[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 80 KB, 756x362, Dollar-Cost-Averaging-Example.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1578045 No.1578045 [Reply] [Original]

Why the fuck did you faggots tell me that dollar cost averaging is bad and it's better to invest lumpsum???

What the fuck is your problem you little cuckhold liars

Does this retarded board not know anything?

>> No.1578082

fags

>> No.1578129

>>1578045

so if i do that i always win?

is this the secret to the markets??

>> No.1578355

>>1578045
>Does this retarded board not know anything?
You must be new here

>> No.1578359

>>1578045
check out the long run.

do you pull a card in blackjack when youre at 20?
NO unless youre retarded

Would you post a stupid thread here if you pulled at 20 and got a 1? I guess you would.

>> No.1578408

>>1578045
it depends on your event horizon but typically if you can't always watch the stock market 24/7 then monthly investing will out perform

Whoever told you lump sum was stupid.
One exception, a massive decline in the market but realizing you hit the bottom is almost impossible to do so. so again, monthly investing is superior.

>> No.1578426

>>1578408
Didn't they backtest it and prove that lump sum investing has always been better in the long-term except for a brief window in the 1980s?

>> No.1578439

>>1578426
>Didn't they backtest it and prove that lump sum investing has always been better in the long-term except for a brief window in the 1980s?

No they didn't you stupid fuck

>> No.1578485

>>1578439
I might have been thinking of another topic.
But lump sum still wins 66% of the time. The advantage of DCA is lower risk, but with lower returns as well.

>> No.1578498
File: 38 KB, 546x451, Screenshot_2016-10-20_17-20-35.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1578498

>>1578485
>But lump sum still wins 66% of the time. The advantage of DCA is lower risk, but with lower returns as well.

???

It has best returns dude.

The only benefit of lumpsum is that you eliminate trading fees. Which are negligible in the big scheme of things when you're investing $10k+.

You're basically spreading out the risk across any dips

If you spread it out, you're buying any dips.

for example look at pic related. Of the s&p500 1year.


If you had invested $10k lumpsum in the beginning, you'd have made pretty OK gains.

But if you invested every month... You'd have made BIG gains on January, February, May, July because you bought those BIG dips and small dips

>> No.1578710

>>1578485
You obviously aren't a trader.
Averaging down is crucial but you have to know how to leverage it.

>> No.1578715
File: 194 KB, 228x160, HLG.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1578715

>DCA

>> No.1578721

>>1578715

xd good one hahaha heehehe xDDd

>> No.1578730

>>1578710
>>1578498
http://www.businessinsider.com/lump-sum-vs-dollar-cost-averaging-2014-12
Lump sum is mathematically superior in the long-term. If you have $10,000 to put in an index fund and no intention of taking it out in the next 30 years, you should use either lump sum or 6-12 month DCA.
DCA is safer in the short term but will cost you long-term gains.

>> No.1578731

>>1578730
How tho?

You're missing out on dips, which give you the biggest gains.

In pic above by hitting the huge dip in January and end of May that would yield you the most gains by far.

>> No.1578738

>>1578730
>long term investing
Stay believing those articles. Do you really think the people writing those are actual traders or investors?

>> No.1578749

>>1578738
>Being a trader

lmao

Don't you have some meme stocks to gamble your life savings up on looking for the reverse batman sign symbol?

>> No.1578768

>>1578749
I trade futures. Why so mad?

>> No.1578858

>>1578408
>>1578426
I take back what I said

Lump sum is superior in the majority of cases. DCA is effective, but it's more so absorbing risk in the short-term as well as minimizing emotional investment (Imagine how you'd feel if you invested lumpsum right before the 2008 crash...)

http://canadiancouchpotato.com/2013/05/31/does-dollar-cost-averaging-work/

https://pressroom.vanguard.com/nonindexed/7.23.2012_Dollar-cost_Averaging.pdf

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/lump-sum-investing-vs-dollar-cost-averaging-the-nitty-gritty/article20707395/

>> No.1578909

>>1578858
>Canadian couch potato
Go back to plebbit faggot

>> No.1578912

>>1578909
I'm already there in my other tabs

>> No.1578913

>>1578912
Stay there and don't come back

>> No.1578914

>>1578913
Why can't I use both websites?

Why does CCP trigger you so much? Does that particular article have incorrect information?

>> No.1578916

>>1578914
Because CCP is a reddit meme for poorfags

>> No.1578918

>>1578916
I only googled whether lumpsum investing was better, that was one of the first links.

Why exactly is the website a reddit meme though?

What does meme mean in this context? Is there white bottom text under the website?

>> No.1578919

>>1578918
>being this new

>> No.1578924

>>1578919
Sorry I'm pretty new, not used to people communicating by calling everything memes.

But care to explain why reddit is for poorfags? Is /biz/ for richfags?

What's the newest /biz/ richfag coin of this week? Wojakcoin?

How are those trump and pepecoins doing

>> No.1578928

>>1578738
>Stay believing those articles. Do you really think the people writing those are actual traders or investors?
Are you some kind of troll master? This stuff has been studied by people with an IQ three times yours.

https://pressroom.vanguard.com/nonindexed/7.23.2012_Dollar-cost_Averaging.pdf

tl;dr Lump-sum beats DCA 66% of the time, looking at historical averages.

>> No.1578949

>>1578928
Dude it's not true man listen to some cryptotrader instead

>> No.1578956

>>1578924
fuck off already

>> No.1578965

>>1578956
Why?

What's wrong with canadian couch potato? Do you have anything to actually say besides "meme"?

>> No.1578968

>>1578924
Going to the moon of course.
Passive index investing does not belong on a discussion board about trading and business.

>> No.1578972

>>1578968
What's the newest coin I can sink $56.78 of my birthday money into?

>> No.1579079
File: 819 KB, 2048x1536, IMG_1727.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1579079

>>1578928
I'm a real trader dipshit.
There is great info on here if you're wise enough to navigate the stupid fucks that believe everything they read on the internet.
Keep doing lump sum... good luck with that
pic related

>> No.1579097

>>1579079
Is that a boy or a girl

>> No.1579106

>>1579097
It's the source of one of those articles. I'm not sure of gender, I think he is a guy

>> No.1579108

>>1579106
Which one though

It's pretty common knowledge that lumpsum is better. Just YouTube or google search it. Even Jack Bogle says so. There's quite a bit of research on it.

Yeah one of the people talking about it in an article might be a tranny but that doesn't discount the research.

>> No.1579110

>>1578924
this post feels like its written by a 7yr old on a high seat barely reaching the family computer in the living room

>> No.1579157

>>1578731
I don't think you understand what long-term means.

>> No.1579168

real answer: lump sum bought at 10 and sold at 14 because im not an autist

>> No.1579182

>>157873

Mate are you retarded.
Just stop to think about it. First about time value of money and the general trend of the market over the long term. Compound interest mate

>> No.1579185

>>1578045
>listening to advice on investing on Scandinavian cuck training quorum

>> No.1579204

>>1578916
>reddit meme for poorfags

How is this a legitimate argument and not an ad hominem?

>> No.1579207

>>1579204
If he had a legitimate argument he would have used it.

Much easier to just call things 'memes' though. No thought required, and you also don't risk getting proven wrong.

>> No.1579223

>>1578045
...........
ok first of all the guy who lump summed could've sold at 14 then rebought at 9 etc. and made 8x what you wouldve made doing that.

secondly, what if the stock just went from $10 to $20 steadily over a year? The guy who invested 8k wouldve made 8k and lets say you bought 1k at 10 1k at 11 etc. you would have made some amount less fuck the math.


so yeah dollar cost averaging is great, but sometimes lump sum is better. just like everything else, it's not a one size fits all solution.

>> No.1579224

>>1579108

>Which one though
Averaging down is better because I'm a trader who's sole purpose is to make money and take the path of least resistance. My experience and mentor have proven this to be a fact in my personal trading career and experiences.

>It's pretty common knowledge that lumpsum is better. Just YouTube or google search it. Even Jack Bogle says so. There's quite a bit of research on it.

"Common knowledge" is usually wrong with a hint of truth, like this. For a few specific situations I guess lump sum is better, like if your insider trading or some shit. But otherwise, I don't fire all my bullets (cash) initially. I have a system and averaging down is one of the most important parts of it. I don't need to research it because I have practiced both. I don't care what others with less experience tell me even if they are writers for big companies. Those can be the most dishonest sources really.

>Yeah one of the people talking about it in an article might be a tranny but that doesn't discount the research.

Not at all because might be a tranny, but because they are a writer and not a trader like me.
Those who can do, do it & make money
Those who can't, teach/write about it and make money that way

>> No.1579315

>>1579207
For (You)'s

>> No.1579325

>>1578045

Best way to invest is to identify the 52 high and 52 week low.

Then go back in time and buy at the low and sell at the high.

>> No.1579564

>>1579325
This is what I do.
Just don't trade at the same time your old self traded at. The trade streams could get crossed and there goes the neighborhood

>> No.1579837

>>1579564
>The trade streams could get crossed
This happened to me, and now I have six toes on one foot.

>> No.1579869

>>1579837
>now I have six toes on one foot.
damn, lucky.

>> No.1580022

>>1579224
>a few specific situations
That's a funny thing to call "long-term investing."

>> No.1580169

>>1579869
It's a bitch to find shoes, though, and I work in a steel mill, so going without isn't an option.

>> No.1580192

>>1579204
youre prolly not gonna like 4chan

>> No.1580301

>>1580192
Why not? I'm here since 2006.

>> No.1580494

>>1578045
Flip the graph vertically and suddenly lump sum is better. Now the question you have to ask is; does the market generally move up or down?
If the market is generally trending upward lump sum should be better. Dollar cost averaging should perform better in a downward correction.

>> No.1580980
File: 18 KB, 579x498, bs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1580980

>>1580494
yeah nah

>> No.1580982

>>1580980
woops, sub 8k from each total

>> No.1581001

>>1580980
Fascinating. At any rate:
>Empirical research on DCA has found that is does not function as promoted, and is a sub-optimal investment strategy;[3][4][5] finance journalist Dan Kadlec of Time summarized the relevant research in 2012, writing: "The superior long-term returns of lump sum investing [over DCA] have been acknowledged for more than 30 years."

>> No.1581022

Your example is disregarding the expected return of your investment.

The volatility of your example asset is great which should warrant a great expected return, while in your example it'ss zero over a period of one year.

Because of this you've made a poor investment and that's why averaging down is beneficial (because the start value assumed a higher return)

TL;DR lump sump is not beneficial if the actual return is lower than the expected return when you made the investment.

>> No.1581173

>>1580022
If you traded and used both with any significant amount of money you would have learned these lessons.
Long-term investing is a meme for suckers and a strategy for a few rich people.