What other tech stock to consider?

[traviskp]

I've become highly interested in desalination companies. Being in California and seeing the effects of a drought first hand have fueled this interest. I know the rains could come but then therein lies prediction:

World faces 40% water shortfall in 15 years: U.N. - MarketWatch

2 companies that have stuck out to me at Consolidated Water (NASDAQ: CWCO) and Veolia Environment (OTC: VEOEY)

Any thoughts?

 

[FluxCap]

Rumor today that Google is in talks to buy Twitter. I bought Twitter.

 

[cluster]

MBLY is surging again. TA suggests next target at ~52.

 

[Lump]

MBLY is surging again. TA suggests next target at ~52.

http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Mobileye+(MBLY)+Surges+as+Morgan+Stanley+Pounds+the+Table/10460061.html

 

[dalalsid]

Any opinions on Etsy?

 

[Yggdrasill]

Sold my position in NFLX yesterday. 64% profit in 5 months isn't too bad.

I'm hoping there will be an opportunity to buy at a later date. I still think NFLX can do well in the longer term, but short term there may be some volatility.

 

[pGo]

ILMN looks solid in AH. They delivered strong earnings. This company enables many things in biotech and covers 90% of the genetic testing market. I like it as a biotech play.

 

[FluxCap]

ILMN looks solid in AH. They delivered strong earnings. This company enables many things in biotech and covers 90% of the genetic testing market. I like it as a biotech play.

I think the biotech bubble is going to pop hard and soon. I of course could be wrong. Lots of people I follow short IBB.

 

[pGo]

I think the biotech bubble is going to pop hard and soon. I of course could be wrong. Lots of people I follow short IBB.

The biotech valuation is higher because of the constant stream of ongoing mergers and breakthrough in specific areas. This may be risky for many biotech stocks, however, if you believe cancer will be a chronic disease in the next 10 years, now is the time to invest in the companies that provide that breakthrough. Illumina is that enabler.

 

[jhm]

I've become highly interested in desalination companies. Being in California and seeing the effects of a drought first hand have fueled this interest. I know the rains could come but then therein lies prediction:

World faces 40% water shortfall in 15 years: U.N. - MarketWatch

2 companies that have stuck out to me at Consolidated Water (NASDAQ: CWCO) and Veolia Environment (OTC: VEOEY)

Any thoughts?

Well after agriculture, IIRC, energy is the biggest consumer of water. Fracking produces about 7 barrel of filthy process water per barrel of crude. OOIL is one little company trying to clean that up. In power generation coal, nuclear and other thermoelectric all need huge quantities of water for steam and cooling. Hydroelectric helps to manage water for multiple usages. PV solar and wind require almost no water. So renewable energy is mostly all good in a water constrained economy. EVs as opposed to conventional gas are good because oil production wastes alot of water, and biofuels have massive agricultural inputs. So from a water resource perspective I like solar, wind and Tesla.

 

[ggr]

Well after agriculture, IIRC, energy is the biggest consumer of water. Fracking produces about 7 barrel of filthy process water per barrel of crude. OOIL is one little company trying to clean that up. In power generation coal, nuclear and other thermoelectric all need huge quantities of water for steam and cooling. Hydroelectric helps to manage water for multiple usages. PV solar and wind require almost no water. So renewable energy is mostly all good in a water constrained economy. EVs as opposed to conventional gas are good because oil production wastes alot of water, and biofuels have massive agricultural inputs. So from a water resource perspective I like solar, wind and Tesla.

I concluded that water was going to be a worldwide problem a few years back. Rather than invest in individual stocks, I researched some water ETFs, and invested in Claymore Global Water (CGW). It has been rock steady, returning about 17% per annum (capital growth plus dividends). I can't see any reason why it won't continue or accelerate returns. But it isn't really a "tech fund", it's actually very conservative holdings. I haven't compared it to other ETFs recently though, maybe others are returning even more.

 

[Auzie]

I concluded that water was going to be a worldwide problem a few years back. Rather than invest in individual stocks, I researched some water ETFs, and invested in Claymore Global Water (CGW). It has been rock steady, returning about 17% per annum (capital growth plus dividends). I can't see any reason why it won't continue or accelerate returns. But it isn't really a "tech fund", it's actually very conservative holdings. I haven't compared it to other ETFs recently though, maybe others are returning even more.

What would be the core activity that generates returns? ETF is just an investment vehicle into that activity.

 

[anon]

The biotech valuation is higher because of the constant stream of ongoing mergers and breakthrough in specific areas. This may be risky for many biotech stocks, however, if you believe cancer will be a chronic disease in the next 10 years, now is the time to invest in the companies that provide that breakthrough. Illumina is that enabler.

Illumina is certainly a very exciting company - not just for cancer, but for diseases in general. It will likely become routine in future for patients to have their genome sequenced to see which drugs will work best for them to treat particular diseases. If Illumina continues to dominate the market, they will no doubt do incredibly well and I have had a small position in Illumina for a while for this reason. However, I am concerned about competition: my understanding is that Oxford Nanopore has a very compelling and possibly superior technology; they have been slower to bring it to market and there were doubts about it for a long time, but it seemed to meet with a strong positive reception when I looked into it last year.

 

[pGo]

Illumina is certainly a very exciting company - not just for cancer, but for diseases in general. It will likely become routine in future for patients to have their genome sequenced to see which drugs will work best for them to treat particular diseases. If Illumina continues to dominate the market, they will no doubt do incredibly well and I have had a small position in Illumina for a while for this reason. However, I am concerned about competition: my understanding is that Oxford Nanopore has a very compelling and possibly superior technology; they have been slower to bring it to market and there were doubts about it for a long time, but it seemed to meet with a strong positive reception when I looked into it last year.

I have been watching Nanopore and other emerging technologies closely for quite some time now. The problem with all alternatives is that they have much higher error rate to be used for precise diagnosis. For example Nanopore recent release has about 30% error rate. It is not bad if one wants to detect the virus type on field using USB hook, however for complex biology like humans, it is nowhere near.

The new technology will eventually emerge. But Illuminate is creating a Windows effect where every data recognition and cloud tool and support test systems rely on Illumina system. So if every lab is using this data, it will be very difficult for new entrant to take market share.

About pricing, we are already under $1000 per genome sequencing test and with known technology, illumina can go lower if competition demands. Their margins are about 70% and are finding ways to reduce computing needs and save on cost.

 

[ggr]

What would be the core activity that generates returns? ETF is just an investment vehicle into that activity.

Among their top ten holdings they have companies that deliver equipment to water distributors, water distributors themselves, the chemical company that delivers the chemicals needed to treat water and reclaim gray water, stuff like that.

Here in San Diego, the price of water on the open market has more than doubled in the last year, as the different water companies (mostly government owned, so nothing to do with this ETF, at least not here) shuffle it around between farming and the cities.

 

[Ocelot]

I concluded that water was going to be a worldwide problem a few years back. Rather than invest in individual stocks, I researched some water ETFs, and invested in Claymore Global Water (CGW). It has been rock steady, returning about 17% per annum (capital growth plus dividends). I can't see any reason why it won't continue or accelerate returns. But it isn't really a "tech fund", it's actually very conservative holdings. I haven't compared it to other ETFs recently though, maybe others are returning even more.

I have come to the same conclusion. Made that conclusion around 2003 when I was studying Ecology. Thanks for the tip, will check into that ETF.

 

[anon]

I have been watching Nanopore and other emerging technologies closely for quite some time now. The problem with all alternatives is that they have much higher error rate to be used for precise diagnosis. For example Nanopore recent release has about 30% error rate. It is not bad if one wants to detect the virus type on field using USB hook, however for complex biology like humans, it is nowhere near.

The new technology will eventually emerge. But Illuminate is creating a Windows effect where every data recognition and cloud tool and support test systems rely on Illumina system. So if every lab is using this data, it will be very difficult for new entrant to take market share.

About pricing, we are already under $1000 per genome sequencing test and with known technology, illumina can go lower if competition demands. Their margins are about 70% and are finding ways to reduce computing needs and save on cost.

Thanks. Those are interesting points. I might have to add to my position on any pull back.

 

[Auzie]

Among their top ten holdings they have companies that deliver equipment to water distributors, water distributors themselves, the chemical company that delivers the chemicals needed to treat water and reclaim gray water, stuff like that.

Here in San Diego, the price of water on the open market has more than doubled in the last year, as the different water companies (mostly government owned, so nothing to do with this ETF, at least not here) shuffle it around between farming and the cities.

That's interesting, the activities seem to be related to some peripheral businesses, nothing to do with water supply. Is there a shortage of water that caused price doubling?

Some years back (maybe decades) there were serious drafts in NSW. Water levels in Warragamba Dam were at a critical low level. With such backdrop, NSW Gov kicked in its plan B for water supply and invested in a large recycled water plant and the appropriate distribution infrastructure - very costly, imagine all the excavations required for piping this water to customers, in a metropolitan area. This water is not fit for personal use or drinking hence requires full separate distribution piping and metering.

Several years on, the weather has changed, we have too much water here, Warragamba Dam is at 88%, and now we are stuck with the expensive recycling plant that is not really required and its product is more expensive than pure and superior town water. Customers (commercial mainly) had to be nudged with heavy subsidies to take up the offer of using the recycled water. Businesses got subsidies to install the required infrastructure that enables recycled water use, it could be said that subsidies covered the costs, otherwise no one wanted on board.

The government did what they had to do, they tried to mitigate the risk of water shortage, however, the circumstances have changed and now there is that asset that is not required and is expensive to run.

I see a lot of opportunity in water treatment plants as dealing with waste water is a considerable cost for many businesses. That market will grow in size.

 

[Causalien]

That's interesting, the activities seem to be related to some peripheral businesses, nothing to do with water supply. Is there a shortage of water that caused price doubling?

Some years back (maybe decades) there were serious drafts in NSW. Water levels in Warragamba Dam were at a critical low level. With such backdrop, NSW Gov kicked in its plan B for water supply and invested in a large recycled water plant and the appropriate distribution infrastructure - very costly, imagine all the excavations required for piping this water to customers, in a metropolitan area. This water is not fit for personal use or drinking hence requires full separate distribution piping and metering.

Several years on, the weather has changed, we have too much water here, Warragamba Dam is at 88%, and now we are stuck with the expensive recycling plant that is not really required and its product is more expensive than pure and superior town water. Customers (commercial mainly) had to be nudged with heavy subsidies to take up the offer of using the recycled water. Businesses got subsidies to install the required infrastructure that enables recycled water use, it could be said that subsidies covered the costs, otherwise no one wanted on board.

The government did what they had to do, they tried to mitigate the risk of water shortage, however, the circumstances have changed and now there is that asset that is not required and is expensive to run.

I see a lot of opportunity in water treatment plants as dealing with waste water is a considerable cost for many businesses. That market will grow in size.

I've been wanting to invest in Pure sweet Canadian glacier water for a while, but until we build a pipeline to USA, It is just a pipe dream.

By the way, are there water pipeline co in that etf similar to that of oil pipeline companies?

 

[uselesslogin]

I'll plug my CLFD or Clearfield connect again today. They are a (rumored) provider for the Google Fiber project. They essentially reduce cost in FTTH deployment with their products. Since the Austin project is proceeding slowly their earnings reflect this but they are still profitable when Google is not buying. They are a solid company although if not for the Google business it may only be worth $8-10 vs. the $14 it is at right now.