Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again - until the Supreme Court declines to intervene, and Electoral College certifies it -- the election is not over. Trump has not conceded.
Trump is an idiot. The Supreme Court isn’t going to do anything because the states have struck down all the lawsuits or they have been withdrawn. There’s literally nothing for the Supreme Court to take up
Good for you. For most noninstitutional investors, dollar cost averaging and a steady plan work out best in the long run.
Dollar cost averaging is actually the worst way to do things ..since stocks are up 67% of the time and down only one third you would need some pretty dramatic timing to come out better .
If dollar cost averaging worked better , every investor would reach their desired allocation, sell everything and start from zero all over again...you can see the results would not be good .
Don’t believe for a second that averaging in outperforms lump sum as a general statement
Good for you. For most noninstitutional investors, dollar cost averaging and a steady plan work out best in the long run.
Yep! You get the money, which for most people is from wage or periodic income, then you invest on a schedule so the money goes into retirement and other investments. Automate it and you don't even need to think about it. You let divs and cap gains reinvest and you can go about your life. Before you know it you have a nice portfolio.
Dollar cost averaging is actually the worst way to do things ..since stocks are up 67% of the time and down only one third you would need some pretty dramatic timing to come out better .
If dollar cost averaging worked better , every investor would reach their desired allocation, sell everything and start from zero all over again...you can see the results would not be good .
Don’t believe for a second that averaging in outperforms lump sum as a general statement
This is all true but most people investing are dca because the source is current cashflow not choosing between lump sum and dca
This is all true but most people investing are dca because the source is current cashflow not choosing between lump sum and dca
That is a given but my response was not about those who buy in over time because they can’t lump sum. it was to the poster who said dollar cost averaging gives better results which it does not when one has a choice
I don’t think it’s fair to keep a prediction for indefinite amount of time because then it becomes meaningless. ...
But what if our time-horizon is itself indefinite?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
Dollar cost averaging is actually the worst way to do things ..
The context here, is to allocate towards stocks a certain portion of each successive paycheck's savings, rather than to direct all such savings into cash, and then at some seemingly opportune time to suddenly deploy the whole stash into the market.
In this context, I lack the discipline to just drip-drip-drip into the market. It is too sorely tempting to delve into the sort of predictive interpretive-dance, as featured in this thread. But the consolation is that the amounts in question are proportionately small.
But what if our time-horizon is itself indefinite?
The context here, is to allocate towards stocks a certain portion of each successive paycheck's savings, rather than to direct all such savings into cash, and then at some seemingly opportune time to suddenly deploy the whole stash into the market.
In this context, I lack the discipline to just drip-drip-drip into the market. It is too sorely tempting to delve into the sort of predictive interpretive-dance, as featured in this thread. But the consolation is that the amounts in question are proportionately small.
Again ,if they are averaging in because they do it pay check to pay check then that is a different issue ...they have no choice to lump sum in
How are you going to grow your IRA after retirement and not allowed additional contribution, plus you must take RMD? For all the years I have been drawing the RMD, my principal is at an all-time high, requiring higher RMD. The great performance of the stock market during the past 10 years and occasional sell and buy is needed. It works for me.
How are you going to grow your IRA after retirement and not allowed additional contribution, plus you must take RMD? For all the years I have been drawing the RMD, my principal is at an all-time high, requiring higher RMD. The great performance of the stock market during the past 10 years and occasional sell and buy is needed. It works for me.
You grow from the growth itself ....we have been drawing to live for 6 years now and we are higher then the day we retired ...a 60/40 has ended with more than you started with 30 years later at a 4% swr 90% of all 129 rolling 30 year periods to date .
Rmds don’t mean you spend the invested money ..you simply reinvest it in the same thing in a taxable account
But what if our time-horizon is itself indefinite?
The context here, is to allocate towards stocks a certain portion of each successive paycheck's savings, rather than to direct all such savings into cash, and then at some seemingly opportune time to suddenly deploy the whole stash into the market.
In this context, I lack the discipline to just drip-drip-drip into the market. It is too sorely tempting to delve into the sort of predictive interpretive-dance, as featured in this thread. But the consolation is that the amounts in question are proportionately small.
Hi Ohio, maybe you misunderstood my post or I am not understanding your point. Probably me. The point of this thread is someone was predicting a crash in the near term from two months ago, maybe august/September due to factors like upcoming election results, second wave, etc. well those events have passed and here but the predicted crash did not happen. The predictor is now saying while the prediction has yet to come true but it could still come true because it’s not over yet. My post was just pointing out that predictions of a certain extreme crash, 80% in cash, or extreme rally should be for a finite and reasonable period for it to be meaningful and fun to entertain. What kind of prediction would a prediction that markets will crash sometime in the next ten years. Of course I will be correct at some point. That’s all. I think predictions are fun too but it can’t be for an perpetual period. Thanks all : )
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
