I think that was fine advice for the last 30 years but if you go read ed easterling's book you can see that there are historically protracted periods of time when the s&p produces NO real return over 20 years or so. With average P/E ratios still in double digits and Tobin's Q somewhere near 1.0, its hard to persuade me that anyone can have the fortitude to DCA in a fixed amount (of any significance) for a decade or longer of flat yields, when regulatory changes might significantly impact the viability of that strategy (as it is frequently done in tax deferred 401k type investments). While I've had some good luck this year buying distressed CEF's in panic sales back in the fall, I'm hardly 'all in'. I'll commit significantly at levels percieved to be a 'bottom' with more to be put in after that. But its hard to convince me with the above numbers, and what I see with my own eyes around me, that we are going nowhere but up from here.
Probably the most important thing I will ever say on this forum... There is no such thing as investing.
Not too bad. Hedge funds did much worse and Bill Miller did worse, lots of mutual funds did worse. Shows you that these "Star managers" are overpaid and overhyped. Anyone can throw darts and get a few winners. Madoff investors did even worse.
OK, let's say that you will have zero real return from stocks in the next 20 years (btw I couldn't find such 20 year periods without any real return provided that you did not buy at the top; there are however a couple of 10-year periods with flat real returns when you bought at bottoms). What's the alternative? What kind of investment can provide a positive REAL return in the next 20 years? Bonds, commodities, real estate, cash ? Even if stocks fail to increase your purchasing power for the next 10-20 years, is it better to keep your money in bonds or in the bank, where they will certainly lose purchasing power?