Here’s our Club Mailbag email investingclubmailbag@cnbc.com — so you send your questions directly to Jim Cramer and his team of analysts. We can’t offer personal investing advice. We will only consider more general questions about the investment process or stocks in the portfolio or related industries. Question 1: The stocks in the Trust have astonishingly different P/Es. With this in mind, how can a price target be established for each of them? Thank you. I find the Club to be fascinating. —Marc M. Price targets are part art and part science. While the art portion can be more subjective at times, the most important thing to keep in mind when thinking about the correct multiple to put on a stock is the “comp,” meaning the thing we are comparing that stock to. The two primary comps are going to be the peer group (those companies most similar to the one in question) and the multiple investors paid in the past. What we don’t want to do is think about what the appropriate multiple should be by examining companies that don’t represent an apples-to-apples comparison. A stock’s multiple (and we like looking at the forward multiple) is calculated by dividing the current shares price by earnings estimates for the next 12 months. For example, we wouldn’t look at the multiple investors are willing to pay for Club stocks Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD) or Coterra Energy (CTRA) in an attempt to determine the correct multiple for Microsoft (MSFT). We would have to consider the multiples of Pioneer and Coterra in regard to one another (and other U.S.-based exploration and production companies) because both are U.S.-based exploration and production (E & P) companies. We would then consider whether one should or should not demand a higher or lower multiple versus the other. Based on our price targets of $259 for PXD and $30 for CTRA, the forward P/E multiple that we think represents fair value is roughly 12 times for PXD and roughly 11 times for CTRA. That’s below what investors have paid for PXD over the last five years and about in line with what they’ve paid for Coterra in that time frame. Based on our price target of $400 for MSFT, the forward P/E we think represents fair value is about 33 times. That’s several turns above the historic average, but we think it’s justified given the opportunity generative AI represents for Microsoft to charge customers more for their software to help them reduce costs, thanks to the efficiency gains these AI offerings can bring about. Like most investors, we are willing to pay more for the high-growth potential that we see in tech, whereas an oil name investment thesis is more income-oriented via dividends and stock buybacks. Once we have an idea of what these multiples are, we can begin to make adjustments based on the merits of the company in question versus what peers have going for them or what the company looked like in the past. It’s also worth watching the overall market’s multiple to see how much of a premium or how much of a bargain the stock in question may be. As of this writing, the forward P/E on the S & P 500 was just over 19 times. For further reading on how to determine an appropriate price target based on multiples, check out our commentary dedicated to the process. Question 2: If I am just starting with the Investment Club and have some money to invest, how do I achieve a balanced portfolio that mirrors the Investment Club’s? Do I just purchase stocks with a 1 rating, but then I am not balanced through all sectors? Thanks, Brian The last part of the question is exactly why our general rule of thumb, for those just getting started, is that the first $10,000 should go into a diversified index fund, such as an S & P 500 index fund. This will ensure diversification from the very start of your investing journey. From there, you are correct: start looking for 1-rated Club holdings to augment your portfolio. (That information can be found on our portfolio page .) Our “1 rating” is our way of communicating to members that in the current market landscape, a stock is a buy at current levels. Keep in mind that on any given day, there could be big price swings, so our daily commentary should take priority over our ratings as it will always be more real-time in nature. (We provided additional thoughts on how to go about the research and how to start adding names.) That said, as you add names, you will of course be altering the makeup of your portfolio in terms of sector exposure. So, be sure to remain mindful of the sector breakdown of any ETFs or index funds you already own. (Here’s a breakdown of the S & P 500’s sector weighting .) Another thing we would add: We generally advise individual investors to own no more than five to 10 stocks. That’s because it takes about one hour of homework per day, per stock to keep on top of your positions. We have Jim Cramer and two analysts and a team of reporters and editors covering the 30 some stocks in the Club portfolio. Unless you are looking for a second job, five to 10 hours per week of homework feels about right for most investors. A follow-up question that sometimes comes up is: “I own five stocks but don’t feel comfortable with any single stock being in excess of 10% of my portfolio. How do I reconcile this if I don’t want to be 50% in cash?” It’s a valid concern and to reconcile these views — wanting to be more invested but not own more names due to the time commitment and not wanting to be so heavy in cash — we would point you right back to that S & P 500 index holding. We say $10,000 as a starting point to ensure diversification from the start. That said, you can always allocate more funds to that position as a means of putting more money to work in a more passive way without feeling the need to increase individual stock exposure beyond a comfortable level. For example, you may opt to hold five individual stocks at 10% each and an S & P 500 index fund at 40%. Then your equity portfolio would be 90% invested and the rest could be cash. To be clear, this is not a recommendation on portfolio allocation, only an example of how one may use an index fund to get more money to work in a more passive way while maintaining a more actively invested portion of your portfolio. Question 3: When trimming shares to take some profits, is it typically more profitable over time, to trim the shares with a low-cost basis or a high-cost basis? Sincerely, Donna M. The concern with which lots one should sell isn’t so much about profits as it is about tax implications. The Club is a Charitable Trust and is, therefore, required to distribute all portfolio income and realized capital gains to qualified publicly supported charitable organizations. As a result, we stick to the default sales method first-in, first-out, or FIFO. This means that the oldest shares are going to be the first ones sold. That said, for most investors not trading in a tax-advantaged account, a sale is going to have some kind of tax implication based on the profits realized or the loss taken with the sales. While we can’t get into too much detail (as we cannot offer individual investing advice), remember that long-term capital gains rates on stocks owned for more than 1 year differ from short-term capital gains rates on stocks owned for less than 1 year, which are taxed as income. So, remember that if your goal is to raise cash, your concern shouldn’t be so much about which lots you can sell in order to realize more profits, it should be about which lot you can sell while paying the least in taxes. If you’ve got a position that you are up on overall but within which there are lots that are losers and your goal is to trim that position, you may even consider selling the losers in order to tax loss harvest. That’s all we can really offer up on the matter as anything beyond this would best be discussed with your accountant as they will know what is best given your own unique circumstances. (See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Here’s our Club Mailbag email investingclubmailbag@cnbc.com — so you send your questions directly to Jim Cramer and his team of analysts. We can’t offer personal investing advice. We will only consider more general questions about the investment process or stocks in the portfolio or related industries.
Question 1: The stocks in the Trust have astonishingly different P/Es. With this in mind, how can a price target be established for each of them? Thank you. I find the Club to be fascinating. —Marc M.
Tesla has changed the meaning of “Full Self-Driving”, also known as “FSD”, to give up on its original promise of delivering unsupervised autonomy.
Since 2016, Tesla has claimed that all its vehicles in production would be capable of achieving unsupervised self-driving capability.
CEO Elon Musk has claimed that it would happen by the end of every year since 2018.
Tesla has even sold a software package, known as “Full Self-Driving Capability” (FSD), for up to $15,000 to customers, promising that the advanced driver-assist system would become fully autonomous through over-the-air software updates.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Almost a decade later, the promise has yet to be fulfilled, and Tesla has already confirmed that all vehicles produced between 2016 and 2023 don’t have the proper hardware to deliver unsupervised self-driving as promised.
Musk has been discussing the upgrade of the computers in these vehicles to appease owners, but there’s no concrete plan to implement it.
While there’s no doubt that Tesla has promised unsupervised self-driving capabilities to FSD buyers between 2016 and 2023, the automaker has since updated its language and now only sells “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” to customers:
The fine print mentions that it doesn’t make the vehicle “autonomous” and doesn’t promise it as a feature.
In other words, people buying FSD today are not really buying the capability of unsupervised self-driving as prior buyers did.
One of these milestones is Tesla having “10 Million Active FSD Subscriptions.”
At first glance, this would be hopeful for FSD buyers since part of Musk’s compensation would be dependent on delivering on the FSD promises.
However, Tesla has changed the definition of FSD in the compensation package with an extremely vague one”
“FSD” means an advanced driving system, regardless of the marketing name used, that is capable of performing transportation tasks that provide autonomous or similar functionality under specified driving conditions.
Tesla now considers FSD only an “advanced driving system” that should be “capable of performing transportation tasks that prove autonomous or similar functionality”.
The current version of FSD, which requires constant supervising by the driver, could easily fit that description.
Therefore, FSD now doesn’t come with the inital promise of Tesla owners being able to go to sleep in their vehicles and wake up at their destination – a promise that Musk has used to sell Tesla vehicles for years.
Electrek’s Take
The way Tesla discusses autonomy with customers and investors versus how it presents it in its court filings and legally binding documents is strikingly different.
It should be worrying to anyone with an interest in this.
With this very vague description in the new CEO compensation package, Tesla could literally lower the price of FSD and even remove base Autopilot to push customers toward FSD and give Musk hundreds of billions of dollars in shares in the process.
There’s precedent for Tesla decreasing pricing on FSD. Initially, Musk said that Tesla would gradually increase the price of the FSD package as the features improved and approached unsupervised autonomy.
That was true for a while, but then Tesla started slashing FSD prices, which are now down $7,000 from their high in 2023:
The trend is quite apparent and coincidentally began when Tesla’s sales started to decline.
FSD is now a simple ADAS system without any promise of unsupervised self-driving. This might quite honestly be one of the biggest cases of false advertising or bait-and-switch ever.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The new Chevy Bolt EV is set to enter production later this year, with one fewer shift, following GM’s reduction in production plans at several US plants. Apart from the Bolt, GM promised a new family of affordable EVs. Are those, too, now at risk?
GM says more affordable EVs are coming, but when?
GM remained the number two EV maker in the US after back-to-back record sales months in July and August. However, with the $7,500 federal tax credit set to expire at the end of the month, the company expects a slowdown.
On Thursday, GM sent a note to employees at its Spring Hill plant in Tennessee, outlining plans to reduce output of two Cadillac electric SUVs, the Lyriq and Vistiq.
A source close to the matter confirmed the news to Reuters, saying the production halt will begin in December. GM will significantly reduce output during the first five months of 2026, according to the source.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
GM is also delaying the second shift at its Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, where the new Chevy Bolt is slated to enter production later this year. The Bolt will be the first of a new series of affordable EVs that GM intends to build in Kansas.
GM plans to build a “next-gen affordable EV) in Kansas (Source: GM)
However, those too, may now be in jeopardy. According to local news outlets, GM Korea Technical Research Center (GMTCK), a spin-off of GM’s Korean subsidiary, was recently cut out of a secret small EV project it was developing.
GMTCK president Brian McMurray reportedly announced internally last month during a trip to the US that the project was cancelled and only 30% to 40% complete.
A GM Korea spokesperson clarified that “the EV project being led by GMTCK was a global undertaking, not undertaken solely by GM Korea. The spokesperson added, “The project itself has not been canceled; the role of the Korean team has simply changed.”
The new electric car, dubbed “Fun Family,” was scheduled to launch under the Chevy and Buick brands, using a single platform. Production was expected to begin in 2027 with deliveries starting in 2028.
2022 Chevy Bolt EUV (Source: GM)
GM Korea exports over 90% of the vehicles it makes to the US, but with the new auto tariffs, the subsidiary is expected to play a drastically smaller role, if any at all. The news is fueling the ongoing rumors that GM could withdraw from Korea altogether.
In addition to the tariffs, South Korea’s recently passed “Yellow Envelope Law” could make it even more difficult for GM with new labor laws.
Chevy Equinox EV LT (Source: GM)
Will this impact the affordable EVs GM is promising to launch in the US? They are scheduled to be built in Kansas, but with the R&D Center, GM’s second largest globally, following the US, claiming to be excluded from a major global EV project, it can’t be a good sign.
In the meantime, GM already has one of the most affordable electric vehicles in the US, the Chevy Equinox EV. Starting at under $35,000, the company calls it “America’s most affordable” EV with over 315 miles of range.
With the $7,500 federal tax credit still available, GM is promoting Chevy Equinox EV leases for under $250 a month. Nowadays, it’s hard to find any vehicle for under that.
Connecticut and Rhode Island are suing the Trump administration to overturn its “baseless” decision to halt Revolution Wind, a nearly completed offshore wind farm set to deliver clean power to New England.
Attorneys General William Tong of Connecticut and Peter Neronha of Rhode Island announced Thursday that they’ll file suit in Rhode Island federal court to overturn the August 22 stop-work order from the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM). The order abruptly shut down construction without citing any violation of law or safety threats. Instead, BOEM vaguely referred to “concerns” under its Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act authority, offering no explanation.
Revolution Wind is 15 nautical miles off Rhode Island and expected to come online in 2026. Once complete, the $6 billion project would supply 350,000 homes with electricity and save ratepayers in Connecticut and Rhode Island hundreds of millions of dollars over 20 years. The project supports more than 2,500 jobs across the US, including over 1,000 union construction jobs, and has already cleared every required state and federal review. Construction is already 80% complete.
The lawsuit, to be filed against the Department of the Interior, BOEM, and their nominated leaders, argues that the stop-work order violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the agency’s authority under OCSLA. The complaint says the government’s action is arbitrary, capricious, and undermines both states’ legal and financial commitments.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
“Revolution Wind is fully permitted, nearly complete, and months from providing enough American-made, clean, affordable energy to power 350,000 homes. Now, with zero justification, Trump wants to mothball the project, send workers home, and saddle Connecticut families with millions of dollars in higher energy costs,” Tong said. “This kind of erratic and reckless governing is blatantly illegal, and we’re suing to stop it.”
Neronha added, “With Revolution Wind, we have an opportunity to create good-paying jobs for Rhode Islanders, enhance energy reliability, and ensure energy cost savings while protecting our environment. And yet, this stop-work order is not even the latest development in this administration’s all-out assault on wind energy. Just yesterday, we learned of reports that the Administration is pulling in staff from several different unrelated federal agencies, including Health and Human Services, to do its bidding. This is bizarre, this is unlawful, this is potentially devastating, and we won’t stand by and watch it happen.”
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont said the administration has offered no explanation nearly two weeks after the order. “We hoped to work with the Administration to lower energy costs, strengthen grid reliability, create jobs, and drive economic growth, but only if they share those goals. But if they do not, we will act to preserve this vital project and protect the energy future of Connecticut and the entire New England region,” he said.
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) called the shutdown “insane, illogical, and illegal,” while Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said, “The Revolution Wind project has already made it through exhaustive reviews by multiple federal agencies, and I doubt Trump’s flimsy excuses for scuttling this project will stand up to legal scrutiny.”
Danish renewables developer Ørsted, which owns a 50% share in Revolution Wind, also announced Thursday that it’s suing the Trump administration in a bid to restart construction on the blocked wind farm.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.