Inspired by a stupid argument with somebody who was convinced DCA is just another form of market timing and lumpsum is the better advice, I did a bit of number crunching.
Hypothesis: Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) is better for risk averse investors who want to minimize losses, because losses for DCA are smaller than the losses for lumpsum.
Methodology: Invest the same amount either as lumpsum or DCA over 6 months with always investing at the opening of the first day of the market. Then check value of both on the seventh month.
Data: S&P500 Jan 1985- May 2022, taken from Yahoo. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FZVB_RvXSVCBDV6nb0NRRGxtMI_2HIHt7bnUmZb8LfA/edit?usp=sharing
Result: Both lumpsum and DCA yielded negative returns in 25% of all times after 7 months. Which is quite a lot.
If a negative result occured, lumpsum had a loss of 8.8% of the original investment, vs. 5.9 of the original investment with DCA. So DCA avoided almost 3% loss vs. lumpsum in case of a negative result. The hypothesis is confirmed.
The already known hypothesis — total returns (including positive ones) being better for lumpsum over DCA — is confirmed with a total advantage of 2.15% for lumpsum.
Conclusion: For people wanting to minimize losses, but are still looking for long term market exposure, DCA is better. For people wanting to maximize results on average, taking risks of mis-timing the market, lumpsum is better. How that fares in current market conditions, judge for yourself.
If you don't know what DCA is, Investopedia helps: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dollarcostaveraging.asp
Leave a Reply