In the past two days, the temperature in Shanghai has plummeted, and last Thursday was still a "high temperature" of 20 degrees, and it has been rainy for several days.
I am Xi to the dry cold and heating in Tianjin in winter, and I am really a little uncomfortable to come to Shanghai for winter.
This kind of weather with great temperature difference is not very friendly to the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular vessels, so whether it is the elderly who have retired ashore or the young and middle-aged social animals who work overtime for a long time, often stay up late, and have high pressure to go to work, everyone must protect themselves, and the body is the capital of the revolution.
Recently, I have always seen the news of untimely death, and I am also more emotional, it is said that medicine is really a good industry, you can say that the population has peaked, and the logic of consumption and real estate has changed, but the demand for medicine has always existed and will be increasing.
But investment is always not a simple causal relationship, China's pharmaceutical industry, strictly speaking, is not to C consumer goods business, but to G business, the largest customer of the pharmaceutical industry is the medical insurance bureau.
For us ordinary people, this is of course a good thing, but for the stock price of pharmaceutical companies, it is equivalent to an extra variable.
This is different from the United States, which is the only developed country in the world that does not have universal health care.
Its distinctive feature is that the largest medical and health expenditure in the United States is mainly paid by the private insurance sector in the form of free market pricing, and insurance institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and drug distribution channels jointly form the pricing mechanism of American drugs.
Different medical payment systems determine that even if aggregate demand is similar, the profitability of pharmaceutical companies in China and the United States may not be the same, so the final performance of stock prices may vary greatly.
In addition to the "innovation" of science and technology enterprises and the "profitability" of listed companies, pharmaceutical companies in our country must also assume necessary social responsibilities and maintain certain "public utility" attributes, which is a point that must be considered before investing in medicine.
Therefore, in the context of cross-border investment and global allocation this year, the investment opportunities of U.S. stocks and pharmaceuticals should not be ignored.
To be honest, compared with the new highs of the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, the pharmaceutical and biological sectors of the U.S. stock market appear tepid.
There are not many people who report it, and the scale of the holding ** is not large.
On the one hand, medicine is really too professional, and I really can't understand the pipelines, single products, and efficacy of big pharmaceutical companiesOn the other hand, compared with the 50% increase in the Nasdaq driven by the soaring Seven Fairies of U.S. stocks, the money-making effect of U.S. stocks and pharmaceuticals is really not enough.
Therefore, the popularity of U.S. stock medicine** is indeed average.
Compared with the long list of S&P + Nasdaq + technology themes posted in "U.S. Stocks, Unprecedented Crowding" last week, there are only 6 pure U.S. stocks and pharmaceuticals on the market now, and 2 each of E Fund, GF, and China Universal Co., Ltd.
There are still many ** on the market with the name of "global medicine", but if you take a closer look at the position, you can see that Hong Kong stock medicine is proper.
It's not that Hong Kong stock medicine is bad, but I think that since everyone has come to QDII, they definitely don't want to stay in the Asia-Pacific region, so these six pharmaceutical QDII should be everyone's dish.
China Universal Global HealthcareIt's for nowEli LillyThe heaviest one, and the only active base, ** manager is Zhang Wei, I interviewed her at the beginning of the year, she was born in a medical class, and her cognition of innovative drugs is indeed more authentic.
And except for her, the rest of them are all passive**.
E Fund S&P Biotech, GF Biotech and CUAM Nasdaq Biotech ETF track indices with stronger biotech attributes, and the constituent stocks are mainly biotech, which is worth talking about together.
E Fund S&P Biotech tracks S&P Biotech Select Industries (SPIBI)., the position is mainly small-capitalization pharmaceutical companies that continue to burn money and have poor cash flow, and the top ten heavy stocks in the latest reporting period accounted for 1315%, except for Amgen, Futai Pharmaceutical, and Neurosecretion Bioscience, all other companies are loss-making.
The stock price of this kind of company fluctuates greatly, and the type of sharp rise and fall is originally a loss of money in the US stock market this year, but since the bottom on October 27, this batch of ** has begun to soar, and E Fang's standard has risen by 30% in two months...
Thrill, brothers?
It's a pity that the over-the-counter subscription has been suspended, and the on-site premium rate has also dried up to 886%, everyone still pays attention to the premium risk.
I don't think S&P Biotech should chase up, you see that E Fang's S&P Biotech has fallen twice in a row from 2021 to 2022, and it is almost a negative return this year, and the decline in the last three years is greater than that of the CSI 300. Therefore, U.S. stocks are not all lying down to win, the key depends on what you buy.
In contrast, the Nasdaq Biotech Index is less volatileGF Biotech Index has a 5-year return of 20%., it doesn't go up or down, and the probability of losing a lot of money is not very high.
Compared with the equal weight of S&P Biotech, the Nasdaq Biotech is weighted by market capitalization, and the influence of large companies is greater, and the top ten heavy stocks Amgen, Regeneron, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and Moderna are all large pharmaceutical companies with tens of billions or even hundreds of billions, and the concentration of the top ten is also very high, accounting for nearly 50%.
The Nasdaq has not had an on-exchange ETF beforeIn 2022, there is the Nasdaq Biotech ETF (513290), which is the only U.S. stock pharmaceutical ETF on the market, for players with a three-place layout in Hong Kong, the United States and A, there is one more option.
Then there are GF Global Healthcare and E Fund S&P Healthcare, their net worth trends are the most similar to "US stocks", and they are also my favorite.
Let's start with thatThe S&P Global 1200 Healthcare Index (SPG120035) tracked by GFThe scope of stock selection is not limited to the United States, but also the largest healthcare companies in Europe, Japan, Australia and other places, including UnitedHealth Group, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Merck, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Pfizer.
Compared with the previous S&P and Nasdaq Biotech Indexes, the holding experience of the GF Global Healthcare Index is significantly better, from 2013 to the present ten years, sticking to the S&P 500, the volatility is still smaller than that of the S&P 500.
Looking at this net worth trend, in addition to envy, it is still envy, and envy is dead.
In contrast,E Fund's S&P 500 Healthcare Equal Weight Index (S5HLTH.)spiļ¼, the proportion of companies with small market capitalization is larger, but it is not simply a small vote, the range of stock selection is from the S&P 500, which is the largest stock in the United States, and the logic of index compilation is somewhat similar to our 300 medicine.
Out of curiosity, I also compared, how is the net value trend in the last year negatively correlated with 300 medicine?
If you look at it for a long time, you may feel it better.
The high-volatility play of A-shares really exists in every industry, and in the end, the entire index fluctuates, which is extremely difficult to invest and the experience is not good.
So I'm also reflecting on the fact that the culture of "long-term investment" may really only appear in a market where U.S. stocks are slow and long, and even rising.
Since the S&P Biotech Select Sector Index has only had data since 2016, I have also compared the trend of the U.S. Biopharma Index since January 2016
At first glance, it seems that the yield of the Nasdaq and the S&P 500 is indeed incomparable, but if you think about it carefully, the soaring price of the Nasdaq and the S&P 500 in recent years is more dependent on the hard technology sector, and the performance of other companies is also average.
Although the earning power of these technology giants is indeed top-notch, no one can say whether there will be any major adjustments in such a crowded group.
In recent years, U.S. stocks seem to be tepid, but from the end of 2003 to the end of 2003, looking back at the 20-year pharmaceutical cycle in the United States, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index has still achieved a 741% increase, compared with the S&P 500 Index 438% and the Nasdaq Index 641%, which is not inferior.
After the baptism of A-shares in the past few years,The most profound lesson I've learned is not to go where there are a lot of people.
Now that the call for "regular investment and NASDAQ" is very high, even if we go to buy U.S. stocks, I think it is more appropriate to buy U.S. stocks and pharmaceutical-related targets that are not crowded.