The experts at BFIA tell us what they would choose for the next 25 years if they could only choose one stock, industry, or market
Tips cover everything from Vietnam and Jardine Matheson to agriculture and defense.
Stephen-Connolly-80x110 Stephen Connolly Every generation experiences one revolution in industry. Our AI is still new and poorly understood, but it will undoubtedly become so ingrained in society that we won't remember how we ever operated without it. The question is not whether AI will change the world, but rather who can be trusted to benefit from it over the next twenty-five years. Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) is my choice. Microsoft, which is now fifty years old, has made constant reinvention an artistic endeavor. The 1980s saw Windows, the 1990s Office, the 2010s cloud, and now AI integration. The strategy is the same: create necessary tools, make them indispensable, and then levy rent for their use. It is now the standard operating system for modern businesses due to its quiet consistency.
The core of the workplace is Microsoft. Depending on who you ask, Office 365 has over 400 million paid commercial users, Windows powers about 70% of desktop computers, and Azure controls about 23% of the worldwide cloud market. Revenue exceeded £240 billion in the previous year. There is more cash on the balance sheet than in some other nations, the dividend has increased annually since 2003, and buybacks totaling tens of billions of dollars continue.
The next big thing is AI. Microsoft is currently integrating "Copilot" intelligence into Word, Excel, Outlook, and Teamssoftware used by over a billion peoplethrough its multibillion-dollar partnership with OpenAI. It makes money from both the applications that make use of AI and the infrastructure that powers it.
Bears will claim that the stock is priced for perfection, and it's true that Microsoft's shares aren't inexpensive. Quality, however, is rarely. Few companies can match its durability, recurring income, and worldwide brand. Microsoft is the story of making technology profitable, not the story of every new technology. Hype doesn't build up. Sales and earnings do. Microsoft is the way to go if artificial intelligence defines the next 25 years.
Author headshot Kaylie Pferten Solar panels don't last forever, and by 2030, there will be eight million tonnes of solar panel waste worldwide, which will increase to 80 million tonnes by 2050. Over 90% of them end up in landfills in the US, but they contain hazardous heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and selenium that contaminate soil and groundwater, endangering human health and ecosystems. They are already prohibited from being dumped in landfills in California.
Panels are made with longevity in mind. Recycling is challenging because of this very characteristic, regardless of their complex composition. By 2030, one million tons will need to be recycled in the US, with the majority occurring in the southwestern states. With a validated, operational demonstration recycling facility in Nevada that processes 135,000 panels annually, Comstock (NYSE: LODE) has a significant first-mover advantage. Three more full-scale facilities are currently being built, the first of which will open for business the following year. Each is located directly across the border from California.
To accept the panels, Comstock is paid a "dumping fee" of £500 per tonne (the cost of disposing of them in a landfill is the same). After that, it recycles them at a cost of £100 per tonne to make ground copper, silver, glass, and aluminum, which it then sells for £200 per tonne. Thus, it generates £600, or an 85% margin, for each tonne it processes.
The plan calls for three plants to be operational by 2030 (processing 300,000 tonnes), which would result in £180 million in earnings, including the production of 10 million ounces of silver, or a valuation of £1.8 billion by that time.
This company owns properties valued at about £50 million in silver mining and £100 million in real estate. In addition, an 80% stake in a £1 billion biofuels company is worth a lottery ticket. For a £150 million market cap, all of this. Let's talk about an unequal opportunity. The primary concerns are related to management's execution skills. The share price is being held back by that.
MWE-1135. Tips . frederic_guirinec Fred Guirinec While everyone is chasing the next AI unicorn, I would rather focus on more established industries that could profit from this technological revolution, like agriculture and the food sector. Its main obstacles are population growth, environmental and social governance (ESG) regulations, and climate change. The US agricultural machinery giant Deere and Co. estimates that by 2050, global agricultural production will need to rise by 6070%. However, resource scarcity and climate change make it more difficult.
In the meantime, it appears that France and the eurozone will experience more political and economic unrest, and the single-currency region may even break apart. As physical assets, commodities and agriculture provide a hedge. The former European breadbasket, France, is currently a net importer of food. Europe's industry is already benefiting from technology. Over the past fifteen years, robotic milking machines have spread widely. Farmers can manage hundreds of hectares on their own while keeping an eye on the productivity and health of the soil thanks to satellite-guided tractors. Due to dirt and dust, these machines need to be maintained and replaced on a regular basis, which creates consistent revenue streams.
To benefit from this theme, I suggest investing in the Global X AgTech & Food Innovation Ucits ETF (LSE: KROG). Deere and other companies that will drive the agricultural revolution are held by the exchange-traded fund. Additionally, I would think about investing in the seed manufacturer Corteva (NYSE: CTVA) and the sensor company Trimble (Nasdaq: TRMB). With a few golden Napoleons in my pocket and a bottle of Armagnac from my first job at JPMorgan in Paris, I hope to retire to my farm in Brittany in 2050. After that, I will definitely smile as I read this page again.
Kaylie Pferten Despite the defense industry's heavy reliance on government spending, which can be cyclical and subject to political whims, contracts are usually very long-term due to the industry's nature. This indicates that the industry is appealing from an investment standpoint, particularly since global defense spending is continuously rising.
Investors can see how long-term this industry truly is by looking at Babcock, which helps to maintain the UK's nuclear deterrent, among other things. The roadmap for the UK's current submarine fleet through 2080 was described in the company's 2024 annual results presentation. This included the disposal of fifty abandoned ships as well as the introduction of the UK's new attack and deterrent submarine classes.
Another illustration of the industry's potential is provided by BAE. According to its half-year results, it had a 75 billion order backlog, three years' worth of revenue, and 180 billion more potential. As a result, the business can guarantee sales for about ten years.
Every nation in the world has a national defense champion, and BAE is one of the industry titans in the UK. Therefore, using a broad-based ETF or defense-sector tracker fund is the best way to invest in the expansion of the defense industry globally. The most well-known European companies in the industry, such as Rolls-Royce, BAE, and Germanys Rheinmetall and Frances Thales, are included in the iShares Europe Defence Ucits ETF (LSE: DFEU).
With a more expansive objective, the iShares Global Aerospace & Defence ETF (LSE: DFND) comprises leading companies like GE Aerospace, Boeing, and RTX that are involved in both the defense and civil arms industries. The Future of Defence Ucits ETF (LSE: NATP) is the last option. With companies like Palantir, Palo Alto, and CrowdStrike in the top ten, along with companies like BAE and Safran, this ETF combines technology and defense.
Max-King Kaylie Pferten You would have looked foolish after three years and been forgotten if you had forecast in early 2000 that the technology sector would be the best-performing segment of the market over the next 25 years. Your prediction would now be forgotten. However, since technology is the engine of all economic advancement, it's safe to assume that it will once more dominate the investment sector over the next 25 years, particularly since markets aren't at their most speculative peak as they were in 2000.
Bear markets, frequent, severe setbacks, and volatility are unavoidable, but investors who view these as buying opportunities and remain calm are likely to succeed. The Polar Capital Technology Trust (LSE: PCT) and Allianz Technology Trust (LSE: ATT) are the obvious vehicles, but the tech-focused Baillie Gifford trusts, Edinburgh Worldwide Investment Trust (LSE: EWI), Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust (LSE: SMT), and HgCapital Trust (LSE: HGT) should also perform admirably. Long before the twenty-five years are up, AI is probably going to be outdated; other technologies will take its place.
Although it is still far from being used commercially, quantum computing has the potential to be the next big breakthrough. Leading the industry and one of Edinburgh Worldwide's biggest holdings is the unquoted PsiQuantum. Transportation could undergo a revolution thanks to advancements in battery technology, which could also address the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources and nuclear power's inability to meet demand. Tesla appears to have the best chance of succeeding. The US is still the greatest place to invest because of its high exposure to innovation.
Kaylie Pferten Kaylie Pferten There is a general and, in my opinion, legitimate worry that the market-dominating AI stocks are overpriced. The risk of this narrative is that semiconductorsa term I will use rather broadly here to refer to the supply chain that produces different kinds of computer chipshave come to be associated with the technology. As a result, one runs the risk of becoming entangled in the developing AI story, for better or worse.
From a short-term perspective, it is undeniable that the AI hype has caused many of the top semiconductor stocks' valuations to appear inflated. While Advanced Micro Devices is trading at over 100 on the same metric following a 40% increase following the announcement of an agreement with OpenAI, Broadcom has reached almost 87 times trailing earnings. With a pitiful 54 times earnings, these figures make Nvidia, the first £5 trillion company in history, seem reasonable.
However, the semiconductor industry appears to be a clear play with a 25-year time horizon. Although many semiconductor stocks are currently overpriced due to AI, it is safe to assume that the majority are currently undervalued in comparison to whatever comes next. It is cyclical, and investors should anticipate ups and downs. It is reasonable to assume that semiconductor technology will be the foundation of the next revolutionary technology, whether it is robotics, quantum computing, or something else we cannot yet envision.
The only real danger to this theory that I can think of is the emergence of a technology that replaces semiconductors and computer chips as we know them. If that were to occur, it would be a huge technological and economic change. If it did, I assume it would either come from one of the existing players or, if not, one of these would acquire the start-up that had quickly discovered the technology (Nvidia is the most likely in both cases given its resources).
For now, keep in mind that a lot of businesses aren't overpriced. Taiwan Semiconductor has a near monopoly on advanced chipmaking, but it still trades at less than 32 times earnings. One of Taiwan Semis' suppliers, ASML, trades in the mid-thirties and has a near monopoly on lithography. Go active if you'd like, but to increase the likelihood of capturing any upcoming innovations in the industry, I would choose a broad-based tracker. The top two holdings in the First Trust Bloomberg Global Semiconductor Supply Chain Ucits ETF (LON: FCHP) and the VanEck Semiconductor Ucits ETF (LSE: SMGB) are TSMC and ASML.
MWE1285 . inv_foc . charlie_morris Charlie Morris As investors, we look forward rather than backward. The best solution is not likely to be in the rearview mirror. It would be negligent of me not to offer a contrarian value trade in accordance with BFIA's tried-and-true value bias. Investment management firms like GMO estimate that long-term expected returns are modest for other major markets and negative for US stocks.
They obviously prefer deep value, but who doesn't? Bonds are one area where they've fallen short. Since everyone seems to despise them, the contrarians ought to look into it. I prefer index-linked bonds (linkers) because they ensure a positive real return, which is currently equal to the index plus 1.6 percent annually. Remember that linkers are paid based on RPI, which is about 0.9 percent more than CPI. Kwasi Kwarteng will remember that a real return of 2.5 percent is explosive.
Linkers had matched the FTSE 100, including dividends, for the preceding 30 years prior to the interest rate increases in 2021. However, since those hikes started, the FTSE has increased by 55%, while linkers have dropped by over 40%. A gap this large has never been seen in history.
I'm supporting Linkers for the next twenty-five years. The iShares Index-Linked Gilts Ucits ETF (LSE: INXG) is the most straightforward method. Look into ultra-long-dated issues like the 0.125 percent 2058, which locks in a real return of more than 2 percent, if you have a strong disposition. You will undoubtedly double your money, even though that might not seem like much. Additionally, the increase will be substantial and your capital returns will be tax-free if and when inflation reappears.
MWE1109 . companies . bruce_packard Kaylie Pferten A few years ago I was chatting with the psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer, who has published research suggesting that simple rules of thumb often perform better than clever ideas or sophisticated models. We laughed about how difficult it was to generate business ideas from this revelation often the most valuable insights are simple and freely available, but expensive advisors encourage costly mistakes. For example, Merrill Lynch charged Royal Bank of Scotland tens of millions of pounds for advice supporting Fred Goodwin's disastrous hostile bid for ABN Amro, while Warren Buffett's shareholder letters can be found on the Berkshire Hathaway website.
The FTSE All-Share Index, a diversified benchmark made up of just under 600 stocks ranging from the biggest multinationals like AstraZeneca, HSBC, and Shell to smaller, more eccentric firms like Games Workshop or Goodwin, is an investment that is likely to perform well. Over decades, stocks typically compound at a rate of five to seven percent annually, according to the Barclays Equity Gilt Study.
Although not every business will produce that five to seven percent, a diversified portfolio over many years is probably going to. An international index, like the MSCI World index, is an option, but it's crucial to select a low-cost tracker. Your money would be quadrupled with a 6% annual return that compounds every year.
An investor's final sum drops by about 100, from 4,300 to 4,200, when ten basis points are charged annually on a 1,000 initial investment. The final amount would be reduced by 900 to 3,400, taking a fifth of your investment, if an active fund manager performed in line with the index but charged 1% annually. For the next twenty-five years, I would recommend a cheap FTSE All-Share Index tracker and a BFIA subscription. The iShares UK Equity Index Fund and the Vanguard FTSE UK All Share Index Unit Trust are two choices.
Cris-heaton-2 Kaylie Pferten While there are many reasons to be pessimistic about global trends, many emerging-market economies ought to be significantly wealthier by 2050, provided that the worst geopolitical outcomes are avoided. Although emerging markets now make up about half of the world's economy, they only account for 10% of the value of most global stock market indices, which are dominated by the US and primarily comprise China, Korea, and Taiwan. Let's choose Jardine Matheson (Singapore: J36) for a little cheap optimism. Although the stock has a primary listing in London, practically no one trades it, so keep that in mind to avoid confusion. Jardine is a conglomerate based in Hong Kong that was founded in the early 1800s and has holdings in a variety of industries, including automotive, construction, engineering, hospitality, real estate, and retail. The majority of its operations are in China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, and Southeast Asia.
The Keswicks, who are descended from the Jardines, are in charge of the group. I prefer family-owned businesses that have a long-term perspective, but they also need to adapt to the changing world. In order to become an investment holding company rather than a family owner-operator, Jardine is streamlining its organizational structure. This means that more outsiders will manage its listed subsidiaries.
Jardines closed at £5.75 on November 1st, 2000. It closed at £58.75 on October 31, 2025, ten times higher than it was before dividends. Much of this can be attributed to an extremely successful agreement made in 2000 to save the Indonesian conglomerate Astra. Can it find another opportunity like that? Based on more recent transactions, it appears to view Vietnam as the most promising place to make a significant investment.
Political changes in China and the possibility that Astras' hegemony in Indonesian car distribution will be challenged by the rise of electric vehicles are examples of obvious risks. However, Jardines has a dividend yield of 3.8 percent, a price-to-book value ratio of 0.6, and a price/earnings (p/e) ratio of 11. It has great connections and generates a lot of money. You're capable of much worse.
1089 MWE. cash. David Stevenson, David C. Stevenson India and Vietnam are the options when it comes to rapidly expanding emerging markets. Vietnam is victorious. Its workforce is young and technically skilled, making it an Asian industrial dragon. Particularly in technology, it is climbing the value-added chain. The GDP is growing by over 6% annually and is becoming more and more dependent on middle-class consumers. Local stocks are extremely inexpensive.
Vietnam's infrastructure is far superior to India's, which is crucial for an economy focused on exports. The focus on exports offers both opportunities and threats, such as tariffs. I would argue, somewhat controversially, that Vietnam's dominant Communist Party has less of an impact on the country's current economy than does India's socialist past. I consider Vietnam to be fully capitalist, while India continues to have puzzling instances of Fabian-style socialism.
With a median age of 28 compared to 33, India's population is younger than Vietnam's, but Vietnam's labor force is more educated and skilled. Additionally, Vietnam's female participation rate is significantly higher. Vietnam, on the other hand, is better positioned than India to avoid the middle-income trap because of its size.
The obvious geopolitical issue is what I've left for last. It's great that India has a strong democracy, but Vietnam is obviously communist. The Chinese Communist Party (CP) and the Vietnamese Communist Party (CP) are inextricably linked. But if you are the Trump administration, what do you think is more important onshoring Vietnams low-cost labour industries (making earbuds for Apple and phones for Samsung in Los Angeles, for instance) or having a close relationship with a regional power (Vietnam) that is not China? As venture capitalist Peter Thiel has noted, Vietnam serves as a non-expansionist hedge against China, one that lacks Chinas imperial ambitions. Through the Vietnam Enterprise Investments Limited (LSE: VEIL) investment trust, investors can access the potential of the nation.
Dot companies MWE1109. Mike Tubbs Over the next 25 years, there will be a greater need for pharmaceuticals due to factors related to lifestyle, longer life expectancies, and an increasing number of people over 60. The proportion of over-60s in advanced economies is expected to rise from 26 percent-30 percent in 2020 to 35 percent-45 percent in 2050, and the over-60s account for two-thirds of all drugs. Pharmaceutical companies' sales and profits will increase as a result.
Cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, cancer, diabetes, and dementia (primarily Alzheimer's) are the most dangerous illnesses for people over 60. Three of these diabetes (cases have doubled since 2000), Alzheimers (a fourfold rise since 2000) and hypertensive heart disease (more than doubling since 2000) rank as the fastest-growing major diseases in wealthy countries. We can add obesity to these: in 1995, 15% of Americans were considered obese; by 2024, that number had increased to 40%.
Investors should focus on large companies making drugs to treat several of the major diseases mentioned above, with strong pipelines and substantial investment in research and development (R&D) to restock their pipelines. Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY) and AstraZeneca (LSE: AZN) are two notable examples. Oncology, cardiovascular, respiratory, and rare diseases are among AstraZeneca's areas of expertise. Lilly is an expert in Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer, and immunology.
In 2024, AstraZenecas sales rose by 18 percent over 2023 and it invested 31.4 percent of sales in R&D. Lillys sales were up 32 percent over 2023 and it invested 24.4 percent in R&D. AstraZeneca has 20 new molecular entities in its late-stage pipeline while Lilly has 25. Lilly is on a 2026 p/e of 26.7 and a forward dividend yield of 0.75 percent; the respective figures for Astra are of 16.6 and 1.95 percent.
MWE1253 . businesses_01. James Ward Wise's (LSE: WISE) initial business plan was straightforward. It was established in 2011 to provide customers with a quicker and far less expensive method of transferring money between currencies. Other providers used the outdated Swift system, which routes money through intermediary banks, adding time and fees. Wise avoids this by refraining from international money transfers. Rather, Wise maintains regional bank accounts across multiple nations. When a user transfers money, Wise receives the funds locally in their home country and pays out from its local account in the destination country. Since exchange rates and fees are displayed up front, transfers become quicker, less expensive, and more transparent. While a Swift transfer can take a week and cost up to 6 percent, Wises transfers are often instant and cost a fraction of a percent. At first, clients were people, such as foreigners. This has changed over time, and the company now provides small and medium-sized businesses with significant time and cost savings.
For the next twenty-five years, Wise might be an excellent investment.
Its service is far ahead of the competition, which raises the question: what if others try to copy Wise? The answer is that Wise now offers its service to competitors. More than 85 banks now use Wise instead of Swift, and this number is growing quickly. What began as a fast, cheap service for expatriates is evolving into a global infrastructure that could underpin the worldwide payments system. If it succeeds, Wise could become one of the worlds most important companies, and in doing so also one of the most valuable.
Leave a comment on: The top investments for the next 25 years are chosen by BFIA experts