Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Share Picks 2020

13567241

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Outside of purchasing work share options, I'm completely new to this investment thing, but I said I would start this year before my money grows more webs in the bank. Feel free to comment/criticise

    I put a chunk of money into some safe bets - Coca Cola, Nextera Energy, Nike (Although in hindsight I'll probably take a hit on the poor exchange rate)

    I like medical device companies as this is the area I work in - Merit Medical took a steep dive last year, but I think it will work its way back up this year.

    I made a few gambles then: someone mentioned Bordbia above being beat down so I put a few euro on them. I took a chance on Citigroup for no other reason than I see them everywhere I look now. I read yesterday about Adidas buying back a few billion worth of their own shares so I bought a few myself. (they are up by 2.5% already today! but I can imagine them dipping over the year).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭bcklschaps


    unkel wrote: »
    Verastem, verastem, verastem!

    All is forgotten after today :D

    +43% in a day, what happened, some very good news?

    I took my full losses last month to offset other profits so I stayed within the CGT threshold over 2019. I immediately bought back in (and far more than I originally owned)

    Now one week into 2020 and I'm already over it for the year :eek:

    Fair play :)

    My average was somewhere around $3 and some odd cents. Long since bailed out and cut my losses. :mad:


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    Scottie99 wrote: »
    Yep, you must have bought at a fantastic (looking back) price. The forecast stock price for the next 5 years looks encouraging (no guarantees). Know doubt they’ll be ups and downs along the way..

    Took immense will power not to sell during the ups and down. It's a 10x stock for me now. You don't come of across many of those at the right time in your life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 373 ✭✭JMMCapital


    unkel wrote: »
    Verastem, verastem, verastem!

    All is forgotten after today :D

    +43% in a day, what happened, some very good news?

    I took my full losses last month to offset other profits so I stayed within the CGT threshold over 2019. I immediately bought back in (and far more than I originally owned)

    Now one week into 2020 and I'm already over it for the year :eek:

    What's the story with them? have they got a decent drug pipeline?


  • Registered Users Posts: 64,548 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    JMMCapital wrote: »
    What's the story with them? have they got a decent drug pipeline?

    Verastem Oncology Announces Global Licensing Agreement

    Linky


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14 Parom


    maca007755 wrote: »
    I'm expecting a recession. First Majestic Silver

    I did open a position a small position last week as well. it went down almost 7% yesterday. Timing is difficult :)
    Did go into GOLD as well.
    Thinking adding a bit more to CARA, they seem to be oversold considering the trial results.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14 Parom


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Outside of purchasing work share options, I'm completely new to this investment thing, but I said I would start this year before my money grows more webs in the bank. Feel free to comment/criticise

    I put a chunk of money into some safe bets - Coca Cola, Nextera Energy, Nike (Although in hindsight I'll probably take a hit on the poor exchange rate)

    I like medical device companies as this is the area I work in - Merit Medical took a steep dive last year, but I think it will work its way back up this year.

    I made a few gambles then: someone mentioned Bordbia above being beat down so I put a few euro on them. I took a chance on Citigroup for no other reason than I see them everywhere I look now. I read yesterday about Adidas buying back a few billion worth of their own shares so I bought a few myself. (they are up by 2.5% already today! but I can imagine them dipping over the year).

    If you don't mind me asking, how did you pick your safe bets?
    I like the energy sector (we will always need energy), but Nextera seems a bit pricey (PE 36 (ttm) according to yahoo finance, price at all time high). You can get get other utilities at better PEs (e.g. ED, DUK).


  • Registered Users Posts: 64,548 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    Parom wrote: »
    I like the energy sector (we will always need energy).

    I'd be very careful there with that assumption. Things are about to completely change in the energy sector. Move away from fossil fuels, and into renewables. Very disruptive. Also are you aware that a 3-bed semi detached house with say 10-12 solar panels can produce more electricity than it consumes over the year?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,502 ✭✭✭ Caiden Immense Porterhouse


    Thinking of buying SPY just so it finally tanks

    Getting annoying at this stage !


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Parom wrote: »
    If you don't mind me asking, how did you pick your safe bets?
    I like the energy sector (we will always need energy), but Nextera seems a bit pricey (PE 36 (ttm) according to yahoo finance, price at all time high). You can get get other utilities at better PEs (e.g. ED, DUK).

    I don't mind at all. This is all new to me, as I said, so I would like to learn as I go. I picked NextEra simply because it's a top clean energy option that has been increasing steadily for years. I was thinking of the long term with this one rather than a quick gain. Coca Cola pays good dividends and I can't imagine any shocking losses with them or Nike. I was steering clear of commodities too.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14 Parom


    unkel wrote: »
    I'd be very careful there with that assumption. Things are about to completely change in the energy sector. Move away from fossil fuels, and into renewables. Very disruptive. Also are you aware that a 3-bed semi detached house with say 10-12 solar panels can produce more electricity than it consumes over the year?

    things are about the change - not for 20-30 years or even more from now. Despite what you read and being pushed in news, the efficiency (energy input vs energy generated) of solar and wind are far from what most industrial nation needs in terms of energy stability generation. Nuclear, natural gas, coal will be the base for energy generation for quite some time.

    And I am not calling solar greener either - if you look at the way the panels are made, what heavy chemicals are in place to make them, they are not that much greener to the environment than natural gas.
    The question is also, what's the lifetime of those solar panels? Is their efficiency maintained during their lifetime, how often do you need to replace them? Is it a good bang for your money?
    If you start looking at it purely from engineering point of view, it just doesn't make sense to invest all that money into energy generating sources, that are less efficient.

    Look at Ireland electricity generation: 51% of electricity is generated by natural gas, 18% by coal. That is almost 70%. I don't see any abrupt change, it's gradual change.
    And by using less efficient sources means that we all have to pay higher price, because the cost per kwH is much higher.
    https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/electricity/


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Parom wrote: »
    things are about the change - not for 20-30 years or even more from now. Despite what you read and being pushed in news, the efficiency (energy input vs energy generated) of solar and wind are far from what most industrial nation needs in terms of energy stability generation. Nuclear, natural gas, coal will be the base for energy generation for quite some time.

    And I am not calling solar greener either - if you look at the way the panels are made, what heavy chemicals are in place to make them, they are not that much greener to the environment than natural gas.
    The question is also, what's the lifetime of those solar panels? Is their efficiency maintained during their lifetime, how often do you need to replace them? Is it a good bang for your money?
    If you start looking at it purely from engineering point of view, it just doesn't make sense to invest all that money into energy generating sources, that are less efficient.

    Look at Ireland electricity generation: 51% of electricity is generated by natural gas, 18% by coal. That is almost 70%. I don't see any abrupt change, it's gradual change.
    And by using less efficient sources means that we all have to pay higher price, because the cost per kwH is much higher.
    https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/electricity/
    I was, in fact, going to go down the fossil fuel route for just these reasons, but it would have been as a gamble. In all likelihood, in 10-15 years we will be looking back at how much of a good investment it would have been at the time but it was just a bit too risky for me.

    I think the cleanliness of any of the renewables is irrelevant. It's all about the image. and I can only see bigger investments by governments in big visually clean energy sources like wind and solar regardless of how efficient/clean they are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14 Parom


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    I was, in fact, going to go down the fossil fuel route for just these reasons, but it would have been as a gamble. In all likelihood, in 10-15 years we will be looking back at how much of a good investment it would have been at the time but it was just a bit too risky for me.

    I think the cleanliness of any of the renewables is irrelevant. It's all about the image. and I can only see bigger investments by governments in big visual energy sources like wind and solar regardless of how efficient/clean they are.

    Calculated gamble. It's true the energy sector has been beaten up. And maybe someone finally succeeds in nuclear fusion and then all our energy worries are sorted. I see no abrupt changes though. So until then, nuclear, oil, natural gas are necessity.
    Be greedy when others are fearful :)
    My 2020 picks and beyond:
    Exxon (XOM) is at it's lowest valuation in decades, dividend aristocrat 37 consecutive year of div increases), div yield close to 5%. Huge field coming online off Guyana coast, rock solid balance sheet. Excited for the next few years, their cashflow should double and I can't wait to see what happens to their dividends.
    Shell (RDS.B) - heavily investing in "renewables", 6% div yield, but not growing div. Still relatively low valuation though.
    These are my income plays though, if the value appreciates, even better. I hope they stay low yet so i can get more shares.


  • Registered Users Posts: 64,548 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    Parom wrote: »
    Nuclear, natural gas, coal will be the base for energy generation for quite some time.

    Dear oh dear. Don't say I didn't warn you in a few years time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 373 ✭✭JMMCapital


    unkel wrote: »
    Dear oh dear. Don't say I didn't warn you in a few years time.

    Any thoughts on Nuclear? Specifically investing in uranium producers, they have been at an all time low with the last few years due to an oversupply I expect the price to rise over time tho as more power plants come into operation (currently around 50-70 under construction world wide) price of uranium is currently $26 per lb it was $140 in 2007 (pre financial crisis). Hopefully the climate change movement encourages more nuclear power use and thus changes the public’s negative perception about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 64,548 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    JMMCapital wrote: »
    Any thoughts on Nuclear?

    Sure.

    It just turned out that the estimated cost to the tax payer (in US) to clean up nuclear waste jumped by over $100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion dollars) to half a trillion dollars

    Linky


    You can bet that in any public private partnership for building a new nuclear plant, future clean up cost will not be automatically picked up by the state. You go find an investor who has the appetite to pay for that sort of cleanup in the future


  • Registered Users Posts: 373 ✭✭JMMCapital


    unkel wrote: »
    Sure.

    It just turned out that the estimated cost to the tax payer (in US) to clean up nuclear waste jumped by over $100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion dollars) to half a trillion dollars

    Linky


    You can bet that in any public private partnership for building a new nuclear plant, future clean up cost will not be automatically picked up by the state. You go find an investor who has the appetite to pay for that sort of cleanup in the future

    That is in the US.. I’m talking about the world over all, let’s not forget as long trump is in power they will burn coal like no tomorrow.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14 Parom


    unkel wrote: »
    Sure.

    It just turned out that the estimated cost to the tax payer (in US) to clean up nuclear waste jumped by over $100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion dollars) to half a trillion dollars

    Linky


    You can bet that in any public private partnership for building a new nuclear plant, future clean up cost will not be automatically picked up by the state. You go find an investor who has the appetite to pay for that sort of cleanup in the future


    That's an NBCnews article, that is supposed to attract viewers with bombastic headlines and it is definitely showing nuclear in it's "best" light.
    Most likely "rephrased" from the original report.

    Quoted from article: The 586-square-mile site, home to nine former production reactors and processing facilities, produced plutonium for America's nuclear arsenal during the Cold War.


    Do you consider nuclear plants and "arsenal" that was for use during cold war?
    Why is Duke then just about to finish their Vogtle nuclear plant into operation. Is it because all the renewables can provide so much?
    As I said before, the change is happening, but not in the pace you either wish or predicting. The worlds energy demand will continue to raise and if you want stable output into the grid, you need a reliable source. Wind, solar are not that - at least not yet in the present form


  • Registered Users Posts: 64,548 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    Nuclear fission is a past station. Simply too expensive (even when being optimistic about storage and clean up costs). Wind is far, far cheaper. Even solar is getting there. All we need is batteries (pumped storage, interconnector, grid attached batteries, EVs and homes with batteries - V2G and V2H, hydrogen production). I'd suggest if you want to invest in energy, look into one or more of those.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14 Parom


    unkel wrote: »
    Nuclear fission is a past station. Simply too expensive (even when being optimistic about storage and clean up costs). Wind is far, far cheaper. Even solar is getting there. All we need is batteries (pumped storage, interconnector, grid attached batteries, EVs and homes with batteries - V2G and V2H, hydrogen production). I'd suggest if you want to invest in energy, look into one or more of those.


    Question is then: what is the time frame for these? When do you imagine them being mainstream the same way, we use petrol cars today?

    Do you think that solar and wind can supply energy for all that and nat gas, nuclear will just stopped being used abruptly?

    What makes you think that the already established big players in the market will not buy these newcomers out with all their cash flow and transform gradually? e.g look at Shell and their diversification strategy.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 64,548 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    DYOR, but in my view things are likely moving very quickly. Incumbents are rarely ready when disruption hits their sectors, never mind being at the forefront. They are usually trying to suppress, until it is inevitably too late. See what happened with EVs. Also mass switch in perception just in the last year or so that climate change is real and threatening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14 Parom


    unkel wrote: »
    DYOR, but in my view things are likely moving very quickly. Incumbents are rarely ready when disruption hits their sectors, never mind being at the forefront. They are usually trying to suppress, until it is inevitably too late. See what happened with EVs. Also mass switch in perception just in the last year or so that climate change is real and threatening.


    I think pace to move to renewables will be much slower than you predict.

    For illustration, if you think, that the renewables will save us, check the graphs here:

    https://ourworldindata.org/energy
    Mankind has always used the low hanging fruit first, there is a reason, why those graphs look like that. You always go for solution requiring the least amount of energy.

    Also all the EVs require to be charged - do you think the electricity consumption will increase or decrease if just all of us suddenly moved to using EVs? What will supply the needed energy for that?
    Looking at those graphs it's quite clear I think for the next 20-30 years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    unkel wrote: »
    Nuclear fission is a past station. Simply too expensive (even when being optimistic about storage and clean up costs)..

    Never mind the storage and cleanup, the cost of enriching the uranium is what would scare me off. It takes a massive amount of electricity to enrich the fuel to begin with.

    It wouldn't surprise me however if there was a hard nuclear lobby responsible for the current demonisation of fossil fuels. But that's the conspiracy theorist coming out in me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭kaymin


    Eros Now - quoted on the NYSE under EROS.
    • OTT platform in India. 23.5m paying subscribers and 177m registered subscribers.
    • Succumbed to a ratings downgrade and a short seller hit piece back in June 2019 and share price hasn't recovered since. Short seller take (primarily concerning irrecoverable receivable balances) has proven to be untrue and head of rating agency (Care) had to step down due to corruption charges (not specifically linked to Eros downgrade though).
    • Have announced deals with Apple, Google, Microsoft, Reliance and a host of top Chinese telecoms in the past 6 months.
    • Next earnings announcement on 22nd February should start showing the fruits of these partnerships.
    • Eros has been shifting its strategy from syndicating the films it produces to hosting them solely on their OTT platform to drive more paying customers to it.
    • It is in the middle of a 'strategic review' which could see a buy-out offer.
    • Close ties with Reliance, largest company in India (historically an oil company but now is the largest telecoms player with 350m customers) and owned by Ambani, India's richest man. Reliance owns 5% of Eros (paid $15 per share; current share price is $3.7) and is rumoured to own its convertible bonds. Its seen as unlikely that Reliance would allow ownership of Eros to fall into the hands of Netflix or Apple. Former CEO of Eros went to work for Reliance to lead their media division. Ambani apparently has close family ties with the Lulla family which controls Eros.

    Link to presentation from conference in Las Vegas: https://erosplc.gcs-web.com/events-and-presentations/upcoming-events


  • Registered Users Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Rebel1977


    Any opinions if Glenveagh properties would be a good purchase ?
    What other irish/UK companies would be good to invest - I am a newbie to this !


  • Registered Users Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Rebel1977


    Any opinions if Glenveagh properties would be a good purchase ?
    What other irish/UK companies would be good to invest - I am a newbie to this !


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Brookfield Renewable Partners - been gaining steadily with this one over the last year, growth slowing slightly but company appears well managed and is in a sector I’m expecting to grow into the future. Likely a safe enough bet.

    Hexocorp - Canadian cannabis company, after posting substantial losses price is on the floor currently similar to many of the stocks in a sector which did not meet expectations in 2019. A large degree of this is due to growing pains in the sector itself, issues surrounding retailing etc which are now being ironed out. More of a punt than anything but the sector has huge potential.


  • Registered Users Posts: 145 ✭✭Aidan Harney


    Brookfield Renewable Partners - been gaining steadily with this one over the last year, growth slowing slightly but company appears well managed and is in a sector I’m expecting to grow into the future. Likely a safe enough bet.

    Hexocorp - Canadian cannabis company, after posting substantial losses price is on the floor currently similar to many of the stocks in a sector which did not meet expectations in 2019. A large degree of this is due to growing pains in the sector itself, issues surrounding retailing etc which are now being ironed out. More of a punt than anything but the sector has huge potential.



    That hexo Corp is available on the new York, on the Toronto and on the France stock market. Does it matter which one, using à degiro account, that the shares are bought off? Is one better than another? Would side with the France one maybe as its in euro?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,462 ✭✭✭Bob Harris


    That hexo Corp is available on the new York, on the Toronto and on the France stock market. Does it matter which one, using à degiro account, that the shares are bought off? Is one better than another? Would side with the France one maybe as its in euro?

    Frankfurt I think you mean.
    More expensive in Frankfurt than on the NYSE or CSE.
    Volume is an average of 3k per day. In the millions in NYSE so much more liquidity.

    The Frankfurt exchange basically just mirrors what happens in North America the night before. Yesterday it closed up 5+% Lo and behold it's up the same in Frankfurt today and won't change much until markets open over there.

    Exchange rate risk with USD but other than that it's the best option.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,462 ✭✭✭Bob Harris


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Might be worth keeping an eye on Sorrento Therapeutics (SRNE), sp doubled on Monday after announcing that it had rejected an offer from two biopharma companies to acquire all outstanding stock at $3-$5 per share in cash. It has retraced a bit since then.

    From the 2019 thread. Got in here just over $3 about one month ago after it retraced following the inital offer. They've anounced another approach for the company today for up to $7 so if/when it gets thereabouts today I'll be taking the money and running.


Advertisement