3 ms·

Strange you got downvoted for this. So I will enforce you stance. Suppose you have $50.000 to invest, what is the best strategy to invest it? If you run over t

Strange you got downvoted for this. So I will enforce you stance. Suppose you have $50.000 to invest, what is the best strategy to invest it? If you run over the history of stocks, the best strategy is to invest it all at once, now. Not wait until you THINK the market is low, not splitting it up and buying in smaller chunks to spread your risk.

harperlee 10y ago
...but the history of stocks is sufficiently short and localized as to have weak predictive power over what's going to happen in the future.
bryanbuckley 10y ago
well.. it depends. You didn't really specify goals, which is the most important thing. In many cases you are correct. Somewhat related see Vanguard's research "Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later" [1] which finds lump sum investing is better in ~2/3 of the cases they considered. They had a specific time horizon. Individual's have unique situations and goals and should consider those instead of just dumping everything into an s&p index fund asap. Maybe an individual is more sensitive to sequence risk at different points in his life? There is an entire profession (financial planners) which allows you to outsource these decisions to if you want. Same for the spending part of retirement (hint: most common advice (bond/stock mix) is exactly the opposite of what it should be e.g. "Rising Equity Glidepath" [2]) [1] https://pressroom.vanguard.com/nonindexed/7.23.2012_Dollar-cost_Averaging.pdf https://pressroom.vanguard.com/nonindexed/7.23.2012_Dollar-c... [2] https://www.kitces.com/blog/should-equity-exposure-decrease-in-retirement-or-is-a-rising-equity-glidepath-actually-better/ https://www.kitces.com/blog/should-equity-exposure-decrease-...