Michael Lorrey wrote:
> James Rogers wrote:
> >
> > At 02:08 PM 2/22/2001 -0500, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > >I don't know of any such funds, but I wouldn't mind starting one:
> > >
> > >prospective stocks:
> > >GE
> > >Westinghouse
> > >Ruger
> > >Zyvex
> > >Orbital Sciences
> > >Kistler Aerospace
> > >SeaLaunch
> > >Boeing
> > >Lockheed
> >
> > The object of a mutual fund is making money, not the unqualified investment
> > in companies that make things you like. Buying publicly traded stock on
> > the market doesn't benefit the company (ignoring minor secondary effects),
> > so you aren't doing them any favors.
>
> True, but if one has to invest, you can't beat the advice of Warren
> Buffet, who does say to invest in companies that make things you use,
> and he sure hasn't done too badly on that strategy.
>
> >
> > A better strategy is to invest in good companies that don't do anything you
> > don't like (say, donating money to HCI, for example). About half the
> > companies on your list are marginal or speculative investments that would
> > probably do relatively poorly as a group. For example, gun companies are
> > generally a poor investment -- I wouldn't qualify their outlook as
> > particularly high growth.
>
> Gun companies are *currently* a poor investment, but are actually a very
> good value due to current public hysteria and anti-gun propagandizing
> (though there is the effect of sales going up every time some nut wants
> to pass another ban...). At one point in the 80's, Texaco was a very
> poor investment due to a $12 billion judgement against them to be paid
> to Pennzoil. A year later the judgement was settled for $2 billion and I
> tripled my money. Based on this, if you think that tort reform of one
> kind or another is likely in the next few years, invest in gun, tobacco,
> civil aircraft, chemical, and step-ladder companies.
>
> >
> > I think the point of this exercise is to use our collective foresight to
> > predict what companies are likely to be the leaders in technology fields
> > that will become huge (and profitable) in the future, gaining growth via
> > our presumed ability to accurately identify important ground floor
> > technology ventures so that we can profit from explosive growth. Balance
> > that with a few smart blue chips like IBM and Merck, and you have a good
> > basis for a mutual fund.
>
> I thought I was. Given increasing energy demand due to the internet (if
> 13% increase in power demand in California is any indication), stocks
> like GE and Westinghouse should be nice secure growing stocks. Given
> increased defense spending under Bush, Boeing and Lockheed stand to gain
> the most. All four are rather secure stocks.
>
> SeaLaunch cuts launch costs so should pick up market share as it gets
> off the ground. Whether the consortium puts its stock on the market is
> another question. Orbital and Kistler stand to do well as space is
> privatized more and launchers come on line.
You should have gotten Ralston Purina, Gatorade, and transportation stocks.
Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:47 MDT