Public funds allocate 40% of new energy, pharmaceutical semiconductor people must insist

The public fund allocates 40% of new energy, and no one cares about medicine. I am very happy, because I have done it. When no one cares about buying, others are afraid of me and greedy. Both semiconductor and military industries benefited from the international situation, but the former only rebounded 20%, while the latter rebounded 50%. In fact, medicine is indeed experiencing a low emotional situation now, and medicine is the worst sector among growth stocks. Of course, semiconductors are also miserable, and the configuration value is also very high. The growth stocks we are familiar with are actually new energy, semiconductors, military industry, and pharmaceuticals, all of which are the weights of the Growth Enterprise Market and the Science and Technology Innovation Board.

In general, after being stimulated by the same news, medicine is worse than new energy, and semiconductor is worse than military industry.

The rise of new energy, in fact, I am convinced that it is indeed a stimulus to performance and positive news. In terms of performance, subsidies for new energy vehicles stimulate consumption, set carbon neutrality as a national policy, and the European energy crisis has accelerated the replacement of clean energy. The reason I didn’t get involved is because I don’t think this sector has been adjusted enough. Of course it doesn’t matter if you miss it. Because the money made by luck will be lost back by strength.

Medicine and new energy have both been affected by the latest U.S. policies, and my country is ahead of the U.S. in both fields. Needless to say about new energy, CXOs affected by medicine benefit from the dividends of Chinese engineers, reducing costs and increasing efficiency by more than half for major US pharmaceutical companies, and CXOs are high-end manufacturing and cannot be replaced by India and Vietnam. The fact that CXO can take orders from the United States and be concerned by the United States proves the leading position of CXO in my country. As a result, after the news came out, CXO collectively fell to the limit, and new energy was scratching its itch. This market is really unfair. Treating new energy is like a three-year-old child, doing everything is right, bullying medicine is like bullying a middle-aged man.

The semiconductor sector is actually very similar to medicine, and it belongs to the difficult brothers and sisters sector. Semiconductor valuations are also low, but not as low as pharmaceuticals. And semiconductors have also encountered a downturn in the cycle and a decline in prosperity, because its performance is highly related to the economic prosperity. It’s a recession, so demand for semiconductors will also drop. After the introduction of the chip bill in the United States, semiconductors barely survived. Well, medicine is now also engaged in by the United States, and it can also be replaced by domestic products, but the market is indifferent. So I think medicine is worse than semiconductor.

The valuation of the military industry is twice that of medicine and 1.5 times that of semiconductors. The evaluation of the military industry is high prosperity and certainty. The reason why the military industry can rebound by 50% is that the international situation is good, but chip semiconductors are also a good sector in the international situation. As a result, semiconductors only rebounded by 20%, which is really miserable.

We have to think about the reason behind it, which is the reason for the prosperity of the industry. The impossible triangle of investment is high prosperity + low valuation + certainty. New energy, semiconductors, military industry, and medicine are all very certain. New energy and military industry do not need me to blow. Domestic substitution of semiconductors, China is the world’s largest semiconductor market, and medicine benefits from an aging population and innovative drug support. Then new energy and military industry are high boom + high valuation, medicine and semiconductor are low boom + low valuation. The low prosperity of semiconductors is due to the economic recession suppressing the demand for semiconductors, while the pharmaceutical industry is due to the disappearance of the new crown dividends of innovative drugs and CXO, superimposed on the downturn caused by the involution of domestic innovative drugs and the unbelief of investors.

But let’s think about it, will the low boom in semiconductors and medicine continue? the answer is negative. Investment is to buy. When no one cares, the situation of semiconductor medicine will not be worse than it is now, and it will be very peaceful after some events are stimulated.

In general, the magnitude and duration of the medical adjustment make me feel that it is very valuable, and it has the lowest valuation and strong certainty among many growth stocks. As for the problem of centralized procurement, I have explained in countless articles that the pharmaceuticals in Japan and the United States are still stronger than the corresponding market after centralized procurement, and are the concentration of 10 times the bull stock. This sector is unique in benefiting from my country’s aging population. In fact, semiconductors have halved at the low point of 427, just like medicine. Under the wave of domestic substitution, they also benefit from the international situation. It is a matter of time before semiconductors rise relative to the military industry.

Medicine, semiconductor people, stick to it. These two underestimated growth are the best opportunities.

$Medical ETF(SH512170)$ $Semiconductor ETF(SH512480)$ $Ningde Times(SZ300750)$ #Trail stocks fell across the board, led by photovoltaics, energy storage, and wind power# #The ratio of public funds to new energy allocations is as high as 40%#

This topic has 33 discussions in Snowball, click to view.
Snowball is an investor’s social network, and smart investors are here.
Click to download Snowball mobile client ]]>

This article is reproduced from:
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.