The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investment Analysis Clubs / Macro Economic Trends and Risks
|Subject: Re: Arctic Ice||Date: 2/24/2014 12:02 PM|
|Author: rubberthinking||Number: 445374 of 512901|
Which for we of the unwashed masses is probably the best choice. I invest in the oil and gas industries because they make money for me. If I thought for one second I could change the world by not doing so I probably would quit but I don't. Instead I fill my light bulb sockets with LED bulbs, drive my little S-40 Volvo 3-4 times a week and watch the Arctic Ice and the over specialized Polar bear struggling to survive.
Tim, Qaz and others,
There is an honest problem with this approach. There are new technologies on the drawing board that will be available in the next ten years or less.
When someone like WEB buys a company he applies a DCF or a FCF depending on his preferences. In fundamental value approaches to the market DCF/FCF methods pretty much over the long haul supply the numbers for what a stock issue should be priced. On a rolling basis a DCF/FCF in say XOM today looks good. I say a rolling basis because this is not a trading proposition, but a LTBH. On a rolling basis five years from now I dont expect XOM to look so good. Substitutes will be entering the energy market at a much more rapid pace.
Many of the substitutes are localized. PV is not just a massive set of arrays in a field in Iowa. It can be the roof of your house or part of your back yard. New battery technologies are being developed to store the energy as well. And Fuel cells will have come a long way to begin the process of replacing gasoline powered cars about 10 to 15 years from now.
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|