X-Message-Number: 6101
From: John de Rivaz <>
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: "investing in cryonics"
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:22:31 +0100
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In article: <> (Brian Wowk)
writes:
> John suggests investing in pharmaceutical companies and
> other "high tech" stocks to ride the wave of progress that must
> occur if is cryonics is to succeed. I would go further though, and
> suggest a downright boring conventionally-managed conservative portfolio
> of diversied equities and bonds. Picking winning industries
> like "hi tech" is easy. Picking winning companies is very, very
> hard. For all we know, today's trendy "high tech" companies, instead
> of creating the technologies of the future, may all be driven
> into the ground by the new companies that really will. (I wonder
> how many fortunes were speculatively invested in vacuum tube
> companies after Eniac was built?)
>
Maybe you have missed slightly what I suggested. I recommended investing
the technology sector, and sectors likely to benefit from technology. This
portfolio needs to be actively managed. The manager needs to read a
technology investment newsletter and acts on its recommendations. This if a
losing strategy had been tried (eg vacuum tubes for eniac) it would be
aborted before it got too far. I have never suggested investing your
fortune on one or even ten companies and then expecting these stocks to be
held for 30 to 300 years.
In addition, the fund needs to be domiciled in a country with no capital
gains tax and if necessary moved if political circumstances change. (eg in
1900 it may have looked to be a good idea to have it in Berlin, the centre
of freedom and technological advance ..)
I feel confident that the growth in technology necessary for revivals will
mean that in the intervening period the stocks in a conservative portfolio
will be a disaster. This is because as things change more and more funds
will be realised by investors selling these stocks in order to buy
technology stocks, and therefore the conservative stocks will depend
entirely on their ability to pay dividends. As technology provides more and
more opportunity for people to spend their disposable incomes in different
manners less of the global disposable income will be spent on what is now
conventional activities and products. Who would have known, for example,
in 1900 that the markets for recreational bicycles and tennis equipment
would face competition from hang gliding, parascending, jetboating, scuba
diving etc etc? Any activity such as hospitality that is labour intensive
will face severe price competition from product based activities.
However the growth potential of technology is so large, that anyone who
doubts can invest only 10% of their *initial* portfolio in technology, and
still reanimate with a fortune. Do a spreadsheet showing 3% growth in the
90% conservative, and 30% growth in the 10% technology and see when one
takes over the other. Try other figures. In my view the 3% growth in the
conservative is wildly optimistic, and the portfolio will show a loss. The
Technology growth will not be a steady figure, it will be up and down like
a yo-yo, but cumulatively over periods of decades of the sort of progress
cryonics needs it cannot fail to be very large.
If I am wrong about there being fantastic technology growth, no one who
reads this will be here to tell me so, and I won't be here to be told, so I
don't care!
--
Sincerely, ****************************************
* Publisher of Longevity Report *
John de Rivaz * Fractal Report *
* details on request *
****************************************
In the information age, sharing can increase world wealth enormously,
because giving information does not decrease your information.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR
Fast loading, very few slow pictures
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6101