Exactly dozu888, The point is the dollar cost average over time (years), NOT a big lump investment at some random price on the chart, and then sit back and hope and wish and chill begging for it go up. NOPE, it takes monthly work over time. Age does play a big role
Actually the math says you’re better off investing a lump sum today than DCA over time. But discipline and emotions are two arguments against that for most people.
Who said not to invest in equities or a being frugal saver? I was responding to the overconfidence to the quote investing all the way to 80% drop with 100% equities. It may workout for younger investor, but not for the ones closer to retirement. Now he has changed the tune 30% to 50% stock and bond at the time of retirement, which is fine. It is simple math: 80% drop means it needs 500% return from that point on-wards to recover. safety net or not 80% drop asset has happened.
“If you can’t afford a 50% drop you shouldn’t be in equities” Maybe you can afford a 25% drop..so be in 50% equities. Common sense.
Which one is right? you seem to indicate 100% stock all the way till retirement and suddenly switch over to 30% to 50% stock just before the retirement? What happens one year before retirement stock drops 80% as you suggest? Who is bullshitting? I don't think you understand sequence of return
folks should never use this argument.... it's bogus. if a stock goes from $100 to $20 then back to $100, the amount of money that went out of then back into the market is the SAME... the % calculation is distorted because the denominator is different.
This is a somewhat dangerous line of thinking because it ignores a massive assumption....that earnings and dividends won't be impacted by a 30% drop in the market. It assumes that not only won't the market fall itself impact the real economy, but the thing causing the market fall won't either. I guess it's possible they won't be impacted, despite the fact that they have in past corrections of that magnitude. However you'd want to make a case for why that would be the case rather than just ignoring something that's crucial to that line of thinking. It's hard to model and even harder to intuitively predict the impacts of interconnectedness, so our brains tend to discount it or pretend it's not there at all. IMHO that's the reason so many predictions and more importantly their error bars (if the predictor is sophisticated enough to provide them) are so far off.