wrote in message
news:1173821446.019404.96350@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 13, 10:30 am, "catalpa" wrote:
> > The dumbness is due to you insisting that DCA is safe.
> lmao. Ok DCA is very risky, you win.
>
> > Where have I lied?
> Scroll up.
>
> > I said that a stock has to go up for DCA to work and you disagreed.
> Of course I disagreed. That's another lie because as long as stock
> doesn't move south too far when you liquidate your entire investment,
> you will still make money via DCA. Research DCA. Research DCA.
>
Everything I have said is factually correct. You insist on repeating absurd
nonsense; nonsense is nonsense no matter how often it is repeated.
Here is the truth about DCA from
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P104966.asp
"The conventional answer is dollar-cost averaging (DCA). This idea of
investing on a regular schedule over a lengthy period, in order to capture
lower as well as higher prices during periods of volatility, seems plain
common sense. Stock and bond markets are inherently volatile.
A Google search on the phrase yields 374,000 hits, many of them in the same
vein as this quote from the Web site of giant insurance company AXA
Equitable: "Dollar-cost averaging helps you avoid investing too much when
the market is high, and too little when the market is low."
Here's the problem: It's bunk.
Finance professors have known this for more than 20 years, since an article
disparaging the concept appeared in the Journal of Financial & Quantitative
Analysis in 1979. Since then, numerous studies have confirmed this analysis.
And yet, "despite more than two decades of damning evidence, DCA remains as
popular as ever amongst the rank and file of individual investors," wrote
Moshe Arye Milevsky of the York University (Ontario, Canada) school of
business in a journal article in 2001."