When is the right time to buy a new/emerging technology?
If you're looking for a purely financial answer (ignoring the social/environmental aspects) there are a few different ways you can look at it. For these types of improvements the simplest is a payback calculation.  How long would it take you to recoup the initial costs?   For example, if the entire installation cost $5,000 (including any tax credits), and you save $100 per month (I'm making both numbers up), you'll pay back your investment in 50 months, or about 4 years.   (Note that if you borrow money to do the improvement, then your payback period is longer because you're reducing the amount that you're saving each month by paying interest.) If you're deciding between different uses for the money (like investing, or paying down other debt) then you can look at the return that you're getting.  Using the same example, you are spending $5,000 and getting $100 per month back, for a 24% annual return ($1,200 / $5,000), which is better than you can get on almost anything but a 401(k) match (meaning don't stop your 401(k) contributions to do this either). The decision on whether or wait or not then becomes - will the price drop faster than the amount of savings you will realize.  So if you will save $100 per month in your electric bill, is the price of the complete installation going down by more than $100 each month?  If not, you'd be better off buying now and start paying back the investment sooner. The short answer is that it's never the right time to buy an emerging technology. As long as the technology is emerging, you should expect that newer revisions will be both better and less expensive. With solar, specifically, there are some tax credits to help the early adopters that may help you on the cost/benefit analysis, but in the end, you still have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs now, and if not, whether that will change in the near future. For me, part of the solar benefit is the ability to generate electricity when the power goes out. That option does require local battery storage, however. One of the benefits of using Musk's solar tiles instead of actual slate is the weight of the quartz tiles which is much lower than the weight of real slate. In many cases a slate roof is heavy enough to require major reinforcement of the roof trusses before installation. The lower weight also saves significantly on shipping costs. This is where Musk can lower costs enough to be competitive to some of the materials he hope to compete with. When is the right time to buy a new/emerging technology? When it's trading at a discount that allows you to make your money back and then some. The way you presented it, it is of course impossible to say. You have to look at exactly how much cheaper and efficient it will be, and how long that will take. Time too has a cost, and being invested has opportunity cost, so the returns must not only arrive in expected quantity but also arrive on time. Since you tagged this investing, you should look at the financial forecasts of the business, likely future price trajectories, growth opportunity and so on, and buy if you expect a return commensurate with the risk, and if the risk is tolerable to you. If you are new to investment, I would say avoid Musk, there's too much hype and speculation and their valuations are off the charts. You can't make any sensible analysis with so much emotion running wild. Find a more obscure, boring company that has a sound business plan and a good product you think is worth a try. If you read about it on mainstream news every day you can be sure it's sucker bait. Also, my impression that these panels are actually really expensive and have a snowball's chance in Arizona (heh) in a free market. Recently the market has been manipulated through green energy subsidies of a government with a strong environmentalist voter base. This has recently changed, in case you haven't heard. So the future of solar panels is looking a bit uncertain. I am thinking about buying solar panels for my roof. That's not an investment question, it's a shopping question. Do you actually need a new roof? If no, I'd say don't bother. Last I checked the payoff is very small and it takes over a decade to break even, unless you live in a desert next to the Mexican border. Many places never break even. Electricity is cheap in the United States. If you need a new roof anyway, I suppose look at the difference. If it's about the same you might as well, although it's guaranteed to be more hassle for you with the panels. Waiting makes no sense if you need a new roof, because who knows how long that will take and you need a roof now. If a solar roof appeals to you and you would enjoy having one for the price available, go ahead and get one. Don't do it for the money because there's just too much uncertainty there, and it doesn't scale at all. If you do end up making money, good for you, but that's just a small, unexpected bonus on top of the utility of the product itself. As you said, the next generation will be cheaper and more efficient. Same for the generation after that. From a financial standpoint, there isn't a steadfast theory that supports when to buy the technology. It comes down to primarily personal issues.  As far as I know, Musk's claims about the cost were relating to a traditional slate roof, not a traditional asphalt shingle roof. I can't recall if he explicitly said one way or the other, but I have yet to see any math that supports a comparison to asphalt shingles. If you look at all of the demos and marketing material, it's comparisons to various styles of tile roofing, which is already more expensive than asphalt shingles.  Do you feel it's worth it to invest now, or do you think it would be more worth it to invest later when the costs are lower? A new roof will last 10-20 years (if not longer...I'm not a roof expert). Do you need a new roof yet? Are your electricity bills high enough that the cost of going solar will offset it enough? Can you sell unused power back to your power company? I could go on, but I think you get the point. It's entirely a personal decision, and not one that will have a definitive answer. If you keep waiting to make a purchase because you're worried that the next generation will be cheaper and more efficient, then you're never going to make the purchase.
I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover.  Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier.  Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment. You want to buy when the stock market is at an all-time low for that day. Unfortunately, you don't know the lowest time until the end of the day, and then you, uh can't buy the stock... Now the stock market is not random, but for your case, we can say that effectively, it is. So, when should you buy the stock to hopefully get the lowest price for the day? You should wait for 37% of the day, and then buy when it is lower than it has been for all of that day. Here is a quick example (with fake data): We have 18 points, and 37% of 18 is close to 7. So we discard the first 7 points - and just remember the lowest of those 7. We bear in mind that the lowest for the first 37% was 5. Now we wait until we find a stock which is lower than 5, and we buy at that point: This system is optimal for buying the stock at the lowest price for the day. Why? We want to find the  best position to stop automatically ignoring. Why 37%? We know the answer to P(Being in position n) - it's 1/N as there are N toilets, and we can select just 1. Now, what is the chance we select them, given we're in position n? The chance of selecting any of the toilets from 0 to K is 0 - remember we're never going to buy then. So let's move on to the toilets from K+1 and onwards. If K+1 is better than all before it, we have this: But, K+1 might not be the best price from all past and future prices. Maybe K+2 is better. Let's look at K+2 For K+2 we have K/K+1, for K+3 we have K/K+2... So we have: This is a close approximation of the area under 1/x - especially as x → ∞   So 0 + 0 + ... + (K/N) x (1/K + 1/K+1 + 1/K+2 ... + 1/N-1) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) and so P(K) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) Now to simplify, say that x = K/N We can graph this, and find the maximum point so we know the maximum P(K) - or we can use calculus. Here's the graph:  Here's the calculus: To apply this back to your situation with the stocks, if your stock updates every 30 seconds, and is open between 09:30 and 16:00, we have 6.5 hours = 390 minutes = 780 refreshes. You should keep track of the lowest price for the first 289 refreshes, and then buy your stock on the next best price. Because x = K/N, the chance of you choosing the best price is 37%. However, the chance of you choosing better than the average stock is above 50% for the day. Remember, this method just tries to mean you don't loose money within the day - if you want to try to minimise losses within the whole trading period, you should scale this up, so you wait 37% of the trading period (e.g. 37% of 3 months) and then select. The maths is taken from Numberphile - Mathematical Way to Choose a Toilet. Finally, one way to lose money a little slower and do some good is with Kiva.org - giving loans to people is developing countries. It's like a bank account with a -1% interest - which is only 1% lower than a lot of banks, and you do some good. I have no affiliation with them. "Basically, unless you are an investment professional, you should not be investing in a venture in a developing country shown to you by someone else. The only time you should be investing in a developing country is if a ""lightbulb"" goes off in your head and you say to yourself, ""With my engineering background, I can develop this machine/process/concept that will work better in this country than anywhere else in the world."" And then run it yourself. (That's what Michael Dell, a computer repairman, did for ""made to order"" computers in the United States, and ""the rest is history."") E.g. if you want to invest in ""real estate"" in a developing country, you might design a ""modular home"" out of local materials, tailored to local tastes, and selling for less than local equivalents, based on a formula that you know better than anyone else in the world. And then team up with a local who can sell it for you. Whatever you do, don't ""invest"" and revisit it in 10-15 years. It will be gone." By not timing the market and being a passive investor, the best time to invest is the moment you have extra money (usually when wages are received). The market trends up.  $10 fee on $2000 represents 0.5% transaction cost, which is borderline prohibitive.  I would suggest running simulations, but I suspect that 1 month is the best because average historical monthly total return is more than 0.5%. Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it?  The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company. Remove your money.  If you do not need this money for some time, you can convert it to Gold, and now is a good time to buy.  Gold is not expected to decrease much in price as we're already at the bottom of the employment cycle and the Depression is already begun and will take about two years to grip the world. "The best time to buy a stock is the time of day when the stock price is lowest! Obviously you learned nothing from that sentence, but unfortunately you won't get a much better answer than that. Here's a question that is very similar to yours: ""Is it better to have a picnic for lunch or for dinner to minimize the chance of getting rained out?"" Every day is different..." "Actually, this is a pretty good analogy to certain types of stocks, specifically tech and other ""fad"" stocks. Around the turn of the century, there were a lot of ""Bobs"" buying tech stocks (like they would baseball cards), for tech stocks' sakes. That's what drove the internet and tech stock bubbles of high valuations. At other times, the tech stocks are bought and sold mainly by ""Steve's"" for business reasons such as likely (not merely possible) future appreciation, and command a much lower valuation." "In this environment, I don't think that it is advisable to buy a broad emerging market fund.  Why? ""Emerging market"" is too broad... Look at the top 10 holdings of the fund... You're exposed to Russia & Brazil (oil driven), Chinese and Latin American banks and Asian electronics manufacturing. Those are sectors that don't correlate, in economies that are unstable -- a recipie for trouble unless you think that the global economy is heading way up. I would recommend focusing on the sectors that you are interested in (ie oil, electronics, etc) via a low cost vehicle like an index ETF or invest using a actively managed emerging markets fund with a strategy that you understand.  Don't invest a dime unless you understand what you are getting into. An index fund is just sorting companies by market cap. But... What does market cap mean when you are buying a Chinese bank?" The segment only briefly talked about the economic aspect of this.   I feel a lot of this has to do with the fact that tech companies are IP heavy as supposed to capital heavy. This makes them more flexible to enter new markets. It is somewhat unthinkable for a non-tech company to go into a market in a different vertical (e.g. Amazon going into movie making).   Also I much rather the government tackle cable/utilities monopoly first, as that market is already anti-consumer even on price. Tech is still pro-consumer on price, just anti-consumer on choice. In the theory: *Somewhere between the most you think you can get, and the minimum you think you deserve * In your case: If they want you to actually invest, they aren't purely interested in your technical expertise. which means that you need to actually believe in the idea and be involved in the decision making process. That really depends on what technology entrepreneurship exactly you are talking about. This is something I love about only investing in tech. Every company I'd want to invest in has a great balance sheet anyway, that's just how their economics work, so I don't have to worry about this. I actually work in reverse. Like with AAPL, I'm deducting their cash from their market cap to get an even more attractive valuation*. As opposed to trying to work out all the complex debt and liabilities of a bank or something.  *AAPL actually does have some debt now but it's dead simple to deduct and only a workaround to their offshore cash. This is dumb on many levels.  First are they really trying to blame the Flash Crash for investors leaving the market. It's 2014 and they claim in 17 of 25 months since the 2010 crash investors have withdrawn (not really sure what this means either, since shares don't disappear- does this just mean the market is up? It's unclear). Either way the article quoted is from 2012! And for a research team creating an empirical model, this is a very scary usage of small sample size,  mistaking correlation for causation,  etc.  And the algo,  though they don't give much info,  seems to be the very essence of data mining. Pick a million signals and filter on those that are empirically the best.  If you are an individual investor or a small fund thinking of purchasing something like this,  first consider: if it really worked, why are the founders selling it when they could just use it themselves and profit from it? It's almost guaranteed not to work out of sample "Your chance of even correctly recognizing the actual lowest point of a dip are essentially zero, so if you try to time the market, you'll most likely not get the ""buy cheap"" part perfectly right. And as you write yourself, while you wait for the dip, you have an ongoing opportunity cost. Cost averaging is by far the best strategy for non-professional and risk averse investors to deal with this. And yes, over the long run, it's far more important to invest at all than when you do it." "The price movements of Bitcoin are actually cogent in at least one sense:  Why in the world would somebody use bitcoin right now to buy anything?  That $100 item you bought today represents (to most) a huge opportunity cost as far as ""missed returns in the future"" go.  It's basically a dollar-deflationary cycle, which we know to be corrosive to an economy:  You don't buy today what you expect to be cheaper tomorrow.  That's highly problematic for bitcoin as far as business adoption is concerned."