1 million to add to vanguard

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
gips
Posts: 1760
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 5:42 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by gips »

will you have another $1mm to invest next year? When I owned my business, it was throwing off about $1mm in investible assets per year. This made me a lot more comfortable with the risk of lump sum investing.
HanShotFirst
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by HanShotFirst »

I would either:

(1) Invest the bonds portion immediately and then enter/update staggered limit orders on VTI every Sunday, with the goal of getting all the money in within 10 weeks or so.
or
(2) If you really think there's going to be a big downswing sometime in the next few months, dump it all or the majority of it in bonds and then move it into stocks when/if the downturn(s) happen. If no downswing happens in the next few months, then start balancing out the AA into your preferred original allocation via staggered limit orders over a few weeks.
HanShotFirst
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by HanShotFirst »

jjface wrote:It makes no sense not to put it in. Are you going to pull the rest of your stocks out too because of your fears ?

So you have $5m and want to be 60:40. So that is 3m in stocks. Perhaps that is too much for your risk appetite. Perhaps moving to 50:50 makes more sense. That way you are not putting it all into the stock market anyway since you are looking at $2.5m stocks.
dspencer wrote:
erik265 wrote:I have 1 million to add to my vanguard account should i lump sum it in maybe spread it out over 10 monthly installment
I know people on here hate market timers but because of election uncertainty should i wait for a few big dips and jump in then?
Other people have touched on it, but I would ask yourselves these questions:

1. If you currently had $1 million dollars in your preferred asset allocation that you had invested 5 years ago, would you decide to sell it now and then reinvest over the next 10 months?
2. If you invest in monthly installments for 10 months and at the end the market looks exactly the same to you, will you sell everything and repeat the process?

3. Do you really believe in buy and hold?

I think we all wrestle with the same doubts. Doesn't the market look frothy? We must be overdue for a correction, right?

The reality is it probably won't make much difference either way, but logically if you believe you can't know what the market is going to do, you should invest it all now. Otherwise you might as well just embrace being a market timer forever. If so, let us know how it goes!
I see this sort of logic employed a lot on this forum related to market timing conversations. While it's a fair type of question to ask if we're talking about a 401(k), it doesn't make much sense when discussing a (hopefully profitable) taxable account. Besides tax loss harvesting situations, buy and hold makes so much more sense in a taxable account because of the tax implications. Thus, someone could be a DCA proponent but still have no desire to sell of their current holdings in a taxable account because taxes can make that a pretty awful idea.
HanShotFirst
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by HanShotFirst »

ogd wrote:
erik265 wrote:ok read the thread and i see everyone is saying lump sum it in
so it doesnt matter how many times S&P is trading 18x is very high shouldnt that count in some way
So no matter what market conditions are at the moment just lump it in ok
Erik: please understand that market timing is extremely hard. So hard that professional managers with an explicit mission to do this, and great resources at their disposal (computers, economists, etc) underperform a simple static allocation pretty badly: performance of tactical allocation funds. Vanguard's "quantitatively driven" market timing fund was so bad that years later we still have to make excuses for its effect on the LifeStrategy funds that used to include it at 10-20%. For the little guy, it's basically impossible.

On the more amateurish side of things, take a look at the kinds of things that so-called "technical analysis", i.e. extrapolating trajectories of the market, has come up with: technical analysis glossary; I'm a sarcastic fan of the "Bearish Abandoned Baby", myself. Don't you think that if "market is frothy" worked it would be the only entry in that glossary?

Market timing is a losing proposition, whether for new money or old. Not only does it cost you time in the market, which for all you reasonably know is a fairly steep cost, but it's an active strategy and like all such, the average small investor has a habit of abandoning it only after losses (or missed opportunities); that is, taking the negative outcomes more frequently than the positive ones. For example, your strategy might work once or be neutral, you'd find this encouraging, then keep doing it until large losses convince you otherwise. These behaviours cost investors multiple percentage points of return compared to the very funds they are investing in.

The Boglehead way (and one I've found only after dabbling in all the bad stuff) is to abandon all pretense you know anything about the market, put the money in an allocation you can live with, and go do something productive with your time and skills. It's actually quite liberating.
I have no objection to the behavioral component of what you're saying, but that doesn't seem too applicable to this situation. OP seems like a fairly aware investor who is looking for a big dip or two in order to toss his money in. That doesn't sound like a strategy facing risks of investor-fright.

In terms of comparing the average investor to the person managing billions of dollars and trying to market-time on a day-to-day basis--it seems like OP is talking more about waiting on taking advantage of a dip or two in the next few months--not trying to time the market on a day-to-day basis. I would image it's actually a lot more difficult for big money managers to keep their powder dry in order to do that. There's already been two examples (in Jan/Feb & then post-Brexit) this year of big dips offering those waiting on the sidelines with some funds a good opportunity to jump in. Brexit in particular looked like an obvious market overreaction, in terms of US stocks--I thought it was a pretty favorable bet to throw more money than my usual monthly amount into my investments that Friday and Monday post-Brexit.
User avatar
ogd
Posts: 4876
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by ogd »

erik265 wrote:I understand what you are saying:
I am not a trader-- here and there i have a lump sum to invest
I know you think that your situation is different and it's just this one time that you're timing, but the point is that if your goal of doing something better than investing in your target allocation right now was attainable, then so would these other goals that in practice appear to be unattainable or at least very hard. The mechanics are the same. For example, I have some stock investments that I could sell without much in the way of tax consequences. If I thought your strategy of DCA-ing was better, I would sell them right now and DCA back in. I'd be a market timer on an ongoing basis, not just once. The only difference is psychological -- you probably think that I'm more willing to lose money if I've already made some gains, than you starting afresh, but this is not so -- I have $X with my name on it today and I don't feel like I owe any of it back to Wall Street.

Likewise, if the professional managing a market timing fund thought that it was better to slowly put money in rather than stocks now in these market conditions, they would. Some probably do. But they fail to outperform static allocations, with this strategy or others. That indicates your likely failure to do better by delaying investment.

erik265 wrote:i am still gonna DCA each month if one month tanks then ill average more in if not i just keep DCA i just dont see how i can really get hurt with that strategy I see no real downside
I can think of two downsides (or possibilities):

1) The market shoots up from here and you lose 10% or so that should have been yours if only you'd gotten into an asset allocation that you think is okay for the long term, i.e. one that you should be able to live with.

2) The market tanks, your strategy wins and you take it as confirmation that your hunches about the market are right. This only sets you up for larger failures later, with more money at stake. I'm speaking from experience here. There's no way discomfort about having $1M invested in such-and-such type market will not come back with $2M invested if it "proven" right the first time around.
Last edited by ogd on Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ogd
Posts: 4876
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by ogd »

HanShotFirst wrote:In terms of comparing the average investor to the person managing billions of dollars and trying to market-time on a day-to-day basis--it seems like OP is talking more about waiting on taking advantage of a dip or two in the next few months--not trying to time the market on a day-to-day basis.
I've already addressed this in the post above. It's NOT a direct comparison, but rather "how can this work for you if it doesn't work for them". I'm not comparing myself to Stephen Curry when I declare that his example (even his example) shows that shooting the basketball from half court consistently is very hard and should not be the cornerstone of my strategy.
HanShotFirst wrote: I would image it's actually a lot more difficult for big money managers to keep their powder dry in order to do that.
There is no evidence that pressure from shareholders is what prevents managers from succeeding at tactical allocation. Vanguard's TAA sat dry during a bull market, then jumped all in after an early 2008 dip, then did something similar in 2011.
HanShotFirst wrote: There's already been two examples (in Jan/Feb & then post-Brexit) this year of big dips offering those waiting on the sidelines with some funds a good opportunity to jump in.
There's also been a nice bull market that a well-meaning friend was adamant I miss. Do those sitting on the sidelines count the 15% or so opportunity loss as a loss against their strategy? Did you?

Moreover -- if you have stocks in tax-advantaged or with low capital gains tax, why are you not selling them now and waiting for an opportunity? That's what I'd like to ask anyone who thinks DCA-ing now is a good idea. Is it only about the purely psychological difference between "jumping in" and "deciding not to sell"?
Theoretical
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by Theoretical »

209south wrote:I'm a dollar-cost-averaging guy, based on the experience of my (then) 18 year-old daughter with a meaningful one-time gift...this was mid-2008 and my advice was to invest immediately as that would generally lead to better results. Given her age she went 100% TSM and got obliterated...good news is she sold nothing and has recovered, bad news is she was scarred for life and is afraid of the market to this day. If $1mm is only 20% of your investable assets you presumably have some level of sophistication and the ability to survive a substantial loss, but I think the marginal benefit of being fully invested asap is offset by the risk of regret.
Poor girl. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Make sure she knows how incredibly mature and courageous she was to not sell out. Like, seriously, that's far better behavior than even most experienced investors in a nightmare like 08-09.
HanShotFirst
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by HanShotFirst »

ogd wrote:
HanShotFirst wrote:In terms of comparing the average investor to the person managing billions of dollars and trying to market-time on a day-to-day basis--it seems like OP is talking more about waiting on taking advantage of a dip or two in the next few months--not trying to time the market on a day-to-day basis.
I've already addressed this in the post above. It's NOT a direct comparison, but rather "how can this work for you if it doesn't work for them". I'm not comparing myself to Stephen Curry when I declare that his example (even his example) shows that shooting the basketball from half court consistently is very hard and should not be the cornerstone of my strategy.
What I was trying to say is that the person having to manage billions of dollars has to have a much different and typically much more complicated strategy regarding how to properly allocate all that money, especially if the managers are moving the money around. The average investor now has access to a lot more information in the past and can construct much simpler strategies.
ogd wrote:
HanShotFirst wrote: I would image it's actually a lot more difficult for big money managers to keep their powder dry in order to do that.
There is no evidence that pressure from shareholders is what prevents managers from succeeding at tactical allocation. Vanguard's TAA sat dry during a bull market, then jumped all in after an early 2008 dip, then did something similar in 2011.
"No evidence"? Um, just look at the current redemption rates happening in the hedge fund industry. There is a lot of pressure for active money managers to be consistently producing positive gains. Some funds and some managers have less pressure of course, but the industry as a whole is full of external pressures to be constantly producing gains--which means keeping powder dry is not really a viable option for many of these managers.
ogd wrote:
HanShotFirst wrote: There's already been two examples (in Jan/Feb & then post-Brexit) this year of big dips offering those waiting on the sidelines with some funds a good opportunity to jump in.
There's also been a nice bull market that a well-meaning friend was adamant I miss. Do those sitting on the sidelines count the 15% or so opportunity loss as a loss against their strategy? Did you?
I invested most all of my available free cash over the course of early to mid-February. I.e., I dumped in extra cash that is normally a small buffer in my bank account. Same thing, but to a smaller extent, post-Brexit. I have a small buffer built back up in my bank account based on a combo of (1) most of my investments being at a high and not overly enticing, and (2) work being crazy and me not having time to gameplan. Other than the current small buffer however, most of my available cash has been plugged into the market as soon as I saw an opportunity I liked. I'm currently up about 27% YTD in my taxable account and a little bit better than market returns in my 401(k) account, so I don't think I missed out on the current nice runs this year. (The average Boglehead might be horrified about my investments though, with about 35% being individual stocks.)
ogd wrote: Moreover -- if you have stocks in tax-advantaged or with low capital gains tax, why are you not selling them now and waiting for an opportunity? That's what I'd like to ask anyone who thinks DCA-ing now is a good idea. Is it only about the purely psychological difference between "jumping in" and "deciding not to sell"?
My personal preference is to buy-and-hold my current investments, unless things get inflated to a point where I would seriously consider shorting/buying put options on the particular investment--then selling might make sense. (E.g., I have a fairly small amount of Nintendo stock and I was seriously considering selling when the Pokemon craze happened and things got very overinflated--I had bought stock 2-3 months prior when Nintendo had started softening its anti-mobile gaming position, but the post-pokemon inflated prices got to a laughably high point. I ultimately decided not to sell though because it's a stock I want to own 5, 10, 15 years from now, and I thought the price jump would be sticky enough that it wouldn't be worth the short-term profit that would be chewed up by high taxes (short term capital gains, high tax bracket). I thought it might have been a mistake not to sell when it cratered shortly after, but it's climbed up high enough again that I'm happy I didn't sell.)

The basis for the strategy is both tax-based and behavior-based: Tax considerations have been covered, but in terms of the psychological aspects, I don't really want to be consistently thinking about whether something I own might be slightly over-inflated. I want the focus of my thinking to be (1) Do my investments still make sense over a 10-15 yr time frame? and (2) What are the current enticing buying opportunities where I should be directing my monthly income? Having a mostly "buy only" mindset also helps makes me more excited about any dips happening in my current investments. Unless a significantly negative, unexpected catalyst occurs, it is more likely than not that I'm going to be excited about volatility and the opportunity to buy more of an investment I believe in.

So, in terms of DCA -- I'm not really a fan, because I don't like sitting on the sidelines. That said, there is a reason why I started investing in individual stocks and some sector ETF funds--I like having a fairly wide-range of investment options that I believe in because typically there's going to be at least a few of them that are underperforming when others are overperforming. And my work paycheck is directed to the funds that are currently underperforming. Doing it this way requires some extra time to smooth over my desired asset allocation over time, but I don't mind being fairly flexible in the short term in regards to what the current allocation looks like.
jfave33
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by jfave33 »

HanShotFirst wrote:
jjface wrote:It makes no sense not to put it in. Are you going to pull the rest of your stocks out too because of your fears ?

So you have $5m and want to be 60:40. So that is 3m in stocks. Perhaps that is too much for your risk appetite. Perhaps moving to 50:50 makes more sense. That way you are not putting it all into the stock market anyway since you are looking at $2.5m stocks.
dspencer wrote:
erik265 wrote:I have 1 million to add to my vanguard account should i lump sum it in maybe spread it out over 10 monthly installment
I know people on here hate market timers but because of election uncertainty should i wait for a few big dips and jump in then?
Other people have touched on it, but I would ask yourselves these questions:

1. If you currently had $1 million dollars in your preferred asset allocation that you had invested 5 years ago, would you decide to sell it now and then reinvest over the next 10 months?
2. If you invest in monthly installments for 10 months and at the end the market looks exactly the same to you, will you sell everything and repeat the process?

3. Do you really believe in buy and hold?

I think we all wrestle with the same doubts. Doesn't the market look frothy? We must be overdue for a correction, right?

The reality is it probably won't make much difference either way, but logically if you believe you can't know what the market is going to do, you should invest it all now. Otherwise you might as well just embrace being a market timer forever. If so, let us know how it goes!
I see this sort of logic employed a lot on this forum related to market timing conversations. While it's a fair type of question to ask if we're talking about a 401(k), it doesn't make much sense when discussing a (hopefully profitable) taxable account. Besides tax loss harvesting situations, buy and hold makes so much more sense in a taxable account because of the tax implications. Thus, someone could be a DCA proponent but still have no desire to sell of their current holdings in a taxable account because taxes can make that a pretty awful idea.
Sure but then why consider adding the extra to stocks at all then?

I see this a lot where people are worried about $1m but care little about the $4m - makes no sense. Look at the $5m, determine the asset allocation that helps you sleep at night and make what adjustments that are needed. Too worried in the stock market then the $1m extra goes to bonds and you lower your asset allocation expectation.
User avatar
ogd
Posts: 4876
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by ogd »

HanShotFirst wrote: What I was trying to say is that the person having to manage billions of dollars has to have a much different and typically much more complicated strategy regarding how to properly allocate all that money, especially if the managers are moving the money around. The average investor now has access to a lot more information in the past and can construct much simpler strategies.
This argument is a favorite of investment media targeted at individuals -- "yes, mutual fund stats look bad, but don't worry you can be more nimble". It has no legs because of scalability. If "billions" were the problem, then they could manage them as thousands of separate "millions", with management cost (as fractions of a professional's time) still cheaper than what you can manage -- professionals have skills learned already, tools bought already and large economies of scale whenever some of the small portfolios line up. The only way out of this problem is to declare your time is free. Mine isn't and I have more attracctive hobbies.

As it is, the dire reality is that professionals in the aggregate do get the better of individuals, just not by enough to overcome fees. In the specific case of market timing funds, Vanguard's was moving between the large and liquid Vanguard index funds, so shifting billions overnight would have been no problem at all. This isn't why they failed.
HanShotFirst wrote: "No evidence"? Um, just look at the current redemption rates happening in the hedge fund industry. There is a lot of pressure for active money managers to be consistently producing positive gains. Some funds and some managers have less pressure of course, but the industry as a whole is full of external pressures to be constantly producing gains--which means keeping powder dry is not really a viable option for many of these managers.
I didn't ask for evidence that net outflows happen; if that's the case (after a long period of hedge fund growth) I welcome the news because no-one should be paying those fees. I asked for evidence that it is shareholder pressure that causes them to underperform. For example, if the pressure was to stay invested you'd expect them to be more allocated than their target and generally outperform with higher risk. If there was actual skill, you'd expect them to outperform their average (actual) allocation. But the problem isn't that they are forced to be over- or under-allocated, the problem is that they do it at the wrong times.
HanShotFirst wrote:I invested most all of my available free cash over the course of early to mid-February. I.e., I dumped in extra cash that is normally a small buffer in my bank account. Same thing, but to a smaller extent, post-Brexit. I have a small buffer built back up in my bank account based on
When was that cash first available, you should ask, then measure against putting it in at that time. This is the fair way to judge market timing opportunity losses, not cash that materializes out of nowhere (also re: "buy only mindset" -- there must have been something you didn't buy if you had cash available to time a purchase). This is why it's instructive to look at funds with audited performance records in a space (be it market timing or stock picking), because they can't finesse their way out of reporting underperformance. Individuals do it all the time.

In this case, I think it probably worked for you even when properly measured. But you can't expect to keep it up, or you'd be a market timer of unheard-of skill.
HanShotFirst wrote: (The average Boglehead might be horrified about my investments though, with about 35% being individual stocks.)
Well, I wish you good luck with that, and the market timing, and the Pokemon options. If you ever get tired of it, you know where to look.
ReadyOrNot
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by ReadyOrNot »

I am surprised that immediately investing the lump sum seems to be overwhelmingly favored over dollar cost averaging. Must be a Boglehead thing. Dollar cost averaging is not market timing and reduces risk, but in a growing market is expected to be usually not as good as investing as early as possible. I thought most mainstream advisors favored dollar cost averaging to reduce the risk and ease the minds of those who would be upset by an immediate drop in the stock market, particularly if the market seemed to be high. That is, they would encourage you to begin investing even if the market is high, but dollar cost average the total over the next 2 years or so, if it makes you feel better.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by TomatoTomahto »

ReadyOrNot wrote:I am surprised that immediately investing the lump sum seems to be overwhelmingly favored over dollar cost averaging. Must be a Boglehead thing. Dollar cost averaging is not market timing and reduces risk, but in a growing market is expected to be usually not as good as investing as early as possible. I thought most mainstream advisors favored dollar cost averaging to reduce the risk and ease the minds of those who would be upset by an immediate drop in the stock market, particularly if the market seemed to be high. That is, they would encourage you to begin investing even if the market is high, but dollar cost average the total over the next 2 years or so, if it makes you feel better.
Two competing strategies: regret avoidance vs maximizing your odds of a larger gain. Pick one that suits your psyche. Or do the old neither fish nor fowl and do a hybrid. It's not rocket science.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
User avatar
Earl Lemongrab
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:14 am

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by Earl Lemongrab »

ReadyOrNot wrote:Dollar cost averaging is not market timing and reduces risk, but in a growing market is expected to be usually not as good as investing as early as possible. I thought most mainstream advisors favored dollar cost averaging to reduce the risk and ease the minds of those who would be upset by an immediate drop in the stock market, particularly if the market seemed to be high. That is, they would encourage you to begin investing even if the market is high, but dollar cost average the total over the next 2 years or so, if it makes you feel better.
If you need to reduce risk, then DCA is a poor way of doing so. Use your asset allocation for that.

Any time that people are factoring in "market is high" in their strategy then, yes, they are market timing. Sorry if you don't like to hear that.

As far as regret, I still think that if one is prone to that then DCA isn't going to help. If the market drops during the DCA period, the person is likely to freeze and stop contributing until things "settle down". And if it drops right after the DCA, then they'll regret just as much. Perhaps more, as DCA was supposed to "protect" them from this.

Here's a very imperfect analogy on regret.

Suppose someone lives in an area prone to thunderstorms. In the past, storms have rolled through and dropped hail that ruined all the roofs and they were replaced by insurance. Now it's been quite a while since that happened, and this homeowner's house needs a new roof. But he's thinking, "It'd be just my luck that I'd replace it and have a hailstorm right after." He manages to find a roofer that agrees to replace part of the roof each month, finishing in a year and that the owner could cancel at any time (granted that no real roofer would work that way).

Each month goes by, no problems, shingles are replaced. On the twelfth month, the last nail goes in and the final check handed over. Then the storms come. Does that homeowner really feel better?

Again, that analogy doesn't reflect real life or exactly match (as in the roofing doesn't get cheaper nor can you sell the partial roof) but I think applicable. I just think that those who believe that those prone to regret would be assuaged by putting it off for a year aren't accurate.

Earl
User avatar
ogd
Posts: 4876
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by ogd »

ReadyOrNot wrote:I am surprised that immediately investing the lump sum seems to be overwhelmingly favored over dollar cost averaging. Must be a Boglehead thing.
Yes, we tend to discount psychological factors in "what should I do" threads. Or rather, explain that they are merely psychological and sometimes it's just better to get your plan done and not drag your feet second-guessing yourself every month.
ReadyOrNot wrote: Dollar cost averaging is not market timing and reduces risk
It is indeed not market timing as normally proposed, but the OP leaned in the direction of tinkering with it based on what the market does. That's market timing.

It reduces risk as much as a cash allocation is expected to on a permanent basis. However, if one is not okay with the risk of their final (or "target") allocation then one should reduce that rather than slowly dipping in. After N months, they'll have to live with that allocation anyway.

Moreover, if in a taxable account it makes more sense to assume a little more risk early rather than viceversa. This is because the capital loss deduction provides a little free insurance, from the goverment, for a portion of the losses. This goes away later when you're farther from cost basis.
ReadyOrNot wrote: particularly if the market seemed to be high
This is market timing. "Market seems to be high" means nothing about future opportunities, only past, as far as a realistic investor can discern.
ReadyOrNot wrote: I thought most mainstream advisors favored dollar cost averaging to reduce the risk and ease the minds of those who would be upset by an immediate drop in the stock market
...
but dollar cost average the total over the next 2 years or so, if it makes you feel better.
Yes, to some having a crash right after investing is much more upsetting than later on. If it helps, do it, but it's all psychological.
RAchip
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 7:31 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by RAchip »

I'm in a similar situation to the OP except I have more to invest. I'm going to wait for a pull-back or "correction" before investing. I dont feel like I'm a "market timer"; I just make my purchases during down turns rather than at or near all time highs.
ReadyOrNot
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by ReadyOrNot »

Yes, dollar cost averaging only works if you actually are buying when prices are low. If the prices never become low while you are buying, or if you will not buy when prices are low, there is no benefit. It is a way of diversifying over time, and diversifying doesn't always turn out to be beneficial. But it is not crazy to diversify with dollar cost averaging. It only works while you are doing it. If the crash comes after the period you were averaging, you don't get any benefit. If a crash comes when you are averaging, you buy at a low price. If you won't do that, then you can't really dollar cost average.
User avatar
Earl Lemongrab
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:14 am

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by Earl Lemongrab »

RAchip wrote:I'm in a similar situation to the OP except I have more to invest. I'm going to wait for a pull-back or "correction" before investing. I dont feel like I'm a "market timer"; I just make my purchases during down turns rather than at or near all time highs.
What happens if you don't get one? The history of the markets is full of points there were "all-time highs" and the market has never been that low since. What will you do if the market is 10% higher in a year? Keep waiting? What if five years go by and while there have been ups and downs, it's still higher than 2016?

Earl
RAchip
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 7:31 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by RAchip »

I already have a large amount invested. If there is never another correction, then I will make plenty of money. I would like to add a lot to my account, but I'm not going to do it when I think stocks are expensive.
User avatar
Earl Lemongrab
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:14 am

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by Earl Lemongrab »

RAchip wrote:I already have a large amount invested. If there is never another correction, then I will make plenty of money. I would like to add a lot to my account, but I'm not going to do it when I think stocks are expensive.
Then why aren't you selling what you already have? At what's in tax-advantaged.

Earl
CantPassAgain
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:49 pm

Re: 1 million to add to vanguard

Post by CantPassAgain »

RAchip wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:28 pm I'm in a similar situation to the OP except I have more to invest. I'm going to wait for a pull-back or "correction" before investing. I dont feel like I'm a "market timer"; I just make my purchases during down turns rather than at or near all time highs.
Wondering how this worked out for you.
Post Reply