Joshua Zeidner wrote:
> On 2/28/07, Joseph Sinclair <plug-discussion@stcaz.net> wrote:
>
>> As far as bubbles go, energy is a good current candidate, as is materials science.  It may >be another year or so before the next bubble is really clear, but it probably won't be >healthcare, that's more likely to hit in 2017, if ever.
>
>   Joseph,
>
>    Just curious, what indicators are you going by?  Remember that
> bubbles do not form based on their actual value to society, its based
> on financial performance.  As soon as enough money goes into something
> it literally runs on its own momentum( case in point: Google[1] ).  At
> this point, I can't think of any space-age materials that are making
> people millionaires.  Energy may be a possibility, but energy is
> really a commodity, and as such is not really subject to bubble
> behavior because it is not easy for people to throw the system out of
> whack.
---
Bubbles actually have nothing to do with money, they're about emotions and herd behavior, the internet had very little money in it when the last bubble began, it was the *perception* of "Dot Com" companies as growth opportunities that drove the frenzy.

Energy in terms of, primarily, renewables and related technologies.  Energy itself is a commodity, the technology to produce it most certainly is not.
Materials in terms, primarily, of nano-materials (nanotubes, quantum dots, etc...).
Both are possible nascent bubbles because investors (esp. VC) see them as areas with high growth potential, and they are both technology areas where a lot of basic research has been done, but relatively little applications research has been completed.

In any case, my primary point, that healthcare is unlikely to be the next bubble, is based on the simple fact that nothing spectacular is happening in healthcare right now, it's growing, sure, but nothing that will grab the public imagination, just more and more "treatments" designed to avoid actually *curing* anything.

BTW, there are quite a few millionaires being made from materials technology, look at Konarka or Nanosys for just a couple of examples (both are active in solar nanomaterials, crossing both energy and materials sectors).

>
>   I am curious to hear your thoughts.
>
>  -jmz
>
> [1] remember that Google's primary( perhaps singular ) source of
> revenue are those silly little ads on the bottom of blogs.  click
> click!
---
Google actually is trading at a very reasonable price premium for a technology company (38,45 P/E, compare to Amazon at 53,86 P/E), those "silly little click ads" generated 3.2 billion USD in revenue last quarter ( 10.6 for the year) with over 30% margin (compare to <5% for Amazon with roughly the same gross revenue).
(disclosure, Google is my current employer, their financials, however, are available from any investment site and it is that information alone upon which the above is based)

>
> ( 602 ) 490 8006
> jjzeidner@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss