So....April 6th

Section62

j_netprofit said:

Hoenir said:

j_netprofit said:

Maybe you think it is a good time to buy equities since prices are low?

Low is a relative term. Low in what context ?  Which equities are you referring too. There's a huge range of companies to invest in out in the big wide world. 

Sorry I wasn't specific at all!

I guess I meant that golbal and US index funds in equities are lower (by lower I mean cost less to buy) today than when Trump was inaugurated.

...but still well up on where they were in the doom days of the pandemic.

Ivkoto

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

Not sure those stats say what you think they do - they just model the specific impact of omitting the best growth days (with hindsight), rather than comparing realistic styles of investor behaviour, such as drip-feeding versus lump sum?

Well the OP is talking, about lump sum investment.
So let's say he or she decided to wait another 6 months, before investing for the market to calm down. How do you know, that during the next 6 months the best 10 or 20 or even more best green days won't be missed for the financial year ( assuming we are talking, about lump sum investment at the beginning of every financial year. The point of the statistic is to show you, if you have the money available, it needs to be invested straight away.

But that's not what those stats show!  The point I'm making is that if choosing statistics to illustrate lump sum versus drip-feeding, then those are the two models that relevant stats should compare, rather than an arbitrary omission of specific days that are only visible with hindsight, especially when, as above, the equivalent analysis of omitting the worst days isn't shown!

Why we need drip-feeding statistics, when according to the statistics ( not made by me ) , lump sum investment wins 67% of the time? Drip-feeding works better, when we have, crash,  bear market or long period of sideway with small movements up and down.

eskbanker

Ivkoto said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

Not sure those stats say what you think they do - they just model the specific impact of omitting the best growth days (with hindsight), rather than comparing realistic styles of investor behaviour, such as drip-feeding versus lump sum?

Well the OP is talking, about lump sum investment.
So let's say he or she decided to wait another 6 months, before investing for the market to calm down. How do you know, that during the next 6 months the best 10 or 20 or even more best green days won't be missed for the financial year ( assuming we are talking, about lump sum investment at the beginning of every financial year. The point of the statistic is to show you, if you have the money available, it needs to be invested straight away.

But that's not what those stats show!  The point I'm making is that if choosing statistics to illustrate lump sum versus drip-feeding, then those are the two models that relevant stats should compare, rather than an arbitrary omission of specific days that are only visible with hindsight, especially when, as above, the equivalent analysis of omitting the worst days isn't shown!

Why we need drip-feeding statistics, when according to the statistics ( not made by me ) , lump sum investment wins 67% of the time? Drip-feeding works better, when we have, crash,  bear market or long period of sideway with small movements up and down.

I'm saying that those are the statistics that you should be quoting if trying to help OP decide which recognised investment method to use, rather than the largely meaningless 'best days' stuff.

Ivkoto

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

Not sure those stats say what you think they do - they just model the specific impact of omitting the best growth days (with hindsight), rather than comparing realistic styles of investor behaviour, such as drip-feeding versus lump sum?

Well the OP is talking, about lump sum investment.
So let's say he or she decided to wait another 6 months, before investing for the market to calm down. How do you know, that during the next 6 months the best 10 or 20 or even more best green days won't be missed for the financial year ( assuming we are talking, about lump sum investment at the beginning of every financial year. The point of the statistic is to show you, if you have the money available, it needs to be invested straight away.

But that's not what those stats show!  The point I'm making is that if choosing statistics to illustrate lump sum versus drip-feeding, then those are the two models that relevant stats should compare, rather than an arbitrary omission of specific days that are only visible with hindsight, especially when, as above, the equivalent analysis of omitting the worst days isn't shown!

Why we need drip-feeding statistics, when according to the statistics ( not made by me ) , lump sum investment wins 67% of the time? Drip-feeding works better, when we have, crash,  bear market or long period of sideway with small movements up and down.

I'm saying that those are the statistics that you should be quoting if trying to help OP decide which recognised investment method to use, rather than the largely meaningless 'best days' stuff.

The OP is asking the investors with lump sums ready to be invested, what is the best approach for the start of the new financial year.
My answers exactly fit his questions!

eskbanker

Ivkoto said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

Not sure those stats say what you think they do - they just model the specific impact of omitting the best growth days (with hindsight), rather than comparing realistic styles of investor behaviour, such as drip-feeding versus lump sum?

Well the OP is talking, about lump sum investment.
So let's say he or she decided to wait another 6 months, before investing for the market to calm down. How do you know, that during the next 6 months the best 10 or 20 or even more best green days won't be missed for the financial year ( assuming we are talking, about lump sum investment at the beginning of every financial year. The point of the statistic is to show you, if you have the money available, it needs to be invested straight away.

But that's not what those stats show!  The point I'm making is that if choosing statistics to illustrate lump sum versus drip-feeding, then those are the two models that relevant stats should compare, rather than an arbitrary omission of specific days that are only visible with hindsight, especially when, as above, the equivalent analysis of omitting the worst days isn't shown!

Why we need drip-feeding statistics, when according to the statistics ( not made by me ) , lump sum investment wins 67% of the time? Drip-feeding works better, when we have, crash,  bear market or long period of sideway with small movements up and down.

I'm saying that those are the statistics that you should be quoting if trying to help OP decide which recognised investment method to use, rather than the largely meaningless 'best days' stuff.

The OP is asking the investors with lump sums ready to be invested, what is the best approach for the start of the new financial year.
My answers exactly fit his questions!

I'm not sure there are any clearer ways of rephrasing this, but one more time....

Everyone agrees that if holding a lump sum then investing it straight away is likely to be a better method than drip-feeding it, all things being equal.

Your quoted 'best days' statistics merely illustrate the blindingly obvious, that missing out on the best market days will reduce growth, but they don't actually support a decision about how best to invest as such - "don't miss the best days" (especially without the balancing 'worst days' equivalent) is hardly insightful or an actionable strategy....

InvesterJones

j_netprofit said:

Hoenir said:

j_netprofit said:

Maybe you think it is a good time to buy equities since prices are low?

Low is a relative term. Low in what context ?  Which equities are you referring too. There's a huge range of companies to invest in out in the big wide world. 

Sorry I wasn't specific at all!

I guess I meant that golbal and US index funds in equities are lower (by lower I mean cost less to buy) today than when Trump was inaugurated.

That's only a few months, much too short a time period to be concerned about!

Labtebricolist

I’ve got my usual annual chunk of bonus currently sitting as cash in my GIA after it was paid last week.  

Whilst I’m not a market timer by instinct, I am sufficiently twitchy about Trump’s ‘independence day’ (aka massive tax rise on US Consumers Day) and will wait until US markets open tomorrow or Thursday before purchasing VWRP as usual.  If that means I miss out on a great day tomorrow then I can live with that.  If it means I get to buy cheaper on Thursday then that’s good as well…

Johnjdc

Ivkoto said:

Johnjdc said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

Not sure those stats say what you think they do - they just model the specific impact of omitting the best growth days (with hindsight), rather than comparing realistic styles of investor behaviour, such as drip-feeding versus lump sum?

Yes this kind of marketing guff infuriates me. They don't show what happens if you miss the worst days, do they! Of course not because "always have as much invested as possible for as long as possible" = "always pay us the largest total amount of management fees possible".

In reality since the best and worst days tend to cluster into high volatility periods, it's quite hard to miss a lot of one but not also miss a lot of the other.

By your logic, it means we need to time the market!?
And if possible with little money to make big money!? Sorry, but doesn't make any sense for me.

Certainly buying the dip or averaging in makes more sense than investing everything as soon as possible at all time highs "just because". As I would hope the last fortnight has demonstrated.

Ivkoto

Johnjdc said:

Ivkoto said:

Johnjdc said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

Not sure those stats say what you think they do - they just model the specific impact of omitting the best growth days (with hindsight), rather than comparing realistic styles of investor behaviour, such as drip-feeding versus lump sum?

Yes this kind of marketing guff infuriates me. They don't show what happens if you miss the worst days, do they! Of course not because "always have as much invested as possible for as long as possible" = "always pay us the largest total amount of management fees possible".

In reality since the best and worst days tend to cluster into high volatility periods, it's quite hard to miss a lot of one but not also miss a lot of the other.

By your logic, it means we need to time the market!?
And if possible with little money to make big money!? Sorry, but doesn't make any sense for me.

Certainly buying the dip or averaging in makes more sense than investing everything as soon as possible at all time highs "just because". As I would hope the last fortnight has demonstrated.

Some more experienced investors think otherwise ⬇️⬇️⬇️




https://youtu.be/mRWIodKNOa8?si=0kvgDIsryzXVUYyI



https://youtu.be/kPU2f_NGsvk?si=EqLpDaQLV-tJNuP5

InvesterJones

That video doesn't talk about DCA, it only talks about not throwing additional money (that you wouldn't otherwise have invested) after bad. DCA isn't doing this, you don't invest anything additional with DCA, you just spread it out.