Tesla (TSLA) do you want it in your portfolio?

[TorontoDrew]

I told my investment advisor that I won't hold weapons manufacturers, tobacco companies or anything connected with Musk. I might be losing out but it's where I draw the line.

[marylander1940]

Based on current events I don't think Tesla "special tax treatment" will last.

Time to sell Tesla stock?

[handiacefailure]

On 7/1/2025 at 9:26 PM, marylander1940 said:

Based on current events I don't think Tesla "special tax treatment" will last.

Time to sell Tesla stock?

Keith Fitzgerald recommends to keep buying and dollar cost averaging.   I took it off my monthly dollar cost averaging buy list but sure not going to sell it.   I’ll hold it and see what happens.   Even if it starts to do awful I’l still sell with a very nice profit.    

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

11 hours ago, handiacefailure said:

Keith Fitzgerald recommends to keep buying and dollar cost averaging.   I took it off my monthly dollar cost averaging buy list but sure not going to sell it.   I’ll hold it and see what happens.   Even if it starts to do awful I’l still sell with a very nice profit.    

Yes, dollar cost averaging is key to us amateur investors investing for the long term.

[+ augustus]

The P/E ratio is only 170.  What could go wrong? 

[mike carey]

21 minutes ago, augustus said:

The P/E ratio is only 170.  What could go wrong? 

'Only', lol.

[Luv2play]

Tesla stock took another dive today on news of Musk’s plans to form a third American political party. 

[sutherland]

On 7/4/2025 at 11:17 PM, Vegas_Millennial said:

Yes, dollar cost averaging is key to us amateur investors investing for the long term.

An interesting article in the March 2026 issue of AAII Journal (which I received today) looked at decades of dollar-cost averaging versus lump-sum investing.  Lump-sum investing outperformed.  Here's an interesting quote from the article for those against going in lump-sum : 'You must think that stocks are going to go up, or you wouldn't be buying them.  Why do you think stocks will go down first? if you think they're going to go down, why buy them at all?'

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

2 hours ago, sutherland said:

An interesting article in the March 2026 issue of AAII Journal (which I received today) looked at decades of dollar-cost averaging versus lump-sum investing.  Lump-sum investing outperformed.  Here's an interesting quote from the article for those against going in lump-sum : 'You must think that stocks are going to go up, or you wouldn't be buying them.  Why do you think stocks will go down first? if you think they're going to go down, why buy them at all?'

I read a statistic (I can't remember the source, I apologize) that for lump sum vs dollar-cost averaging, dollar-cost averaging statistically only works better than lump sum if it's spread out over a period of 6 months or less.

For example:

Option A:  Invest $12,000 on January 1.

Option B:  Invest $3,000 on January 1, February 1, March 1, and April 1 ($12,000 total).

Option C: Invest $1,000 on the 1st of each month for 12 months ($12,000 total).

Statistically:  Option B performs better by the end of the year than Option A.  But Option A performs better than Option C.  The advantage of spreading out a lump sum investment over a few months (Option B) ensures you aren't buying all of it at a peak.  But, spreading out the investment for a long period (Option C) means you miss precious time in the market for most of the investment.  So, dollar-cost averaging for less than 6 months is statistically the best thing to do when you have the means and are ready to buy.

Edited 6 hours ago by Vegas_Millennial