w*********1
发帖数: 19 | 1 选择一: 一次省投资，多买点
二: 每个月买固定额度，每个月少买些
假设想投资10年。那种收益比较好些？ | s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 2 usually 2nd.
【在 w*********1 的大作中提到】
: 选择一: 一次省投资，多买点
: 二: 每个月买固定额度，每个月少买些
: 假设想投资10年。那种收益比较好些？
| c******7
发帖数: 439 | 3 depending on your ability to time the market,
if you are average Joe, which means pretty bad at timing the market,
then you are better off with the second one.
the second one systematically lower the risk (divergence)
if the market is more or less random. | t*m
发帖数: 4414 | 4 timing the market, loser's game. | S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 5 Think about this hypothetical scenario.
You get a call from your broker tonight, in your IRA account, your holdings
got liquidated because of some system bug. What are your going to do with
all the cash now? Are you going to buy back all your funds tomorrow, or
dollar cost average during, say, 6-month period?
【在 c******7 的大作中提到】
: depending on your ability to time the market,
: if you are average Joe, which means pretty bad at timing the market,
: then you are better off with the second one.
: the second one systematically lower the risk (divergence)
: if the market is more or less random.
| c******7
发帖数: 439 | 6 This is a good one, but I am not sure what my answer will be.
I will argue with my broker for the bug as a start,
but this is only a trick answer.
My hunch is either the two methods are irrelevant/give random result
or buy back is no worse than the other one.
Because why DCA it in 6 month? Why not 2 years.
Is there a best time scale or it is totally irrelevant?
I cannot imagine there is a optimized time scale for that,
so I tend to think it is irrelevant.
Do you have an answer for this?
holdings
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Think about this hypothetical scenario.
: You get a call from your broker tonight, in your IRA account, your holdings
: got liquidated because of some system bug. What are your going to do with
: all the cash now? Are you going to buy back all your funds tomorrow, or
: dollar cost average during, say, 6-month period?
| s********z
发帖数: 5411 | 7 if you do it consistantly year over year, it doesn't make a difference.
either way is fine.
only exception is if it is huge amount of money, then I would do dca.
【在 w*********1 的大作中提到】
: 选择一: 一次省投资，多买点
: 二: 每个月买固定额度，每个月少买些
: 假设想投资10年。那种收益比较好些？
| X****r
发帖数: 3557 | 8 I have heard this argument for quite a few times, however,
This argument is flawed: while expected return is additive,
risk is not. i.e. for A and B, the risk of them together
does not equal to the sum of the risks separately, because
risk is essential the variance, which would depend on the
correlation of A and B.
In other words, if you already have your desired return/risk
balance for your particular portfolio, then the right action
after a mistaken liquidation would likely be to buy them back
ASAP in attempt to introduce as little change as possible, i.e.
to make the correlation as close to -1 as possible. On the
other hand, if you start from a pile of cash, the calculation
of variance, thus the risk, would be totally different.
holdings
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Think about this hypothetical scenario.
: You get a call from your broker tonight, in your IRA account, your holdings
: got liquidated because of some system bug. What are your going to do with
: all the cash now? Are you going to buy back all your funds tomorrow, or
: dollar cost average during, say, 6-month period?
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 9 To have a right mix of diversified asset, stock, bond, cash, alternative etc
., have a plan and stick to that plan, is far more important. I will
intermediately deploy the capital according to the designated AA, and DCA
the new capital when it comes, and rebalance when the mix out of balance.
【在 c******7 的大作中提到】
: This is a good one, but I am not sure what my answer will be.
: I will argue with my broker for the bug as a start,
: but this is only a trick answer.
: My hunch is either the two methods are irrelevant/give random result
: or buy back is no worse than the other one.
: Because why DCA it in 6 month? Why not 2 years.
: Is there a best time scale or it is totally irrelevant?
: I cannot imagine there is a optimized time scale for that,
: so I tend to think it is irrelevant.
: Do you have an answer for this?
| X****r
发帖数: 3557 | 10 If you start with a pile of cash, DCA over a long period towards
your intended asset mix doesn't make sense, because you have
effectively overweighted cash for that period. On the other hand,
DCA over a small window could work, depending on how you model
the market, i.e. how much fluctuation the market has versus the
cost of hold cash.
etc
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: To have a right mix of diversified asset, stock, bond, cash, alternative etc
: ., have a plan and stick to that plan, is far more important. I will
: intermediately deploy the capital according to the designated AA, and DCA
: the new capital when it comes, and rebalance when the mix out of balance.
:
| | | S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 11 Nobody consciously liquidate his holdings in his tax advantaged account and
DCA over a time window, I wonder why...
【在 X****r 的大作中提到】
: If you start with a pile of cash, DCA over a long period towards
: your intended asset mix doesn't make sense, because you have
: effectively overweighted cash for that period. On the other hand,
: DCA over a small window could work, depending on how you model
: the market, i.e. how much fluctuation the market has versus the
: cost of hold cash.
:
: etc
| s********z
发帖数: 5411 | 12 really depends on how long that period is, right?
you need to balance the length of the out of balance period with the risks
of single entry point for volatile asset class like stocks or reits.
again, like others said, to have a long term plan and good asset allocation
is a lot more important than pondering on A or B.
btw, depending on where the lum sum is from, tax planning could be the
single most important thing.
【在 X****r 的大作中提到】
: If you start with a pile of cash, DCA over a long period towards
: your intended asset mix doesn't make sense, because you have
: effectively overweighted cash for that period. On the other hand,
: DCA over a small window could work, depending on how you model
: the market, i.e. how much fluctuation the market has versus the
: cost of hold cash.
:
: etc
| X****r
发帖数: 3557 | 13 Because it isn't a good idea. I don't think there is any disagreement on
that.
What I'm saying is from that you cannot deduce to the conclusion that DCA
from a pile of cash isn't good idea either, because risk is not additive.
You can only come to this conclusion if you don't care about risk but only
expected return, which is additive.
and
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Nobody consciously liquidate his holdings in his tax advantaged account and
: DCA over a time window, I wonder why...
| c******7
发帖数: 439 | 14 aha, this clear my confusion, Thanks!
【在 X****r 的大作中提到】
: Because it isn't a good idea. I don't think there is any disagreement on
: that.
: What I'm saying is from that you cannot deduce to the conclusion that DCA
: from a pile of cash isn't good idea either, because risk is not additive.
: You can only come to this conclusion if you don't care about risk but only
: expected return, which is additive.
:
: and
| a*w
发帖数: 4495 | 15 如果不time market，完全随机的话，两种方法的收益是一样的。
当然你可能在开头一下子拿不出那么多钱，那就只能用第二种方法。
【在 w*********1 的大作中提到】
: 选择一: 一次省投资，多买点
: 二: 每个月买固定额度，每个月少买些
: 假设想投资10年。那种收益比较好些？
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 16 What we care about as investor is risk-adjusted return. DCA from a pile of
cash may reduce downside risk, at least in nominal term, but the risk-return
trade-off is anyone's guess, and it is a form of market timing based on
pretty much nothing, the end results vs. lump-sum are pure luck. It has one
psychological benefit though, it helps people to enter the market.
【在 X****r 的大作中提到】
: Because it isn't a good idea. I don't think there is any disagreement on
: that.
: What I'm saying is from that you cannot deduce to the conclusion that DCA
: from a pile of cash isn't good idea either, because risk is not additive.
: You can only come to this conclusion if you don't care about risk but only
: expected return, which is additive.
:
: and
| a*w
发帖数: 4495 | 17 DCA在减少downside risk的同时，也减少了upside risk。所以DCA对于
绝对return或risk-adjusted return都没有影响。
return
one
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: What we care about as investor is risk-adjusted return. DCA from a pile of
: cash may reduce downside risk, at least in nominal term, but the risk-return
: trade-off is anyone's guess, and it is a form of market timing based on
: pretty much nothing, the end results vs. lump-sum are pure luck. It has one
: psychological benefit though, it helps people to enter the market.
|
|
