With all this global warming thing drone-oriented technologies might not be a bad idea at all 
ahahah, that’s really funny
ok, that’s only a 1K investment. I have to reconsider my investment portfolio now
It could be funny if it wasn’t this sad, guys.
The problem of global warming concerns us all and this is not something we should laugh about. Moreover, the problem of water resources that we’ve discussed earlier is directly related to this issue.
It doesn’t work like, oh, look, the iceberg has melt, we gonna drown now!
Vice versa, the global warming means that the climate can change dramatically. Rivers and lakes that people and animals drink from may disappear. This is actually happening within our lifespan and we all can see how the climate has changed ALREADY.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be rude or underestimate the important problem. Just a little joke, please don’t get mad at a silly joke.
Oh, not at all. I didn’t mean to sound snobbish or sullen.
Coming back to the topic of discussion, I just wanted to underline the fact that the problem of contactless deliveries is probably just a temporary madness that has conquered the world recently. As opposite, the problem if global warming and water resources lasts for decades and is not gonna get less important anytime soon, unfortunately. This is why WR is a better investment than drones.
Where do you find this info on the min invest requirements at tradecom? Can't find it on site. tnx in advance!
All these minimum requirements are different for each portfolio, this is why you can’t find them in the main Thematic Portfolios page. You gotta click on each portfolio separately to get to know the details.
Tnx indeed! Sorry guys, but even by these min requirements set for contactless and biopharma one can see these are the cheap lottery tickets that are there simply to add morte excitement to the whole idea of investments.
I agree with what you’ve discussed before. Water resources and AI have got lot more chances to be successful in a long run.
But for the broker it might be a very good idea to offer these high risk/ high reward portfolios. People have got an unbelievable sense of self-importance and $1000 is not a big price to pay for a new title of REAL INVESTOR.
There is some truth in your words, and I cant say I totally disagree with u. But I can’t leave one thing unnoticed here. People don’t simply pay for the title of investor. They actually become REAL investors, and like any other real investor they can be making money with this decision. It would be silly to invest in just one risky asset and hope for some good luck and +1000% yearly ROI. Drones and pharmaceuticals are more of a venture investments that have to be diversified well.
Spending 1K on one portfolio is not a good idea. But spending 15K on 15 different alternative portfolios can actually be much more profitable than investing $15K in SnP500 at all time highs.
Absolutely! No objections at all. That was actually my point, that you shouldn’t consider investing in just one alternative portfolio, simply because you’ve got just 1K. Buying 1k worth of lottery tickets may yield a better results. But overall I have nothing against alternative investments. They just require enough capital for deiversification.
I think that if you’ve got 1K only, then probably you will be more comfortable swing-trading CFDs or forex.
I had a look once again at all these tradecom’s portfolios that they offer. You know what? For some reason we have not discurred their social media and internet advertizing portfolios.
And INHO this is something that is going to rise in value year after year.
This year we’ve learned people can work from home more than we used to think they can. We’ve learnt that politics depend a lot of what people share on Facebook, etc.
Some people say Google and Facebook have grown enough already, but I think this is just the beginning.
So pay attention to this portfolio at trade com if you’ve got extra 25K 
In general I agree, but I think that buying some stocks of the above companies is an easier path.
The thing is that portfolios are meant to diversify the risks. We can’t speak of any kind of diversification if we invest in FB and GOOG only.
The broker (and its analytics) choose companies that relate to the industry from all over the world.
See, they’ve got Baidu in their portfolio for example. That’s a Chinese media-company. FB and GOOG alltogether complete only 25% of this portfolio. And I wonder what else they’ve got there. THis is how the risks are diversified. If american companies fail, chinese might win. or russian, or some other ones…
That makes sense, got you. Thnx for the remark.
trade.com has raised the threshhold for alternative portfolio investments, unfortunately. The contactless deliveries start with 18K now, biopharma is 22K 
Yeah, you’ve got to seize the moment in thing like these. You know, both active trading and investments are often like that: you either manage to do the right thing when there is an opportunity, or you … are on the losers side
arrr, a bit stressed about the situation, yet, I can disagree with the statement.
Market is full of opportunities, there is always another one around the corner.
You know, I am currently reading “The Zurich Axioms” by Max Gunther and I fund one of the ideas quite surprising and sound.
We all are being told here that we must control the risks, but there is another side of the issue. The idea of the book is that in order to win on the market you not only have to be able to take risks, but you also need to RISK ENOUGH so that the reward is worth the effort.
The thought stroke me and I think it has something to do with your discussion here guys.
Exactly! Not only you have to control the risks, but TAKE THEM too. No risks, no profits. It’s like what happened with ZOOM this year. We all knew it will go up, when the lockdown’s started and businesses started paying ZOOM for unlimited time conferences. But who of us here has bought at least one stock?