How is it nonsense, funny how you've left that part out. I can say you're full of nonsense, if I stoop to your level and attitude too, but my ng standards are higher.
>
> Here is the truth about DCA fromhttp://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. LMAO. Then I've made a ton of money in the early 1990s on bunk. Cite. Show me an example. No hearsay. I'm first person proof. DCA has made me a lot of money, but I previously didn't use myself as an example because the math of DCA is much more convincing. When you say DCA doesn't work, you're basically saying you don't believe in math (reality).

>
> 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."

DCA is simple math that a grade four text book can PROOOOOOVE. Obviously you've yet to learn DCA for yourself. Google DCA better. Go to the first online grade four-seven arithmatic site that pops up. There you'll be enlightened.