Skip to main content

Sound Advice: October 7, 2020

Why Dollar-Cost Averaging is a Good Idea 

At times such as these when more than a few reasonably experienced Wall Streeters have commented on the richness of current stock valuations, it makes sense to review worthwhile investment approaches that have been tested over time.  One that tends to get a lot of lip service, though certainly less attention in practice, is Dollar-Cost Averaging.  With that strategy, the investor commits to buying a fixed-dollar amount at regular time intervals, which might be monthly, quarterly or some other period.

One of the key arguments in favor of Dollar-Cost Averaging is the benefit of gaining an average cost over time, rather than committing all at once and risking the possibility of being on the cusp of a significant market downturn.  For most investors, this benefit may sound more promising than it really is.  Why?  Since the market moves up two-thirds of the time, the probability is that the average prices paid will be higher than they might have been from a one-time investment.

The Main Benefit is Psychological 

So if we accept the fact that the odds are not in your favor, why bother moving ahead in this fashion?  The best reason I can think of is that it bolsters investors' confidence in the implementation of their plans. 

Understanding the importance of psychology in the investment process, it's essential to provide an adequate foundation of sensibility when getting under way.  Although most of us don't want to talk about it, there's always the nagging thought that something you just bought will go down and whatever you just sold might start going up.  When this sense is extrapolated to a series of commitments, it takes on an even greater dimension.

On those occasions when this fear is followed by an unpleasant reality, it leaves an emotional blemish that may linger.  It's well known that psychology plays a critical role in short-term market movements, so new commitments that begin on this note have a habit of resonating later on during periodic market corrections and reinforcing thoughts of bailing out at the wrong time.

It's well known that investors are their own worst enemies, which suggests that efforts to limit damages from irrational decision-making are well worth pursuing.  The Dalbar study of investor behavior underscores this truth.  Over the latest 30 years, investors in equity mutual funds had returns that were 60% worse than those of the Standard & Poor's 500.  They bought when the averages were high and ran for the exits when the market hit air pockets.  Exactly the opposite of what should have happened.

The process of averaging in over a period of time builds essential psychological support into the equation.  Rather than worrying about price movements after adding positions, the investor looks forward to changes with the assurance that his process will smooth the fluctuations and provide him with an average of the prices prevailing over the period. Thus, price changes are anticipated and managed, rather than feared.

It works both ways.

The same is true for the selling part of the investment process.  In addition to the importance of timing sales to reduce tax liability (unless there's a compelling reason to sell all at once), the psychological benefit is equally true when reducing or eliminating holdings.  I suspect this is even more so with holdings that have increased substantially in value. 

On one hand, there's concern about capturing gains that are already in place.  But on the other hand, one has to wonder whether the investment is one of those rare birds such as Google or Apple that seems to have no upside limit.

In both directions, a measured approach tends to feel a lot better.

N. Russell Wayne, CFP®


Popular posts from this blog

Sound Advice: July 8, 2020

Jobs Are Up, But So Are New Infections Through the spring months, m ost of the economic data was extremely negative, with record declines in employment and consumer spending.  The speed of that decline had no modern precedent. We are now in a recession.   The shortest recession on record occurred in 1980 and lasted just six months.  Second place goes to a seven-month recession in 1918-19, which was tied to the Spanish flu pandemic.  The big question is: When will this recession end? Given surprisingly strong data in May, April may have been the bottom of this economic cycle.  If so, it will have been the shortest recession on record.  With massive support from the Federal Reserve, the federal government, and the reopening of previously closed businesses, employment surged unexpectedly.  At the same time, pent-up demand, stimulus checks, and generous unemployment benefits led to a reacceleration of commercial activity. Still, not all is rosy.   In his recent testimo

Sound Advice: May 13, 2020

Reality Check On the heels of the market plunge of late February and most of March, investors did a sharp about-face in April, bidding up shares at one of the fastest rates in recent history.  Although this recovery probably provided at least temporary comfort from the plunge, it would be unreasonable to view the rebound as a sign that things are all better.  They are not. For one thing, we are now in the midst of earnings reason, when companies report their quarterly results.  Some may have good news for the March quarter, but as we move through the current calendar quarter, only a few will be able to show continuing improvement.  Against the broad backdrop of U.S. business history, the months just ahead will almost certainly prove to be among the worst, from the standpoint of year-to-year comparison. With more than 30 million people filing claims for unemployment insurance, it would be difficult to expect anything other than bad economic news.  Who knows how many of these

Sound Advice: July 22, 2020

Fixed Income: In a Fix Typically, the construction of an investment portfolio has begun with an approximate balance of 60% in equities and 40% in fixed income instruments.   Fixed income generally means bonds, but that includes bond funds and exchange-traded funds holding bonds.   The equity portion is intended to be the driver of capital appreciation over extended periods of time and the fixed income portion is supposed to provide stable, albeit more moderate ongoing rates of return. The theory behind this approach is that as the time periods measured have lengthened, the relative risk of holding equities has diminished while the returns they have generated have been higher than those of other asset classes.   What equities do in the short term, even a year or two, is often anybody’s guess.    To the extent that fundamental analysis can help toward determining future equity values, investors need to look ahead three, four, five years or more before reasonably expecting t