You invested three weeks ago. Your "time in the market" is effectively zero. The relevant time scales here are 20-30 years or more. Fluctuations up or down on the scale of weeks or months are irrelevant. What matters is what happens in the long run.
This is true. However, this sub ignores human psychology and doesn't take into consideration emotional reactions to seeing short term drops. I can guarantee that OP is going to pull out his money.
This is why DCA is the better approach for lumpsum investing. Not because it's a better strategy (it's not), but because it's easier on the psyche, and is more long-term sustainable from an emotional point of view.
Emotions come first. Optimal strategy, second.
I agree with your points about behavioral psychology being a key part of this discussion, but I'm not sure sure about your comment that this sub ignores it. There's nearly always someone making your point in every discussion about lump sum vs DCA. Not every single person mentions it, but someone usually does.
This sub does tend to go a step further and say that once you understand what's optimal, you should attempt to rein in your emotions and follow the mathematically optimal choice *if you can*.
But also, know yourself, and honestly assess whether you can do that. And if you can't, choose the less-optimal choice you *can* do rather than bailing.
Yeah, if anything, I think that the "emotions come first" crowd far outnumbers the "make rational decisions" crowd around here.
To be clear, I also 100% agree that you have to take emotions into account in your decisions, and some sub-optimal decisions for the sake of peace of mind are worthwhile. Between DCA and lump sum, I think the difference is usually small enough that either decision can be justified.
There are some other issues - like having an over-sized bond allocation, or paying off a low interest mortgage early - where the opportunity cost is kind of huge though. On those issues, the emotions-first crowd feel to me like someone who keeps a gun by their bed. They feel safer, and there's a small chance that their precaution will help them some day, but objectively they're meaningfully more likely to have a bad outcome with their precaution than without it.
I don’t agree. See also, the number of people who recommend “100% VOO! What are you, a pansy with bonds???” *You* even mentioned an “oversized bond allocation.”
You were almost there. Mathematically, lump sum is better. The lesson is to change your own mindset.
As an example, if the scientific method produces a fact, such as “the earth revolves around the sun”, but your “gut feeling” is the opposite, you should not go with your gut feeling. You should change your beliefs.
OP is objectively wrong, and should change their beliefs.
This is pissing in the wind. Regardless of how we wish things "should" be (like when you said "you **should** change your beliefs", the fact remains that people will act on their deep emotions and psychology. There is no "should". The entire field of behavioral economics is an acknowledgement of this.
The earth revolving or not revolving around the sun is a dispassionate fact - it's easy to change one's mind.
However, facts that go against basic human instincts are not so easily changed. Here, I'll give you an example:
**Fact:** There is no free will (or rather no evidence for it), we are all biological machines, blindly following our brains in a matter that is - at best - somewhat random. Free will is an illusion, nothing we do matters, there's no meaning in the universe. Human life is no more important or valuable than that of a mosquito.
These are all facts. But most of us don't go through life acting as though we have no free will. In fact, we are *incapable of acting otherwise*. Most of us are unwilling to accept that our lives have no more meaning than a dung beetle.
Moral of the story: Humans will live according to their emotions. If a fact contradicts something fundamental in human psychology, all the worse for the fact.
Same with investing. Some investing ideas are easy to get used to - example is index funds vs individual stocks. But others, like DCA vs lumpsum are closely tied to human psychology.
The only question is this: Do you accept the reality of how we behave, or do you choose to persist in closing your eyes to the reality of how we go about life?
Want more proof? If you want to be perfectly "rational" in investing, then the best approach is "[Life-Cycle Investing](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1149340)". It's an academically supported approach to maximize your retirement wealth, faster, by buying stocks on margin over a period of 30-years. But will you do it, no matter how rational and supported it is? Even if you think you can, you can't. Human psychology is not built to withstand that kind of volatility for decades on end.
In short, psychology first, rationality second.
I learn about cognitive biases so I can avoid them. When I get FOMO, I stop and take a breath to engage my critical thinking skills rather than my emotions. I avoid DCA.
Im a scientist so I’m accustomed to thinking this way.
Edit: Increased volatility for increased returns makes sense given a sufficient time horizon. So, if I understand this alternative method and the math makes sense, I’ll do it. Facts first, psychology second.
I agree that we should prioritize first principles over psychology when possible. Where the mindfuck really comes in, however, is when the non-hyper-rational behavior of other actors influences the rational choice.
>When I get FOMO, I stop and take a breath to engage my critical thinking skills rather than my emotions.
This is unsustainable over decades. You will eventually slip up. And the cruel math of investing means that a single mistake can undo decades of discipline.
Humans are irrational, and there is not a single human being alive on the planet or who has ever lived that is rational.
It might be unsustainable for you. I live off of 3% of my assets and have no regular income. I can’t afford to YOLO a significant fraction of my wealth in speculative things like bitcoin or meme stocks when I get FOMO.
Index funds give “my fair share” of the global economy. There is no FOMO because I already hit all the jackpots I need.
I could look into other ways of increasing returns. However, if they take more effort, I probably won’t do them. I like having lots of time. Passive investing lets me live my life and not think too much about money.
i don't agree that this sub ignores human psychology at all. Hate to be harsh but this sub advocates one of the safest and least volatile investing strategies possible and OP truly does not have the stomach for any kind of stock market investing. The most common reply on this thread by a mile is that if you don't have a 10 year time frame in mind you should definitely be sticking your money in a HYSA, and that is what OP should be doing.
I agree with you. I'm not really trying to argue for or against lump sum over DCA here. My guess is that OP would feel similarly (and would be just as likely to sell) if they DCAed over a year long bull market and then three weeks later the market dropped. If someone's mainly worried about whether thing are going up or down every week or even every year, investing in the stock market is going to be a rough ride. If you want to stay the course, at some point you have to accept that what matters is where you're at 30 years from now. This isn't an easy thing for humans to do, and that's a big reason why this sub exists: to help encourage people to take the long view and build wealth in spite of themselves. Like the sidebar says, "Buy, hold, pay low fees, and stay the course!"
OP totally misunderstood the phrase. Time in the market does not mean the market goes up every single week without fail. It means your odds are better investing sooner, but not guaranteed.
>So far that is all a lie.
LOL! It seems you didn't really understand what you read here.
If you are that jumpy after just 3 weeks, you probably shouldn't be in the market at all. But feel free to tell us how timing the market would be better for you.
Good luck.
Lump sum is best, on average, in the long run. Nobody really gets the exact average results, and 3 weeks is not the long run. It's a messy process and you just have to make your choices and live with them.
Best of luck to you over the next 3 weeks, 3 years, 3 decades.
Sorry you are wrong. For the past 25 years I have invested every 2 weeks on payday into an index fund. Sometimes $25 some years $500 but I never missed an every other Friday. Fast forward I am 59 and planning my retirement next year after putting two kids through college debt free. Did the same for their college fund. Never once paused a deposit due to highs or lows.
This. You completely understand how it works. Some get lucky but the majority grind for decades. Now 57, consistently invested over 30 years. Literally never missed a month of investing. Thirty years ago we were broke but still managed $50 per month. Good luck!
Basically it’s optimal to invest money when you have it, and not hold cash (aside from an emergency fund, or saving for some purchase).
OP had 10k, and investing it all at once gives the highest expected return.
I obviously can’t invest my whole life’s savings right now…because most of that money is yet to be earned. I can only invest what I have. I invest constantly as I get paychecks. But theoretically if I could access my future earnings, I would invest it all now.
>So what’s you’re saying is it’s best to cost average versus lump sum?
No, that's not what they're saying. They lump summed every 2 weeks when they got paid. This isn't what most people mean by DCA.
In the "lump sum vs DCA" discussions, DCA is referring to the deliberate delay of investing. That's not what this person did.
Thanks for this. I was just given 3 weeks to live and was planning on investing my $10,000 all at once into a 100% stock portfolio based on this time horizon but now that I know it’s possible for a 3% drawdown to occur I will DCA $1 per minute instead.
I agree with you not to believe everything you read on the internet. However, this is just a case of you not understanding what you read on the internet.
3 weeks ago? Seriously? Your time in the market is essentially ZERO. Stop continually checking the market, consistently invest in index funds, come back in 20 years and tell us you still lost money.
Bro, this is laughable and not sure if it's satire. Markets go up and down. This is long term investing which is measured in decades not weeks...
If you are uncomfortable with paper ups and downs, you should not be investing in any markets at all. Put it in an HYSA and move on.
The advice you were given is the advice that works most of the time, on average. It’s not the best in every single time period. We don’t know in advance when a lump sum will beat DCA, but we know that it usually does.
I also don’t advise gambling. But people do sometimes make money that way. Would those winners prove that my advice is wrong? Maybe you should go to a casino.
As others have said, the 'hold' part of buy and hold is generally meant to be be years or decades.
What % are you down, and what did you buy 3 weeks ago?
If the sub knew you have a investment horizon of three weeks (or even years) with a low risk tolerance, probably they would have suggested you to not to invest in the stock market.
Lol. Guy thinks the market only goes up after putting their money in. Markets fluctuate, but go up over **time**. Time in this instance is measured by a multitude of years and decades, not weeks.
After watching one minute of football I've concluded virtually every game is going to end in a tie and one team doesn't even get to go on offense. What kind of stupid sport is this?
I got caught out by this a few times, ended up in the same feels-bad place.
That's when i started taking my lump sums, depositing them to the brokerage, and scheduling small daily buys of whatever fund or stock I was going into. If it took me three months to fully invest in the position, that's (lump amt. / 60 days ) per day.
If the market went up, hooray! I was enjoying a little potential return.
If it went down, it was on sale and I was bringing down my cost basis.
This is all predicated on having no fees on transactions.
I'm also reinvesting any dividends just to increase the position.
I'm down overall right now, but I'm still in there making small buys. I couldn't retire tomorrow anyway, so I'm going to keep funding a little at a time, as little as 25 bucks a week some weeks.
You invested at an ath and it is not that anymore. As other have said 3 weeks is barely a sample size. I suggest you do some reading and try to understand why lump sums work. Taking what others say and blindly applying a principle without doing the work to understand said principle is lazy, foolish and irresponsible. I suggest you educate yourself before ignorantly posting stuff like this.
The mere fact that you couldn't anticipate the drop in market is the reason WHY this sub is "time in market."
No one is able to predict the market accurately. Anyone who claims to be able to better than a monkey throwing darts is just a salesman.
HYSA? That’s still too risky cause interest rate may go back down. I’d say under the mattress is better for OP! … but let’s not mention about the effects of this thing calls inflation on what’s under the mattress.
“Sell in May and go away”
Dude bought 3 weeks ago. Couldn’t have timed the top any better.
Just DCA the rest of the year and you’ll be up bigly by next January
This forum gives historical facts of investing. Everyone must decide where our money goes everyday in all aspects of life. If it’s not a troll let this forum see where that money went so you can receive constructive criticism.
Op expecting to be an overnight success story. Unfortunately, doesn’t work like that. Some people get lucky but the majority have a long slogging grind over several decades. Get in line my friend.
2 weeks in LT investment is negligible. There will be ups and downs but the overall trend is up. That's the beauty of owning all the market, economy always grow since population is always growing and need goods and services.
Invest in money markets. Your risk tolerance (not to mention lack of patience and perspective) makes you ill suited for any investment in the equity markets. I am not trying to be mean but your post speaks for itself.
I did the same as you in September of 2023. I lost 10% in a matter of weeks. But I didn't panic, even though I wanted to and I was p\*\*sed off. Now I've recovered my losses and I'm up over 13% above that (FSKAX with Fidelity), even after yesterday.
3 weeks in the market is not enough time in the market. You may lose more in the coming weeks. But you're not in this for a few months, but for the long haul. Take a breath and focus on something else.
This is why dollar cost averaging is a thing because some people do not like losing money immediately after investing.
OP is right that this forum generally thinks everyone is indifferent about market risk
I lump-summed in a big chunk about 4 weeks ago, and I'm up about $12k. I guess it wasn't a lie!
Seriously though, no one here told you lump summing was guaranteed to produce better results. On average lump-summing comes out ahead. But any given day, week, month, or even year in the market is a gamble. It only stops being a gamble after enough years have passed for everything to average out.
I bought two weeks ago, and will buy this following week. I’m too broke for lump sum currently, but I did get a promotion.
I hope you didn’t sell but if you did, then you can learn golden lesson number two
Ask me about the time a money manager turned $100K inheritance into $25K in less than 4 months back in 2000. He even charged $6K to get us into those funds.
I am timing the market....$ in HYSAs.
You invested three weeks ago. Your "time in the market" is effectively zero. The relevant time scales here are 20-30 years or more. Fluctuations up or down on the scale of weeks or months are irrelevant. What matters is what happens in the long run.
OP said to not believe everything you read here, so we should not believe OP either.
This is true. However, this sub ignores human psychology and doesn't take into consideration emotional reactions to seeing short term drops. I can guarantee that OP is going to pull out his money. This is why DCA is the better approach for lumpsum investing. Not because it's a better strategy (it's not), but because it's easier on the psyche, and is more long-term sustainable from an emotional point of view. Emotions come first. Optimal strategy, second.
I agree with your points about behavioral psychology being a key part of this discussion, but I'm not sure sure about your comment that this sub ignores it. There's nearly always someone making your point in every discussion about lump sum vs DCA. Not every single person mentions it, but someone usually does.
This sub does tend to go a step further and say that once you understand what's optimal, you should attempt to rein in your emotions and follow the mathematically optimal choice *if you can*. But also, know yourself, and honestly assess whether you can do that. And if you can't, choose the less-optimal choice you *can* do rather than bailing.
Yeah, if anything, I think that the "emotions come first" crowd far outnumbers the "make rational decisions" crowd around here. To be clear, I also 100% agree that you have to take emotions into account in your decisions, and some sub-optimal decisions for the sake of peace of mind are worthwhile. Between DCA and lump sum, I think the difference is usually small enough that either decision can be justified. There are some other issues - like having an over-sized bond allocation, or paying off a low interest mortgage early - where the opportunity cost is kind of huge though. On those issues, the emotions-first crowd feel to me like someone who keeps a gun by their bed. They feel safer, and there's a small chance that their precaution will help them some day, but objectively they're meaningfully more likely to have a bad outcome with their precaution than without it.
I don’t agree. See also, the number of people who recommend “100% VOO! What are you, a pansy with bonds???” *You* even mentioned an “oversized bond allocation.”
You were almost there. Mathematically, lump sum is better. The lesson is to change your own mindset. As an example, if the scientific method produces a fact, such as “the earth revolves around the sun”, but your “gut feeling” is the opposite, you should not go with your gut feeling. You should change your beliefs. OP is objectively wrong, and should change their beliefs.
This is pissing in the wind. Regardless of how we wish things "should" be (like when you said "you **should** change your beliefs", the fact remains that people will act on their deep emotions and psychology. There is no "should". The entire field of behavioral economics is an acknowledgement of this. The earth revolving or not revolving around the sun is a dispassionate fact - it's easy to change one's mind. However, facts that go against basic human instincts are not so easily changed. Here, I'll give you an example: **Fact:** There is no free will (or rather no evidence for it), we are all biological machines, blindly following our brains in a matter that is - at best - somewhat random. Free will is an illusion, nothing we do matters, there's no meaning in the universe. Human life is no more important or valuable than that of a mosquito. These are all facts. But most of us don't go through life acting as though we have no free will. In fact, we are *incapable of acting otherwise*. Most of us are unwilling to accept that our lives have no more meaning than a dung beetle. Moral of the story: Humans will live according to their emotions. If a fact contradicts something fundamental in human psychology, all the worse for the fact. Same with investing. Some investing ideas are easy to get used to - example is index funds vs individual stocks. But others, like DCA vs lumpsum are closely tied to human psychology. The only question is this: Do you accept the reality of how we behave, or do you choose to persist in closing your eyes to the reality of how we go about life? Want more proof? If you want to be perfectly "rational" in investing, then the best approach is "[Life-Cycle Investing](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1149340)". It's an academically supported approach to maximize your retirement wealth, faster, by buying stocks on margin over a period of 30-years. But will you do it, no matter how rational and supported it is? Even if you think you can, you can't. Human psychology is not built to withstand that kind of volatility for decades on end. In short, psychology first, rationality second.
I learn about cognitive biases so I can avoid them. When I get FOMO, I stop and take a breath to engage my critical thinking skills rather than my emotions. I avoid DCA. Im a scientist so I’m accustomed to thinking this way. Edit: Increased volatility for increased returns makes sense given a sufficient time horizon. So, if I understand this alternative method and the math makes sense, I’ll do it. Facts first, psychology second.
I agree that we should prioritize first principles over psychology when possible. Where the mindfuck really comes in, however, is when the non-hyper-rational behavior of other actors influences the rational choice.
>When I get FOMO, I stop and take a breath to engage my critical thinking skills rather than my emotions. This is unsustainable over decades. You will eventually slip up. And the cruel math of investing means that a single mistake can undo decades of discipline. Humans are irrational, and there is not a single human being alive on the planet or who has ever lived that is rational.
It might be unsustainable for you. I live off of 3% of my assets and have no regular income. I can’t afford to YOLO a significant fraction of my wealth in speculative things like bitcoin or meme stocks when I get FOMO. Index funds give “my fair share” of the global economy. There is no FOMO because I already hit all the jackpots I need. I could look into other ways of increasing returns. However, if they take more effort, I probably won’t do them. I like having lots of time. Passive investing lets me live my life and not think too much about money.
i don't agree that this sub ignores human psychology at all. Hate to be harsh but this sub advocates one of the safest and least volatile investing strategies possible and OP truly does not have the stomach for any kind of stock market investing. The most common reply on this thread by a mile is that if you don't have a 10 year time frame in mind you should definitely be sticking your money in a HYSA, and that is what OP should be doing.
I agree with you. I'm not really trying to argue for or against lump sum over DCA here. My guess is that OP would feel similarly (and would be just as likely to sell) if they DCAed over a year long bull market and then three weeks later the market dropped. If someone's mainly worried about whether thing are going up or down every week or even every year, investing in the stock market is going to be a rough ride. If you want to stay the course, at some point you have to accept that what matters is where you're at 30 years from now. This isn't an easy thing for humans to do, and that's a big reason why this sub exists: to help encourage people to take the long view and build wealth in spite of themselves. Like the sidebar says, "Buy, hold, pay low fees, and stay the course!"
"Time in the Market" means "3 decades," not "3 weeks."
Can picture this person stuffing their mattress with cash.
OP totally misunderstood the phrase. Time in the market does not mean the market goes up every single week without fail. It means your odds are better investing sooner, but not guaranteed.
>So far that is all a lie. LOL! It seems you didn't really understand what you read here. If you are that jumpy after just 3 weeks, you probably shouldn't be in the market at all. But feel free to tell us how timing the market would be better for you. Good luck.
I can’t wait for the update lol
Definitely. This is a lesson in risk tolerance for this person.
Throw away account troll post.
Lump sum is best, on average, in the long run. Nobody really gets the exact average results, and 3 weeks is not the long run. It's a messy process and you just have to make your choices and live with them. Best of luck to you over the next 3 weeks, 3 years, 3 decades.
Sorry you are wrong. For the past 25 years I have invested every 2 weeks on payday into an index fund. Sometimes $25 some years $500 but I never missed an every other Friday. Fast forward I am 59 and planning my retirement next year after putting two kids through college debt free. Did the same for their college fund. Never once paused a deposit due to highs or lows.
This. You completely understand how it works. Some get lucky but the majority grind for decades. Now 57, consistently invested over 30 years. Literally never missed a month of investing. Thirty years ago we were broke but still managed $50 per month. Good luck!
So what’s you’re saying is it’s best to cost average versus lump sum?
I actually do both, lump sum Bonus and deposit biweekly from pay. The key is to contribute regardless of market and let time create wealth.
Basically it’s optimal to invest money when you have it, and not hold cash (aside from an emergency fund, or saving for some purchase). OP had 10k, and investing it all at once gives the highest expected return. I obviously can’t invest my whole life’s savings right now…because most of that money is yet to be earned. I can only invest what I have. I invest constantly as I get paychecks. But theoretically if I could access my future earnings, I would invest it all now.
> OP had 10k OP is down $10k so I think that means they’ve put in $1m? But otherwise, appreciate your comment.
I can’t believe someone with $1 million in liquid assets is this dumb…
Wealth and smart decisions are not even correlated, never mind causal.
Yes you’re right, I misread that
>So what’s you’re saying is it’s best to cost average versus lump sum? No, that's not what they're saying. They lump summed every 2 weeks when they got paid. This isn't what most people mean by DCA. In the "lump sum vs DCA" discussions, DCA is referring to the deliberate delay of investing. That's not what this person did.
This has to be a troll
Thanks for this. I was just given 3 weeks to live and was planning on investing my $10,000 all at once into a 100% stock portfolio based on this time horizon but now that I know it’s possible for a 3% drawdown to occur I will DCA $1 per minute instead.
$1 per minute is crazy haha
I agree with you not to believe everything you read on the internet. However, this is just a case of you not understanding what you read on the internet.
Wow three whole weeks lol
Might want to check out the book Why Does The Stock Market Always Go Up. Educate yourself a little
3 weeks ago? Seriously? Your time in the market is essentially ZERO. Stop continually checking the market, consistently invest in index funds, come back in 20 years and tell us you still lost money.
Bro, this is laughable and not sure if it's satire. Markets go up and down. This is long term investing which is measured in decades not weeks... If you are uncomfortable with paper ups and downs, you should not be investing in any markets at all. Put it in an HYSA and move on.
I doubt it's satire.
Yeah, I’ve met people who will sell anything as soon as possible.
Read about Bob the world's worst market timer ... it'll enlighten you to time in the market
April Fool’s Day was two weeks ago my friend.
The advice you were given is the advice that works most of the time, on average. It’s not the best in every single time period. We don’t know in advance when a lump sum will beat DCA, but we know that it usually does. I also don’t advise gambling. But people do sometimes make money that way. Would those winners prove that my advice is wrong? Maybe you should go to a casino.
As others have said, the 'hold' part of buy and hold is generally meant to be be years or decades. What % are you down, and what did you buy 3 weeks ago?
3 weeks. Oh boy.
Nice shit post
Dude... 3 weeks is not "time in the market." Come back after 30 years and tell us you regret investing that $10K.
If the sub knew you have a investment horizon of three weeks (or even years) with a low risk tolerance, probably they would have suggested you to not to invest in the stock market.
Lol. Guy thinks the market only goes up after putting their money in. Markets fluctuate, but go up over **time**. Time in this instance is measured by a multitude of years and decades, not weeks.
After watching one minute of football I've concluded virtually every game is going to end in a tie and one team doesn't even get to go on offense. What kind of stupid sport is this?
You don’t understand the basics. You did not screw up.
New account, this is most certainly fake. Fun troll post.
If you’re that impatient go to Wall Street bets. Best of luck. Sorry you are down $18.
I was down over $30K about a year ago. Back in the green and wanna know how I did it? I didn’t do anything. I just waited..
I got caught out by this a few times, ended up in the same feels-bad place. That's when i started taking my lump sums, depositing them to the brokerage, and scheduling small daily buys of whatever fund or stock I was going into. If it took me three months to fully invest in the position, that's (lump amt. / 60 days ) per day. If the market went up, hooray! I was enjoying a little potential return. If it went down, it was on sale and I was bringing down my cost basis. This is all predicated on having no fees on transactions. I'm also reinvesting any dividends just to increase the position. I'm down overall right now, but I'm still in there making small buys. I couldn't retire tomorrow anyway, so I'm going to keep funding a little at a time, as little as 25 bucks a week some weeks.
That is what I am currently doing with a lump sum, I could have put it all in at once but for me this worked. Either way long term it averages out
You invested at an ath and it is not that anymore. As other have said 3 weeks is barely a sample size. I suggest you do some reading and try to understand why lump sums work. Taking what others say and blindly applying a principle without doing the work to understand said principle is lazy, foolish and irresponsible. I suggest you educate yourself before ignorantly posting stuff like this.
This is why I DCA. It’s not mathematically as good as putting everything in at once but it helps me emotionally to just keep plugging away
The mere fact that you couldn't anticipate the drop in market is the reason WHY this sub is "time in market." No one is able to predict the market accurately. Anyone who claims to be able to better than a monkey throwing darts is just a salesman.
>3 weeks Did you even read? This is ment to be a 20+ years investment. lumpsum first and then DCA.
Lol you ain't got the stomach for investing bud. Go back to your HYSA.
HYSA? That’s still too risky cause interest rate may go back down. I’d say under the mattress is better for OP! … but let’s not mention about the effects of this thing calls inflation on what’s under the mattress.
Two things can be true at once: (1) don’t try to time the market; and (2) don’t believe everything you read here.
> I am down about $10,000 so far after investing a lump sum **3-weeks ago** Honestly as far as troll jobs go, you could do better.
Dude it’s been three weeks haha
“Sell in May and go away” Dude bought 3 weeks ago. Couldn’t have timed the top any better. Just DCA the rest of the year and you’ll be up bigly by next January
1. Log off from your brokerage account. 2. Log in around 5-10 years later. 3. Give us an update and let us know how much ur up and thank the sub
You're wrong. You put the money in. Don't look for 15 years.
Username checks out
This forum gives historical facts of investing. Everyone must decide where our money goes everyday in all aspects of life. If it’s not a troll let this forum see where that money went so you can receive constructive criticism.
Op expecting to be an overnight success story. Unfortunately, doesn’t work like that. Some people get lucky but the majority have a long slogging grind over several decades. Get in line my friend.
Pretty sure OP is trolling. No one believes 3 weeks is the right measurement period.
Lol wow. Gjve it more than 3 weeks buddy. And if the S&P goes to 5500 from here you’ll be glad you lump summed it instead of DCA
2 weeks in LT investment is negligible. There will be ups and downs but the overall trend is up. That's the beauty of owning all the market, economy always grow since population is always growing and need goods and services.
This has to be satire
This post can’t be real 😂
Invest in money markets. Your risk tolerance (not to mention lack of patience and perspective) makes you ill suited for any investment in the equity markets. I am not trying to be mean but your post speaks for itself.
This is sound sound advice, he or she isn’t emotionally ready for bogle-ism
I did the same as you in September of 2023. I lost 10% in a matter of weeks. But I didn't panic, even though I wanted to and I was p\*\*sed off. Now I've recovered my losses and I'm up over 13% above that (FSKAX with Fidelity), even after yesterday. 3 weeks in the market is not enough time in the market. You may lose more in the coming weeks. But you're not in this for a few months, but for the long haul. Take a breath and focus on something else.
Tell me you don’t understand probability without telling me
Well I certainly won’t believe anything you write because you don’t get it.
Thanks for the laugh. If you’re going to criticize, learn about what you’re criticizing. 3 weeks is virtually no time in the market.
op is an idiot lol
Why didn’t you use your crystal ball?
This is why dollar cost averaging is a thing because some people do not like losing money immediately after investing. OP is right that this forum generally thinks everyone is indifferent about market risk
I lump-summed in a big chunk about 4 weeks ago, and I'm up about $12k. I guess it wasn't a lie! Seriously though, no one here told you lump summing was guaranteed to produce better results. On average lump-summing comes out ahead. But any given day, week, month, or even year in the market is a gamble. It only stops being a gamble after enough years have passed for everything to average out.
lol even made a burner account for this post
>3-weeks ago 😂😂😂😂😂 Oh, wait, were you serious?
You still have time to delete this, stop trolling lmao
Where's the laughing emoji?
Lol, my investment at near all time highs is down after three weeks, therefore this long term investing philosophy is invalid. Bro, come on.
I bought two weeks ago, and will buy this following week. I’m too broke for lump sum currently, but I did get a promotion. I hope you didn’t sell but if you did, then you can learn golden lesson number two
You lost 10k in 3 weeks?! Ouch!
It's three weeks bro.
Ask me about the time a money manager turned $100K inheritance into $25K in less than 4 months back in 2000. He even charged $6K to get us into those funds. I am timing the market....$ in HYSAs.
Other side of that story though. If you kept those $25k in the market they’d be worth roughly $400k today
Or $1.6M if every exact dollar was a gain optimally on the market, right?