airtags?
sounds too obvious.
Printable View
airtags?
sounds too obvious.
More information on the Internet of Things from this McInsey report (thanks Winner)
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-fu...ure-it?cid=app
"5% of the use cased clusters combinations represent about 52% of the economic value of the IoT in 2020."
This shows there is value in picking your market right (basically factories and health), then operations optimisation is the key value centre that can be captured.
Voice activated assistance is a key driver, particularly in home based devices, and includes: Automated timing of operations, robotic cleaning, energy management, water leak detection and control and security. But compared to 2015 expectations business to business applications were behind. A lot of this is due to inertia in large organisations: adoption, having the front line change the way they do business, and having the right incentives in place are all challenging. To really capture global productivity gains, a lot of organisations must move ahead together.
McInsey estimates that the total value captured by by IoT in 2020 ($1.6 trillion), while considerable, is in the lower end of the range of the scenarios mapped out in 2015. By 2030 McInsey estimate value capture with IoT to increase to $5.5 trillion - $12.6 trillion in value globally, including the value captured by consumers and customers of IoT products and services.
McInsey found that the factory setting (which includes standardized production environments in manufacturing, standardised hospital procedures, and other areas) will account for the largest amount of potential economic value from the IoT, around 26 percent, in 2030. In simple terms, optimizing operations in manufacturing—making the various day-to-day management of assets and people more efficient. Manufacturing in this broad sense can include agriculture.
The human-health setting is second, representing around 10 to 14 percent of estimated IoT economic value in 2030. This will start with wearable health devices, like watches, able to check heart rate, ingestible cameras you can swallow so that doctors can get an internal picture of what is going on, and air and environmental sensors. This allows doctors to build better models of disease progression. IoT health revenue is predicted to rise to between $0.5 trillion and $1.8 trillion, by 2030.
Greenfield projects are the best projects where IoT progress can be made.
I think Spark is on the ball in the two principal growth markets (factory site optimisation and health), even if it is not quite clear exactly what game Spark will be playing with that ball for now.
Spark is not the limiting factor in adopting such IoT technology. More important is the marrying of technology with processes. How people work with existing systems determines the rate of technology adoption. The likes of Spark must be specific in what they can offer, communicate this message clearly, and be able to usefully roll out their solutions to whole communities.
SNOOPY
What's going on with the SP? I see it hit a recent low of 4.44 from a high of around 4.8x pre-dividend. Surely the business is still growing and Spark have a large share of the pie in NZ. :confused:
SPK has always fluctuated, take a look at the 5-year chart. However the 50-day and 200-day MA are still on the up (assuming I have got this chart thingy right, which is always a big assumption ...)
spk a yield play only. rising rates are a negative for these bond proxies.
trading in a range 4.38 - 4.95 for a couple years now. it will break the range at some stage
At 444 and with two 12.5c fully imputed dividends per year, I calculate that to be a 7.8% gross yield. But interest rates are on the way up (yay) and now I can get 3% gross on a 5 year term deposit (fantastic)! So THEREFORE I should sell my SPK shares, more than halve my income by putting the money in a five year term deposit (and just hope I don't need it for five years). I would like to thank our reserve bank governor for orchestrating a 'without any guarantee' of principal return 'higher interest offer' environment from my nearest bank (which I might need a telescope to find)?
None of that makes any sense. But I am merely a minnow reef fish in a giant ocean of interest rates market and no-one can fight the market - right? So I guess I will SELL SELL SELL Spark, then retreat inside a coral cage fortress for five years? For a meek little reef fish this is the only thing to do, so I will hold up in my coral cage and just look happy. And I will be safe in the knowledge that I am pleasing my Mr Market master :-(
SNOOPY
It has been so long now since I seriously sought out a fixed interest investment, I am having trouble remembering what my 'rule of thumb' for fixed interest investment was. Did I invest in a Turners bond a few years back yielding nearly 8%, or was that just a dream? The problem with these company issued bonds is that you get a bank debenture type return, with the equity risk on the upside effectively removed, but the equity risk on the downside, should that company get into trouble, still present. So, yes -it is coming back to me now-, I looked out for fixed interest returns which yielded a couple of hundred interest rate basis points above the equivalent company dividend yield. I was looking for a higher cash return up front to compensate for the removal of the upside equity risk.
Three Spark bonds I have been able to track down are SPF560 (4.51% coupon at listing, matures 10=03-2023) , SPF570 (3.94% coupon at listing, matures 07-09-2026) and SPF580 (3.37% coupon at listing, matures 07-03-2024). The last market traded yields on these bonds were 2.07%, 3.01% and 2.62% respectively. All figures are well below their interest issue yields. So anyone buying into these bonds at 'market prices' will be facing a very substantial capital loss when these bonds mature. I am not sure how much of that capital loss is built into those quoted yield prices though?
My 'rule of thumb' would suggest that with a gross yield on Spark shares of 7.8%, I should be looking at a Spark bond yield of something like 9.8% to compensate me for my risk. With this in mind, I am finding it hard to come to terms with why any investor would buy SPF560 bonds with a yield of just over 2%. I am wondering if some brokers have an 'electric shock treatment room', where they grab hapless potential investors, pin them down, then keep flicking the power switch until they agree to buy at such a price? Can anyone out there make make any sense of this?
SNOOPY
Bonds make no sense at all to me. Crappy, taxable interest rates, and inflation eating away at the purchasing power of the investment.
Ive just invested a 7 figure sum from the sale of a business in fully imputed dividend paying NZX companies including SPK.
I have no need of the capital so I'm happy to ride the roller coaster on the SPs of those companies. Over a 5-10 year time period the share values will sort themselves out.
I have retained sufficient cash to fund 3 years living expenses so as long as the divvies keep rolling in at or somewhere near current levels I will be happy.
No broker will be tempting or forcing me to invest in bonds unless and until the yields are at least 3% higher than the gross yield on my dividend shares. Can't see that coming any year soon.