipeline as it is a major indication. No one has been able to treat Parkinsons disease, let alone cure it, and this research suggests that ARWR will be able to effectively cure it with their siRNA tech. This really is a major deal in the making for ARWR, although they have yet to publicly acknowledge it, but knowing them, it won't be too long. Keep in mind that the FDA is very amenable when it comes to new treatments where there is a significant unmet need (fast tracked approvals and such like), and Parkinsons is one of the BIG ones.

Keep in mind also, that while ARWR has yet to complete a phase 3 trial, all it's human data readouds so far have been immaculate. When the next data starts to hit (over the next few weeks/months) I have no doubt we will see a surge in share price much like the one late last year. Management has hinted that the data is going to blow everyone away.

I've stuck my neck out here, because if it does screw up I'll look stupid, but putting my money where my mouth is - I bought another 80 shares the other day, and hope to accumulate more if there is another dip.

kinger101

123mat123 said:

AnotherJoe said:

Old_Lifer said:

Hydrogen.     There are already hydrogen powered cars  and buses ( London has ordered some).

Hydrogen is dead for anything smaller than trucks and most likely for trucks also (we'll see in a few months when Tesla  start shipping their large truck in the USA and see if Musks promises stand up).

H2 is fundamentally 3x more expensive to run than direct electric into a battery, and 5-10x more expensive to put filling stations in. This is why its obsolete, economics. Shanghai alone has something like 10,000 electric buses. London has pointlessly spaffed a few million on maybe a dozen H2 buses.

As an aside H2 is also (currently) not "green" in that most is made by breaking down gas and releasing CO2. To make it without creating CO2  means using electricity to electrolyse it out of H2O and then reverse the process in a fuel cell into battery, losing something like 60% efficiency along the way, hence the 3:1 advantage direct electricity into the battery has. For buses its especially pointless since you know what mileage a bus will do so there's not even the canard that you can fill a tank in 5 minutes as opposed to 5 hours for a battery, since you recharge the batteries at night (using cheap electrity to boot).and the battery is sized to do a full days work.

Real possibilities for H2 are ships and maybe larger aircraft simply because batteries wont scale that way for a considerable time.

Apparently ITM use excess electricity from solar/wind, which currently can't be stored, for electrolysis so making H production relatively cheap and green....

When more people are driving electric vehicles or heating their homes with electricity, there won't be a supply to cheap excess energy because everyone's home and vehicle will be a store.  Difficult to see how the economics of hydrogen generation will stack up then, given the amount of energy wasted in both electrolysis and the subsequent compression of the hydrogen [it's useless at 1 bar].

I don't even think hydrogen in it's pure form is that useful as an aviation fuel.  Even liquid hydrogen has less than one third the energy density of kerosene.  So more likely, it will have to be converted into a synthetic fuel first.

Thrugelmir

123mat123 said:

AnotherJoe said:

Old_Lifer said:

Hydrogen.     There are already hydrogen powered cars  and buses ( London has ordered some).

Hydrogen is dead for anything smaller than trucks and most likely for trucks also (we'll see in a few months when Tesla  start shipping their large truck in the USA and see if Musks promises stand up).

H2 is fundamentally 3x more expensive to run than direct electric into a battery, and 5-10x more expensive to put filling stations in. This is why its obsolete, economics. Shanghai alone has something like 10,000 electric buses. London has pointlessly spaffed a few million on maybe a dozen H2 buses.

As an aside H2 is also (currently) not "green" in that most is made by breaking down gas and releasing CO2. To make it without creating CO2  means using electricity to electrolyse it out of H2O and then reverse the process in a fuel cell into battery, losing something like 60% efficiency along the way, hence the 3:1 advantage direct electricity into the battery has. For buses its especially pointless since you know what mileage a bus will do so there's not even the canard that you can fill a tank in 5 minutes as opposed to 5 hours for a battery, since you recharge the batteries at night (using cheap electrity to boot).and the battery is sized to do a full days work.

Real possibilities for H2 are ships and maybe larger aircraft simply because batteries wont scale that way for a considerable time.

Apparently ITM use excess electricity from solar/wind, which currently can't be stored, for electrolysis so making H production relatively cheap and green....

Storage is being built all the time. 

Thrugelmir

AnotherJoe said:

Thrugelmir said:

kinger101 said:

Old_Lifer said:

Hydrogen.     There are already hydrogen powered cars  and buses ( London has ordered some).

I wasn't sure whether AJ's "name just one..." related to alternatives to batteries or limitations.  I suspect the latter as hydrogen was already alluded to when mentioning Nikola.

Personally, I'm skeptical about hydrogen.  Diesel has a density of 38.6 MJ/L.  The most energy dense form of hydrogen available has a density of around 10 MJ/L.  But the reality is most vehicles will use compressed rather than liquid hydrogen.  At around 350 bar, that gives about 2.5 MJ/L.  On a par with with best lithium ion batteries.  I would seem there's more room for battery technology to improve than hydrogen technology, though charging likely needs to be part of that solution.  But that seems a more tractable problem than the infrastructure that would be required for hydrogen, and the folly of needlessly wasting electricity to covert water to hydrogen (it's not 100% efficient) and then using even more to compress it when the electric motor already exists.

As an aside, I'd question the ability to innovate for any company the called itself Nikola some 11 years after Tesla was founded. But the lack of a credibility rarely seems a barrier to raising large amounts of money on Nasdaq which which to pay oneself handsomely.
 

Cobalt mining will undoubtably come under close scrutiny again in the future. 

Usually by fossil fuel interests who ignore the problem closer at hand, which is that petrol refining uses a lot of cobalt and that literally just goes up in smoke, whereas that in batteries can at least be recycled.

In any case its already being phased out, the latest Made In China Model 3 has no cobalt. More will follow suit.  Non issue.

Tesla have struck a deal with Glencore. Tesla isn't just about cars. 

Old_Lifer

If anyone is interested an interesting article on hydrogen here:

https:/www.chemistryworld.com/features/hydrogen.storage.gets.real/3010794.article

AnotherJoe

Eco_Miser said:

kinger101 said:

Old_Lifer said:

Hydrogen.     There are already hydrogen powered cars  and buses ( London has ordered some).

I wasn't sure whether AJ's "name just one..." related to alternatives to batteries or limitations.  I suspect the latter as hydrogen was already alluded to when mentioning Nikola.

Personally, I'm skeptical about hydrogen.  Diesel has a density of 38.6 MJ/L.  The most energy dense form of hydrogen available has a density of around 10 MJ/L.  But the reality is most vehicles will use compressed rather than liquid hydrogen.  At around 350 bar, that gives about 2.5 MJ/L.  On a par with with best lithium ion batteries.  I would seem there's more room for battery technology to improve than hydrogen technology, though charging likely needs to be part of that solution.  But that seems a more tractable problem than the infrastructure that would be required for hydrogen, and the folly of needlessly wasting electricity to covert water to hydrogen (it's not 100% efficient) and then using even more to compress it when the electric motor already exists.

Infrastructure for Hydrogen should be solved in about ten years, if the proposals for switching domestic gas to Hydrogen, currently being trialed, go ahead.
Doesn't invalidate your other arguments.

Its not a proposal to switch, the proposal is to put perhaps 10% into the mix.

Any more than that isnt  possible without severe issues - leaks, embrittlement of piping being the major ones which woudl need replacing luterally all gas piping and i think ist clear thats not going to happen.