However, most of us don't have a pile of money just lying around, but rather we get a little money every two weeks or every month, in which case it's best to put away a little money every month:
Yeah, I addressed this in another comment[1]. "Most of the time" is doing a lot of work there, most is 75-80%. 20% is not negligible to me.
But as your article points it, DCA is not about getting the absolute best return, it's about risk mitigation.
> The only times when DCA beats LS is when the market crashes (i.e. 1974, 2000, 2008, etc.). This is true because DCA buys into a falling market, and, thus, gets a lower average price than a lump sum investment would.
If you are fearful of a crash (like now, as we are in the midst of war, recession, energy shortages, coming out of a pandemic etc.) risk mitigation may be higher on your list of priorities. I also think it just lowers cognitive load for people who aren't investing for a living.
All that said, I 100% agree with DCA as the best approach for people investing out of income!
> "Most of the time" is doing a lot of work there, most is 75-80%. 20% is not negligible to me.
If I'm on game show, and I have to (e.g.) pick a door to win a prize, with one strategy winning 80% of the time, and another that wins 20% of the time, I know what I'm using.
And it's not like it's even close (51/49 or even 60/40). This is a substantial "most".
That's because lump sum is better most of the time… if you already have a pile of money to invest:
* https://ofdollarsanddata.com/dollar-cost-averaging-vs-lump-s...
However, most of us don't have a pile of money just lying around, but rather we get a little money every two weeks or every month, in which case it's best to put away a little money every month:
* https://ofdollarsanddata.com/just-keep-buying/