35% gain from an etf in a month

NottinghamKnight

AnotherJoe said:

Thrugelmir said:

AnotherJoe said:

mazibee said:

@AnotherJoe

I repent selling INRG which I bought 6 weeks ago. I have sold it Jan 5 with the view to buy it at the lower rates and it started its upward journey.

Do you recommend buying INRG at these levels or one should wait for a dip (I dont think think a dip will come in INRG   )

I did think about buying a battery company (IIRC no battery companies in INRG? )

Battery companies aren't clean. Nor are the majority of the major renewable energy players. As they are some years away from transitioning.  Hence why the ETF primarily has a US focus. The US lags well behind the renewable energy generating capacity of the UK . 

Maybe, maybe not. depends on numerous factors.

Likely good places to invest though.

That type of point about defining 'clean' reminds me of the people who bleat on about how EVs are bad because they have cobalt in them (all of it apparently made by child labour?) yet they dont suddenly stop using their petrol cars when informed that one of the major uses of cobalt is refining petrol.

Nor do they stop wearing their clothes created by a damn sight more child labour than ever makes up the minute fraction of cobalt thats a minute fraction of a  battery.

But that's the point, many running EVs think they are some sort of holy messiahs, whereas the reality is they are just providing a lower impact than the alternatives.
If people really wanted to be green they would think a bt more about their general lifestyle, shipping in consumables from asia which people then don't use or throw away after single use is far worse than running an ice vehicle a moderate amount.
It may be that education has to change, people need to consider more than what they are told in the media, risk needs to be better understood. Governments also need to think about using taxation as a tool for green policies, plastic taxes etc may be needed to fill a hole in the public finances.
I'm not a fan of fuel cells per se but they may have their uses, for example use in trains could mean not only reducing diesel but avoiding having to electrify large lengths of line that is itself expensive and inefficient. That and shipping where the energy requirements can be huge may be more difficult for a battery solution.  

AnotherJoe

ZingPowZing said:

Audaxer said:

ZingPowZing said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

 the point where you have enough, you don’t need to take unnecessary risks.

But what if you feel you're not ready for the rocking chair?

Then he could cash in at least some of the profit and enjoy spending it.

Yes, but "top slicing" or "rebalancing" advocates cashing in from the better performing investments. 
Why?

Apologies for the late reply ZPZ !

I think top slicing and rebalancing applies to pooled investments and also shares vs bonds. I can see the rationale there.

eg maybe America did well this year and Europe will next or financials this year commodities or IT next depending how you partition your investments (if you do), or your bonds have grown to 50% when you wanted 40%.

OTOH , to appeal to authority with Peter Lynch, with individual shares "its like cutting down the fastest growing crop and watering the weeds"

AnotherJoe

NottinghamKnight said:

AnotherJoe said:

Thrugelmir said:

AnotherJoe said:

mazibee said:

@AnotherJoe

I repent selling INRG which I bought 6 weeks ago. I have sold it Jan 5 with the view to buy it at the lower rates and it started its upward journey.

Do you recommend buying INRG at these levels or one should wait for a dip (I dont think think a dip will come in INRG   )

I did think about buying a battery company (IIRC no battery companies in INRG? )

Battery companies aren't clean. Nor are the majority of the major renewable energy players. As they are some years away from transitioning.  Hence why the ETF primarily has a US focus. The US lags well behind the renewable energy generating capacity of the UK . 

Maybe, maybe not. depends on numerous factors.

Likely good places to invest though.

That type of point about defining 'clean' reminds me of the people who bleat on about how EVs are bad because they have cobalt in them (all of it apparently made by child labour?) yet they dont suddenly stop using their petrol cars when informed that one of the major uses of cobalt is refining petrol.

Nor do they stop wearing their clothes created by a damn sight more child labour than ever makes up the minute fraction of cobalt thats a minute fraction of a  battery.

But that's the point, many running EVs think they are some sort of holy messiahs, whereas the reality is they are just providing a lower impact than the alternatives.
If people really wanted to be green they would think a bt more about their general lifestyle, shipping in consumables from asia which people then don't use or throw away after single use is far worse than running an ice vehicle a moderate amount.
It may be that education has to change, people need to consider more than what they are told in the media, risk needs to be better understood. Governments also need to think about using taxation as a tool for green policies, plastic taxes etc may be needed to fill a hole in the public finances.
I'm not a fan of fuel cells per se but they may have their uses, for example use in trains could mean not only reducing diesel but avoiding having to electrify large lengths of line that is itself expensive and inefficient. That and shipping where the energy requirements can be huge may be more difficult for a battery solution.  

IME its the other way round. If i mention i drive an EV I'll often get one of two negative responses immediately*. Bear in mind at this point i've just mentioned i drive one and said literally nothing else.

1. Cobalt / not really green/ blah bla other FUD spread by fossil fuel proponents. eg assuming I I think I"m a holy green messiah and only bought it because its 'green' not for the many other benefits (including fun to drive). These same people are often the Primark buying/ Cobalt using via petrol, drive everywhere crowd.

2. That will never work because (a) ..more FF FUD about grid not coping, electricity comes from FF anyway etc, or (b) "no good for me as i drive 500 miles a day, eat on the move and and pee into a bottle to avoid stopping. Let me know when i can drive 1000 miles on one charge towing a horsebox and charge up in 5 minutes"

* One exact convo I recall clearly

Me; "I just bought an EV"

Them: "You do know the batteries wear out after 3 years and cant be recycled ? "

 

NottinghamKnight

AnotherJoe said:

NottinghamKnight said:

AnotherJoe said:

Thrugelmir said:

AnotherJoe said:

mazibee said:

@AnotherJoe

I repent selling INRG which I bought 6 weeks ago. I have sold it Jan 5 with the view to buy it at the lower rates and it started its upward journey.

Do you recommend buying INRG at these levels or one should wait for a dip (I dont think think a dip will come in INRG   )

I did think about buying a battery company (IIRC no battery companies in INRG? )

Battery companies aren't clean. Nor are the majority of the major renewable energy players. As they are some years away from transitioning.  Hence why the ETF primarily has a US focus. The US lags well behind the renewable energy generating capacity of the UK . 

Maybe, maybe not. depends on numerous factors.

Likely good places to invest though.

That type of point about defining 'clean' reminds me of the people who bleat on about how EVs are bad because they have cobalt in them (all of it apparently made by child labour?) yet they dont suddenly stop using their petrol cars when informed that one of the major uses of cobalt is refining petrol.

Nor do they stop wearing their clothes created by a damn sight more child labour than ever makes up the minute fraction of cobalt thats a minute fraction of a  battery.

But that's the point, many running EVs think they are some sort of holy messiahs, whereas the reality is they are just providing a lower impact than the alternatives.
If people really wanted to be green they would think a bt more about their general lifestyle, shipping in consumables from asia which people then don't use or throw away after single use is far worse than running an ice vehicle a moderate amount.
It may be that education has to change, people need to consider more than what they are told in the media, risk needs to be better understood. Governments also need to think about using taxation as a tool for green policies, plastic taxes etc may be needed to fill a hole in the public finances.
I'm not a fan of fuel cells per se but they may have their uses, for example use in trains could mean not only reducing diesel but avoiding having to electrify large lengths of line that is itself expensive and inefficient. That and shipping where the energy requirements can be huge may be more difficult for a battery solution.  

IME its the other way round. If i mention i drive an EV I'll often get one of two negative responses immediately*. Bear in mind at this point i've just mentioned i drive one and said literally nothing else.

1. Cobalt / not really green/ blah bla other FUD spread by fossil fuel proponents. eg assuming I I think I"m a holy green messiah and only bought it because its 'green' not for the many other benefits (including fun to drive). These same people are often the Primark buying/ Cobalt using via petrol, drive everywhere crowd.

2. That will never work because (a) ..more FF FUD about grid not coping, electricity comes from FF anyway etc, or (b) "no good for me as i drive 500 miles a day, eat on the move and and pee into a bottle to avoid stopping. Let me know when i can drive 1000 miles on one charge towing a horsebox and charge up in 5 minutes"

* One exact convo I recall clearly

Me; "I just bought an EV"

Them: "You do know the batteries wear out after 3 years and cant be recycled ? "

 

They are not mutually exclusive and that is the problem with these debates exactly like Brexit. People make a decision and the choose evidence to support their viewpoint, so it's exactly the wrong way round. EV are still expensive so are bought by the better off who feel a warm glow, nd take advantage of government subsidy, exactly like the solar incentive schemes a few years ago. A poster on these very boards had a quote from Sheikh Yamani in the 1970s when asked about use of oil which stated that humans didn't progress from the stone age because they ran out of stones. Renewables systems will progress and dominate but it will take time, let's not forget that the expansion of the human population proves as great a challenge as 'climate change deniers'. 
I must admit I have a cynical view but I have spent the best part of the last thirty years involved in environmental engineering and it's rare that the nest system is adopted in any particular area once vested interests and politics become involved.   
I'm currently working on new transmission systems for a contractor, and the impact of the lines across the remoter parts of Scotland are significant. NG and the other providers are in a deep wrangle with the regulator so green matters are on the back burner apart from where there is profit, for example the NEC 4 contract has allowed for carbon pricing on all schemes to be included for the last 5 years or more but that is ignored, purely price. 

Thrugelmir

If Tesla were truly green. Then from the outset it would have designed an EV for the people. No toys, no frills. Unfortunately this wouldn't have provided a decent return for the start up angels. Hence the business model to target the premium corporate executive market. Where there's sufficent demand to make sizable margins for those that wish to keep up with the Jonseses. Very similar to how BMW remarketed their brand to gain cult status in the past. 

AnotherJoe

Thrugelmir said:

If Tesla were truly green. Then from the outset it would have designed an EV for the people. No toys, no frills. Unfortunately this wouldn't have provided a decent return for the start up angels. Hence the business model to target the premium corporate executive market. Where there's sufficent demand to make sizable margins for those that wish to keep up with the Jonseses. Very similar to how BMW remarketed their brand to gain cult status in the past. 

Thats not an economically feasible way to build a mass market business.

Instead, here's how they did it,  their secret master plan, the final stage of which, surpassing their expectations,  (regards cars) comes into operation next year eg the really affordable car (beyond the affordable high volume they describe.

Stargunner

AnotherJoe said:

Doh, good point ! But I did mean one that was only batteries. But maybe i shoudl just be content with Tesla LOL

Have you looked at BATG (L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF)

Stargunner

Anyone still holding this? Down to 885p now after reaching its high of 1497p in January. 

older_and_no_wiser

Stargunner said:

Anyone still holding this? Down to 885p now after reaching its high of 1497p in January. 

Maybe this is one to buy now and just leave alone for 10+ years. Seems like a decent long term investment but times are volatile currently and waters are choppy! Hang on to your hats everyone!

Thrugelmir

Still trading around 1300p today. The price you quoted looks incorrect.