Advertisement
Anonymous
Last week webinar the speaker spoke of "the worst investor" who only invested 100k at the peak, he would still have done well over a lifetime. How about if compared to DCA?
I am thinking maybe let's start with the common 40-60 or 60-40 portfolios.
2
Discussion (2)
Learn how to style your text
Reply
Save
Write your thoughts
Related Articles
Related Posts
Related Products
4.7
660 Reviews
Endowus Cash Investments Portfolio
Equities, Bonds
INSTRUMENTS
0.25% to 0.60%
ANNUAL MANAGEMENT FEE
$1,000
MINIMUM INVESTMENT
N/A
EXPECTED ANNUAL RETURN
Web and Mobile App
PLATFORMS
Related Posts
Advertisement
Hi there! There is online literature which will be able to articulate the pros and cons of lump sum vs DCA investing.
Research from Vanguard shows that a lump sum investment outperforms DCA most of the time. The following diagram was based on the performance of a 60% stock/40% bond portfolio over a 12-month rolling period, and DCA interval was assumed to be monthly. Three developed markets were examined: US (1926β2015), UK (1976β2015), and Australia (1984β2015). This means that previous market crashes like in 1929, 1987, 2001, and 2008 have been factored into the analysis of returns in the US market.
Furthermore, this trend exists regardless of the asset allocation that you have (100% equity, 100% bonds, or 50/50).
The conclusion is that lump sum investments are usually better, especially if you have the money on hand. However, if it does make you feel better, a DCA would be a better choice in these periods of volatility.
If you are interested, the Vanguard report can be found here:
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGDCA.pdfβββ