32 replies to this topic

[kevin]

The Immortality Portfolio
By James K. Glassman 09/10/2001

I'll give you the good news first. Scientific advances may allow you to live for several decades beyond your current life expectancy. Now for the bad news -- saving enough money for retirement could become a whole lot tougher.

The fear that a retiree might outlive her savings is not exactly new. But what is new is the prospect, driven by America's vibrant biotech industry, that lots of Americans could be living into triple digits. On Aug. 27, the Wall Street Journal described how Harvard scientists, working with two Boston-area hospitals, apparently identified a "longevity gene" in humans - molecular machinery that causes aging.

Does that mean that we can now throw a genetic monkey wrench into this machine and stop the whole process? Too early to tell, but the Journal reports that already researchers have been able to lengthen the life spans of mice and nematode worms by altering genes.

When it comes to human cells, the amazing possibilities have actually been apparent for several years. In January of 1998, Geron Corporation announced that it had added a gene to human cells in vitro that allowed those cells to live well beyond their normal life span. Whereas a normal human cell will die after dividing about 60 times, these cells lived through hundreds of divisions. Geron apparently created "immortal cells," although that doesn't mean that immortal humans are just around the corner. Geron is trying to use the research to target specific diseases related to aging, like macular degeneration -- which causes failing eyesight. The company thinks that telomerase, the enzyme involved in the gene therapy, is just one piece of the aging puzzle.

When you think about the research at places like Geron and Harvard, all of the biotech firms aggressively pursuing treatments for thousands of ailments, and the wealth of knowledge gained from the completion of the human genome map, it's clear that longer lives will be the result. Sounds great, but it does raise tough questions for retirement savers. How much is enough? How long can I reasonably expect to live?

Living a long life is a great blessing for so many reasons, but it does create a financial challenge. So maybe the right idea is to invest in the companies trying to lengthen your life. Think of it as a hedge against the possibility of immortality. If all these ventures fail, then you probably won't get the breakthrough therapy allowing you to outlive your savings. On the other hand, if biotechnology allows you to live past a hundred, then you may be able to pay for your long retirement with the outstanding returns from investing in biotechnology.

O.K., there's a big potential flaw in this strategy. There's no guarantee that the particular companies you invest in, or for that matter any of the biotech companies currently in existence, will actually be the ones that create valuable therapies and reap large profits. So biotechs may tank, but you may end up living longer and needing more money anyway.

Still, a prudent approach should include some investment in biotech, along with many other sectors of the economy. Plus, the possibility of a long retirement - and the need for large investment returns to afford it -- is another great argument for embracing some risk, and that means investing in stocks, not just bonds. If you're looking to profit from advances in our understanding of human genes, the companies mentioned below make good candidates to receive a small portion of your investment dollars.

I offer one important caveat, inspired by the recent political debate over stem cell research. The media focus on federally funded research obscured the fact that there's plenty of privately funded research that would be objectionable to many Americans. So, if you're a person who believes that life begins at conception and that a human soul inhabits every embryo, then you'll probably want to steer clear of many biotech companies on moral grounds. Companies like Geron do research on embryonic stem cells, and many biotech firms will likely be cloning embryos, even though their aim is to create new medicines, not new people.

Among the companies developing interesting potential gene therapies are CuraGen (CRGN), Genzyme (GENZ) and Myriad Genetics (MYGN). Check them out.

[Lazarus Long]

I have watched as we have raised this topic and let it die on the vine a number of times. I was curious today and added a stock to the "watch list" that I am considering investing in and I think this feature is long overdue as a feature under the penumbra of our Institute.

It could have subcategories for various areas of investment such as distinguishing med-tech from nanotech, genetics, and AI software/hardware, etc. These areas would then allow us to make recommendations and share critiques of the various stocks as well as include them on our portfolio watch lists for our personalized picks and keep a fun fund graph that treats our plays as a conceptual Mutual Fund. We can discuss relative percent holding, downside risks and upside potentials and we can individually watch our funds performance both with an eye to profit AND to the effect the infusion of capital into industries and specific research we might consider important is having.

I suggest Immortalist Economics should be a category under Resources as the forum is currently structured and the "Topic Areas" should be broken down into specific categories of interests as I suggest above but also a general and specific analysis area where we analyze and gather data on specific corporations.

Previously I mentioned Geron as one whose research interested me and is also considered a legitimate long term market play with reasonable risks associated with it. Now I want to add deCode Genetics symbol DCGN. Some background on the company is found here:
http://moneycentral....=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0

Now please understand everyone that I have no relationship with these companies, and as of yet I have not even invested a penny in them but I think that we can begin to have a positive effect by putting our money where our mouths are and intelligently engineering our own investment strategy to further our goals. I also warn though that we must be cautious and do as much as possible to do our research into corporations before individually investing and demand total disclosure from those participating in the data gathering process such that they are required to announce beforehand their individual relationship with the specific corporation being analyzed.

I also think this feature should be reserved to the Full membership only and is definitely one that should make paying our dues seen as small compensation for much larger rewards that are consistent with our Institutional Mission.

The goals of this approach can be seen in a personally applied hierarchy that pragmatically can be seen as:

1. Creating an investment strategy producing profits to support the individual investor allowing them to put capital into whatever purpose they personally feel important.

2. Producing revenues that can be turned over to the Institute to further our common organizational ends such as sponsoring education programs, scholarships, specific research, writers prizes, and awards to researchers of merit consistent with our longer term purpose. These should include being able to make a collective contribution to such events as the Methuselah Prize but also perhaps broadening our focus into areas that might include activities that demonstrate importance such as reducing existential risk, or at times we may even take on the role of a PAC's (Public Advocacy Coalitions, Political Action Commitees, & Public Affairs Councils).

3. Generating investment capital that targets a collection of new emerging industries that are consistent with our collective long term strategies with respect to extending life expectancy & making a better world in which to live it in.

Do not consider the order above fixed, rather you can personally establish your own priorities and number three can be your personal number one or two. The issue is to not treat these as ordinal in relation to one another but to treat them as being mutual and concurrent in importance.

This is not a new idea specifically but as so much else has been going on we have let it lapse and I am trying to encourage a more focused discussion of this issue again along with an addendum. I am aware that a number of the individuals members are actual investment counselors, brokers and have fiduciary relationships with organizations that might see this as producing a conflict of interests if they were to be found either contributing to or profiting from participation in this idea but I think there may be a way around this if we focus our minds on seeking a solution to this and I encourage keeping us as transparent as possible as one manner of reducing personal liability.

Let us remember to do exactly as we say we are intent to and say exactly and openly what we intend to do.

[AgentNyder]

Actually I agree. If you put this in the member forum you'll give an added incentive to sign up.

Also there may be an issue, like you mentioned, with spammers visiting this site and giving us erroneous information.

This is one area, though, where we can put our research skills to good use.

[Lazarus Long]

Also there may be an issue, like you mentioned, with spammers visiting this site and giving us erroneous information.

One reason I think separating this from the "Free Member" access is valuable is that it makes posting to it and accessing its information impossible without also making an investment that would filter out the vast majority of spammers, except for possibly the most dangerous ones. We need to address developing safeguards but I still think this is doable and if we are not an actual fund but instead more of a "Private Newsletter" akin to a "Kipplinger or Forbes Report" then we can operate with a certain degree of limited immunity.

We would have to be very careful and develop a means of self regulating ourselves that should pay close attention to the learning curve many of the world's markets are currently encountering with the scandals and pitfalls of insider trading but I think we can hold our eyes to the prize and get past this if we see beyond simpler individual advantage.

This is the true test of the libertarian mindset as it is obvious that by combining our capital in a capitalist market we improve our chances of success dramatically but it also establishes that some internal strife and corrupt competitive manipulation becomes possible and we need to establish safeguards against this in order to regulate ourselves.

Together we make a vastly more powerful economic force than individually we can never hope to equal and the easiest manner to accomplish this is through applications of market strategies and it is time to see beyond simplistic discussion of "Free versus Controlled" markets because neither is true pragmatically as all markets have sectors that are freer than others and controlled for reasons of regional, cultural, or individual interests.

In this instance if we can agree to disagree on many interpersonal and political issues but are willing to profit individually and share some of those profits collectively (based on individualized choices) for this common quest then perhaps we can structure a win/win scenario with vast improvements in longevity as a common prize along with wealth as a more accessible means to the end of bettering not only our own lives but life in general.

Consistent with this discussion and more than what appears to be randomly applied serendipity is this articel from the current Nature.

http://www.nature.co...2/030922-6.html

A review of many of the precepts discussed is required reading for those that think we are so different from the rest of the animal kingdom but also for those of us that think we can actually determine the outcome of our investments rationally.

Stock market traders show signs of zero intelligence
Economic fluctuations appear to result from random decisions.
24 September 2003
PHILIP BALL

Traders aren't cold rational beings with perfect knowledge.

Market traders are not mindless. But if they were we might not notice the difference, claim J. Doyne Farmer, of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, and co-workers.

Their theoretical model assumes that traders place orders at random rather than on the basis of shrewd calculation and observation of economic trends. It reproduces some of the statistical features of financial markets. Traders, it suggests, are rather like ants swarming chaotically through the guts of a great clock, barely affecting its ability to tick.

The findings further undermine one of the most cherished notions of economic theory. Since the nineteenth century, economists have imagined traders as omniscient and coldly logical beings, who aim always to maximize their profits based on complete knowledge about what the entire market is doing.

Modern economists recognize that people aren't fully informed or rational. Much recent theory has been devoted to understanding how we cope with imperfect information, and how our behaviour is interdependent and sometimes irrational. Irrationality leads to the herding that can drive market crashes.
{excerpts}

Related Articles

• Market law found?
9 January 2003

• Cards deal blow to market theory
13 November 2002

• Stock market shock explained
1 October 2002

• Market calms before storm
25 May 2001

• Stockbrokers may act like sheep
3 January 2001

[Lazarus Long]

One of the ways I suggest we start is by making a watch list but also we can use our freely available portal gates to create our individualized stock watch lists by simply inputting our choices and then discussing the results among ourselves. This should allow us to make more informed choices by more rational criteria designed to do more than to just "get rich quick."

These are readily available on MSN, Yahoo, Netscape, AOL, and many major News services such as Reuters, AP. or the BBC to name but a few.

Here is the new one being touted by the BBC.
http://newsvote.bbc....iew/default.stm

[Mind]

A stock investment/watch list is a good idea NOW, especially since world markets are coming out of a slump. I missed the tech boom from the mid 80's through late 90's, even though many of my friends encouraged me to buy the "hot" stocks. I should've done it. I don't want to be the one saying "I should have bought Microsoft when it was $10 a share" this time around. I feel we as a group are especially attuned to where the future is headed and thus could make some money for ourselves, for the institue, and for the future.

I know you have mentioned a couple of stocks already Laz. Are we going to make an official list available to Full Members? I suggest we also have relevant info attached to the list, analysis from pros and ourselves about why the particular stock has potential.

[Lazarus Long]

A little over a year ago we outlined and began examining GERON the first time at this link:
http://new.imminst.o...&st=0

Since the article that was referenced in that post was written the stock rises and falls dramatically while ending at higher prices that the buy price at that time and losing dramatically against its peak price. This case exemplifies the risks and potential rewards f playing a stock like this right, and potentially wrong as well.

I suggest a review of what I referring to is necessary for all that want to be a party to this discussion because it is about number and weighing risks as well as defining strategies.

In case you want to read more here is the article referred to in the post:
http://www.thestreet...s/10039513.html

And here is the current analysis from the standard street sources: GERN (Geron)
http://moneycentral....=qd&Symbol=GERN

By looking at the graph described by the last year you will find a roller coaster that was exhilarating to say the least but would have left you chucking your cookies if you ingested the stock at the wrong time and laughing all the way to the bank if you got on at the right time as well as off.
http://moneycentral....=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0

As I am strongly against treating ourselves as day-traders and Vegas style business types, I suggest you also look at a three year graph for Geron:
http://moneycentral....=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0

The street rates this buy low and over the last few years it exemplifies the high tech issues that were beaten up by the street in the market down turn and it hasn't yet recovered fully and is likely to soon but it has returned a reasonable ahead of market rate of return on the last year overall and this is why seeing things long versus short term is important. A year ago it traded at a little over 4$ when we first looked and today it is at mid 13$ so on an annualized basis this return is very positive though conservative.

Is this a reason to get on now?

This is where I want to hear feedback to make this idea of sharing our knowledge and ideas meaningful. It is also an example of how I think this sector of our forum might operate. The two stocks we have just begun examining look to be plays that are similar in character to what we were looking at with Geron a year ago.

Oh did I say two?

Yes two, add MLMN Millennium Pharmaceuticals to DCGN on our list to analyze and watch.
http://news.moneycen...asp?Symbol=MLNM

And compare them to the performance of this stock FLML Flamel Technologies which is a bio/nano med tech play that has moved up dramatically though I would not necessarily recommend it now.
http://moneycentral....=qd&Symbol=FLML

Warning!

This is real work and will detract from many creative activities if we get started on this but it can produce dramatic results in a reasonable time if we are serious and sincere about how we work together.

Have you ever noticed how the people who most religiously defend various economic systems have little or no understanding of them and yet the people who most vociferously attack them often most clearly understand them?

I have always found it truly ironic that Stalin and Dillinger robbed banks for very much the same reasons. One became a dead folk hero of the depression and the other rode the depression to become the focus of a cult of personality on the cash and contacts acquired.

Now can people of good will move wealth with as powerful a result and retain their initial positive motivations and responsible/considerate relations?

We certainly should be able to and so I am promoting this topic to test the valididty of this concept of collectivist capitalism.

Oh for you younger folks and those that don't know history there is a famous exchange between Dillinger and a reporter that went something like this:

Reporter:  "Mr. Dillinger why is it you rob banks?"
Dillinger:  "Well sonny, ya see here it's simple; that's where they keep the money".

[Lazarus Long]

For what its worth I should explain that I just merged an old post of Kevin's and doing so reassigned the entire thread to him. I don't care about the credit, I care about the cause but this feature of merging can get confusing when in order to keep the original thread intact we lose the identity of the originator. Also can we expand topic edit functions a little to allow us to insert merged or split posts at the point in the thread where we want them?

As of now it seems like the "donor topic" always moves to the front of the new merged thread and reassigns the the new thread with the old thread's originator and recipient's location and title.

I would suggest this is inherently confusing and after we get some of this worked out to our liking I think we need a FAQ's on "how to's" for the leadership that describes how we use many of the forum features.

BTW, I like a lot of what you did to the Constitution and I will review it and get back to you later, but I would like to hear from other people first.

Also I think the call for a vote on this thread's subject is good too but first I would love to hear more feedback from the other members and leaders that is why I put the discussion in an area where everyone can access it.

[Bruce Klein]

If you really wish to get confused.. try to 'split' a topic. This will allow for the moving of individual posts... but can be a trick in and of itself.

Your right, the merge option is not very clear, but I think one can do it in reverse to preserve the thread starter of choice.

I'll keep in mind the suggestions. A FAQ for new members is certainly needed.

[Lazarus Long]

Link this thread on Nanotech investment too:

http://new.imminst.o...t=0

[AgentNyder]

This is the true test of the libertarian mindset as it is obvious that by combining our capital in a capitalist market we improve our chances of success dramatically but it also establishes that some internal strife and corrupt competitive manipulation becomes possible and we need to establish safeguards against this in order to regulate ourselves.

Together we make a vastly more powerful economic force than individually we can never hope to equal and the easiest manner to accomplish this is through applications of market strategies and it is time to see beyond simplistic discussion of "Free versus Controlled" markets because neither is true pragmatically as all markets have sectors that are freer than others and controlled for reasons of regional, cultural, or individual interests.

In this instance if we can agree to disagree on many interpersonal and political issues but are willing to profit individually and share some of those profits collectively (based on individualized choices) for this common quest then perhaps we can structure a win/win scenario with vast improvements in longevity as a common prize along with wealth as a more accessible means to the end of bettering not only our own lives but life in general.

Lazarus, I don't see what politics has to with it. Actually, if you were in the socialist mindset; profits should be distributed equally with collective ownership. This is partly true when you buy into a publically listed company, effectively owning a 'part' of that company and sharing in it's profit-seeking endeavours. However, the socialists will still object to this as their is unequal ownership amongst shareholders and they would accuse the market of being manipulated by those with power.

Anyway, to another matter - technology forecasts might be useful for looking ahead to what industries will be profitable in the future.

http://www.battelle..../technology.stm

http://www.wfs.org/forecasts.htm

^That's just two I found but this is another area of continuing research so we need up to date 'updates'....

And there is even a World Federation of Exchanges, and they list probably most of the stock exchanges in the world on them. If anyone can find a way to work out the tax laws and invest in multiple stock markets then your opportunities would be expanded many fold.

World Federation of Exchanges (contains a list of stock exchanges with address of their websites)

http://www.world-exc...&menu=54&nav=ie

[B)]

[srmann]

I am a newbie to this forum but the idea of some type of investment forum is great. It should be for full members only, serious people. I would like to take part by first becoming a full member and contributing my strong suit which is research. Have been managing my own acct for many years. srmann

[Bruce Klein]

I've created the new 'Investments' Forum within the Full Member forum. Thanks for the input.

[Lazarus Long]

I also want to thank everyone and emphasize again here that we must seek early on a behavioral policy consistent with the creation of a financial strategy that is not the same as what drives the majority of transactions. We are looking for profit AND to support a specific set of developing sectors. We must take the Long View. With that in mind I will try to work with a few of you that are serious and create a "Long View Letter" that can outline trends, opportunities, and risks and perhaps get this out once a month.

Also to put a perspectve on risks I suggest these two articles are worth reading:

Jubak's Journal
Why tech stocks are headed for a fall
Posted 9/26/2003
Earnings growth will look spectacular in the coming months. Feel free to jump in -- but steel yourself for the cold shower coming in 2004.
http://moneycentral....tent/P58102.asp

Back to the bubble
Bearish sorts worry that investors didn't learn a thing from the crash.
September 24, 2003: 8:39 AM EDT
By Justin Lahart, CNN/Money Senior Writer
http://money.cnn.com...dex.htm?cnn=yes

[AgentNyder]

Why thank you, Lazarus.

Another area that some people may want to investigate are fund managers who specialise in handling technology investment portfolios. There are probably quite a few of them out there on the market, I won't provide any links as I think that if anyone wants to approach it this way then they will be able to sort through all of the material that's out there to find the best deal. Of course this is just for the person who wishes to give up a portion of self-management and control; to a possibly more experienced and professional technology stock traders.

I'm not really recommending it, it's just that this strategy cannot go unmentioned.

[AgentNyder]

Another angle for the serious investor to contemplate - Swiss Bank Accounts.

Going global with your assets is simply a common sense approach to wealth preservation. By doing so, your options are broadened, your wealth increased, your taxes may be cut, your privacy enhanced, and your security and peace of mind strengthened. Switzerland has traditionally been a safe haven for investors but, today, it also offers modern vehicles for globally diversified portfolios.

http://www.cyberhaven.com/fortress/

Here is a site that explains more about Swiss Banking and has a list of all of the banks in Switzerland:

http://www.swconsult...bin/banklist.pl

For more basic information on Switzerland go here: http://www.cia.gov/c...ok/geos/sz.html

[AgentNyder]

http://www.tdd.lt/sl....Exchanges.html

^Another link with a list of all of the stock exchanges with links to their websites.

[David]

Property's the go kiddies, the stock market is just a glorified gambling den.

[JonesGuy]

I dislike mutual funds even more than I dislike stocks. Most mutual funds have a fee that they charge, per year, for their services. That's fair, charging a fee for services. Everyone does that.

However, what I don't like is that the fee directly affects your return. If the fund makes 10% and they charge 1.5%, then you only get 8.5%.

If you had purchased the same stocks as the mutual fund, you'd be up 1.5% (minus the difference in commision costs - they pay commission too, but probably get a discount).

The stock market IS a good place to make money. But to me (I worked in the stock market for over seven years), it's really just a huge Ponzi scheme, and the money isn't really doing anything. If you're going to spend your profits on something useful, then by all means, make your money where you can.

[AgentNyder]

Property's the go kiddies, the stock market is just a glorified gambling den.

Yes I agree but it's still a good idea to diversify your portfolio when you can. Also, small time investors who can't afford property have to look elsewhere and the best returns I have seen so far are on the share market. Ok - there's also starting a business; but you need a lot of capital for that also.

[AgentNyder]

I dislike mutual funds even more than I dislike stocks.  Most mutual funds have a fee that they charge, per year, for their services.  That's fair, charging a fee for services.  Everyone does that.

However, what I don't like is that the fee directly affects your return.  If the fund makes 10% and they charge 1.5%, then you only get 8.5%.

If you had purchased the same stocks as the mutual fund, you'd be up 1.5% (minus the difference in commision costs - they pay commission too, but probably get a discount).

The stock market IS a good place to make money.  But to me (I worked in the stock market for over seven years), it's really just a huge Ponzi scheme, and the money isn't really doing anything.  If you're going to spend your profits on something useful, then by all means, make your money where you can.

Yes, you're right but it all depends on how good you are with managing your own portfolio. There are fund managers who are a lot more skillful in handling risk, minimising losses and maximising returns. There are some pretty good funds out there that invest in a variety of different areas that can perform quite well. There are probably some bad ones out there too though.

Actually, I find trusts to be the best as they offer high interest rates. Imagine a pretty good guarantee of 8-10% in a property trust, because that's the kind of rates I have seen. Again there is risk - so you have to investigate the company.

(PS - I'm not trying to offer financial advice, just my own thoughts. I'm way too inexperienced in the financial area to give accurate advice!) [":)]

[David]

I bought a property on $7,000 down in Cairns on Austudy, which has appreciated by $40,000 over 2.5 years. It doesn't take much to get started, and as long as you don't get emotionally attached to the money, it can be fun! The money I have made will pay my University fees. Or I may use it as a downpaynment on a block of flats in 18 months or so, or get into my ultimate dream of starting an internet recording company. How much do you think a $7,000 car would be worth, if I had bought it instead of riding my $100 made in China bycycle to Uni every day? It often amazes me that our education system isn't teaching us to be more enteprenurial!

PS. I have still managed to lose on the stock market so far, (around $3,000) so I may be biased.

[AgentNyder]

I bought a property on $7,000 down in Cairns on Austudy, which has appreciated by $40,000 over 2.5 years. It doesn't take much to get started, and as long as you don't get emotionally attached to the money, it can be fun! The money I have made will pay my University fees. Or I may use it as a downpaynment on a block of flats in 18 months or so, or get into my ultimate dream of starting an internet recording company. How much do you think a $7,000 car would be worth, if I had bought it instead of riding my $100 made in China bycycle to Uni every day? It often amazes me that our education system isn't teaching us to be more enteprenurial!

PS. I have still managed to lose on the stock market so far, (around $3,000) so I may be biased.

$7000 hey? Was that the deposit? It sounds to me like you got out a loan but I could be wrong. Unfortunately, I don't yet meet the eligibility criteria for any housing loan (it's something like 1-2 years in a job above a certain income, of course assets and credit history also help your case). It's not fair I tells you. [angry]

My sister actually owns two properties near Brisbane that she brought cheap and have skyrocketed in value. She used the equity from the first house to get the second property. I believe that is a very used strategy - build up equity and keep using that to accumulate more property. [sfty]

So David, what are you planning to do with your property? Rent it out, sell it after capital gain?

And I definitely agree with you about the car. You can waste money on extravagant purchases when you have nearly no money and you just end up in debt. The best debt to have is an investment debt, IMO. I had to buy a car though - a good investment to get a job with.

[AgentNyder]

QJones,

...I worked in the stock market for over seven years...

Really? Which stockmarket? What did you do?

[David]

My wife finishes her degree in about 6 weeks. Depending on where she gets a job, we will iether be living in it (if she gets a job in Cairns) while I finish my degree or renting (if she gets one somewhere else) it out for around 18 mths or so, to see how much higher the value goes (Values rose here by 30% this year), then selling it to use the capital gain as a down payment on a block of flats somewhere.

I like to look around for an area with high potential, going through a tough time. Cairns (tourist town) was perfect after 911 and the Sars outbreak. People selling units for the price of a good car. Newcastle after they shut down the steel mills was a good investment, some of the larger regional cane growing centres are an interesting investment opportunity at the moment, cane farmers are having to sell their investment properties to keep the farm going at the moment. Best to be careful to buy in areas that are big enough to recover though, no point buying dirt cheap properties in towns where you can't rent them out.

Yes, that was the deposit. Lucky me, I got it refunded through the first homeowners scheme. Which means of course, capital outlay, $0. Capital gain at the moment, $40,000. Anybody can do this type of thing, you just have to open your auntrepreneurial eyes. (See, I can't spell it, but I can DO IT!)

[AgentNyder]

Ah yes but the key thing is securing a loan.

The current property bubble is bound to burst soon and then hopefully I'll be prepared to start entering the property market.

Shares are good but I agree with you, David, that property definitely has its advantages over shares. The primary one being that you can receive passive income from rent while the value goes up.

[David]

AgentNyder, I agree, gettin the loan is the hurdle. However, if you aproach the idea believing they won't give you a loan, they probably won't. When I applied to the loan dude for the money, I had a business plan. Not a emotionally charged plea for money to buy a family home. I gave him a costs VS benifits analysis of the advantages to his bank and myself of his bank and I becoming partners in an investment opportunity. I told him how if I found it difficult to pay the rent, I could rent the property out at a nett gain, whilst renting a smaller property for myself to live in.

Of course I had to find a property that would return me a profit after loan repayments, body corporate fees, rates and repairs. It isn't easy, but if you set your mind on something, eventually you will accomplish it.

It turns out that buying a unit in Cairns was cheaper by $10 per week than renting one. And, as I said, the Govt. GAVE me the money for the downpayment back after I had made the purchase.

I guess I just thought myself outside the chains of my working class background...

The property bubble may not burst. I think the reason the regional centres of Australia are experiencing capital gain is because Sydneysiders and Melbounians are investing outside the main points of the bubble. This suggests to me that the bubble may not burst, because these investors are relieving the pressure on it somewhat. In addition, many baby boomers are retiring and experiencing a "Sea Change", selling their homes in Sydney and Melbourne and moving to places like Brissie and Cairns which is helping to relieve the pressure on the bubble too.

There is one thing that could burst the bubble, and that's if one of the major parties takes the courageous step of removing negative gearing. I have an amount of money in the bank just for such an occasion, [sfty] I'll be buying everything I can under those circumstances!

[AgentNyder]

I implore your tactics in seeking a loan, David. I am not being pessimistic but I know that my financial situation currently will prevent me from getting out any loan. However, that will all change soon I hope. Congratulations on securing your investment property, too.

As such, I am not too sure about the state of property values at the moment in various areas throughout Australia. However, I did some research at www.realestate.com.au and noted that there are apartments scattered around at fairly reasonable prices (I am currently aiming for a single bedroom apartment to own - as accomodation for myself and equity).

Negative gearing - I'll have to do some more research before I comment on that. Maybe I should read a book on property investing. [lol]

Sidenote: fellow immortalists, invest now before your jobs are taken by robots! [:o]

[jurojin]

After taking economics 1 and 2 at college I still don't know the answer to this question. If the average lifespan of a population increases(and lets say social security is dropped), then I assume more people would invest their money. Now if more people are investing their money, would the stockmarket become less profitable?

There has to be a point where higher capitol investment has deminishing returns. Also since more people would be investing fewer would be buying consumer goods. Any thoughts on this?

[enigma]

This is a very old thread, but I just wanted to add that immortality would push property prices up MASSIVELY, even without population growth (i.e laws on child birth). People would be able to work much much longer(forever) and thus would be willing to pay more for a permanent piece of land. Aswell the benefit of land to people would be greater (you use it for a greater number of years) so there would be more demand for land and this would push the price up a great deal.

The future price of land should be factored into the current price, however, many people believe that there is none to little possibility of immortality.
So, these people (the majority) do not factor in the possibility of immortality and the effect that would have on the price of land into their property investments (meaning that property is undervalued because of lack of speculation of massive future price rises caused by immortality). The property investor not only makes a normal profit on land (in an average year) but whenever it looks like we are getting closer to immortality (i.e media, new research, greater general awareness) people will more and more see this as a possibility and factor the effect of immortality into the expected future price of land, pushing up the property price. So, property is an excellent long term investment if you believe either.

1. Immortality will be brought about in your lifetime
2. More people will believe that immortality is a real possibility in the future as this will increase speculative property investments caused by expectation of higher than previously expected future price rises. This increases demand and pushes the price up.

So, how is buying property better than investing in companies that are investing in immortality research?

Well, even if immortality is not achieved in your lifetime, you still gain a normal profit on the land, and its safer than investing in companies. Plus, mere speculation of immortality would likely push house prices up in the future as more people become aware of immortality as a real possibility. Aswell, lets say
that one pharmaceutical company invents an immortality pill, any other companys research into immortality will become relatively worthless and the price
of their stocks will go down. You dont know what company will make this breakthrough, so investing in these companies is risky, with property, the price of
all property will drastically increase with immortality OR future speculation of immortality.

Thus, land is the best investment for the immortalist.