I buy exceptional companies when they are genuinely exceptional. I do not diversify just because diversification feels respectable.
This page is specific on purpose. The chart below is not an illustration. It is built from my own TSLA transaction history, using the actual buy and sell entries from the IBKR CSV I imported into this repo.
My thesis is simple: if a company is truly exceptional, still has years of operating runway, and I understand it well enough to underwrite the volatility, the rational response is to own more of it, not to dilute the idea with a basket of lesser businesses just to calm nerves.
Diversification is useful when ignorance is the honest state of affairs. It stops being a virtue when it becomes a socially acceptable way to avoid making a hard judgment. I would rather keep buying the rare company I believe is genuinely good than own a little of many average ones because that looks safer from the outside.
The painful part of this ledger is that I also learned what happens when conviction meets leverage. I sold because I was on margin, I sold near the bottom, and the lesson was expensive: being right about the business is not enough if you do not have the holding power to survive the drawdown.
Bars show monthly net shares bought or sold. The gold line shows cumulative shares held. Everything is split-adjusted so the 2021 entries are directly comparable to the 2026 entries.
—
—
—
| Date | Type | Shares | Price | Cash Flow |
|---|
This restores the question every concentrated investor has to face honestly: what if the same dated dollars had simply gone into the S&P 500 through SPY instead? The chart compares ending value paths, the value gap, and the monthly cash schedule.
Explore the broader TSLA vs SPY comparison tool—
—
The value view compares the two end portfolios. Delta isolates the profit or value gap. Cash flows shows how the same monthly contributions and withdrawals would have funded the SPY path.
—
The question is not whether a stock is popular, volatile, or emotionally comfortable. The question is whether the company itself is unusually good and still has room to compound.
Concentration only makes sense after real work. Without that, it is recklessness. With that, forced diversification can become a refusal to act on what the work actually says.
Owning the right business in meaningful size requires living with drawdowns, public disagreement, and long stretches where patience matters more than activity.
Blind diversification can feel responsible because it spreads discomfort around. It also spreads attention, conviction, and upside around. If the work keeps pointing back to one company that is building faster, executing harder, and aiming further than peers, pretending every other idea deserves equal weight is not prudence. It is indecision dressed up as risk management.
The better standard is harsher: buy the company only if it is genuinely good, keep buying while the thesis remains intact, and structure the position so volatility cannot evict you at the worst possible moment. My own record made that painfully clear. Margin destroyed holding power, forced sales near the bottom, and turned a good thesis into a worse outcome than a simpler benchmark path.
This is a personal allocation philosophy, not advice. Concentration can produce permanent capital loss. The fact that I choose this path does not make it appropriate for most people.