Biosciences is the space to track and follow globally. Sector offers extra large opportunity landscape. Shared the full thesis in that April webinar. Convinced that 🧬 will throw many big compounders in next few years.
#Fermentation #Biotechnology
More from Conviction | Patience
Tail-events generate the biggest panic and upside. If you survive the panic w/o jumping off the train, you deserve the 100x in few stocks.
Temperament + Business Analysis = ⤴️
@unseenvalue Hats off Sir. I compared an equal weighted portfolio of your stocks above to the 2 Coffee Can stocks Abbott & Divis and your portfolio has delivered significant upside since then
— ML4TradingDoctor (@DrKRIndia) May 16, 2021
Key has to be conviction and equal weighting pic.twitter.com/6dJ1LDMSYr
@unseenvalue Given high capex/opex cost structures of US/Japan/EU, how will they be able to compete with Indian API companies? https://t.co/OYhC2PUZpL
— Hiren (@hiren_investing) August 11, 2021
More from Uvlearnings
2. Put your neck on the line (invest your hard earned capital - experience comes by paying tuition fee)
3. Read non-investing books as well (Psychology, history, biographies or whatever non-fiction you like)
4. Read this :
https://t.co/6z3HvtKakL
How to augment your Sector knowledge? Follow these 5 points \U0001f447
— Conviction | Patience (@unseenvalue) May 18, 2019
1. The Five Rules For Successful Stock Investing by Pat Dorsey
2. Con Calls - as many as you can in that sector
3. Annual Reports - as many as you can in that sector
4. Interact with trade/channel partners
5. AGMs pic.twitter.com/2ZOx3nkC4i
You May Also Like
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?