The theory is not based on interest rates, but rather tax loss harvesting. People have a better idea of what their tax liability might be at the end of the year, and it’s possible they might want to reduce their Capital Gains tax bill by selling positions that are negative to lock in a loss, offsetting some other gain. That means more selling in December, so it would make sense to buy as close to Jan 1 as possible, when the extra selling stops.
But it’s just another way to time the market, and timing the market is a bad strategy for the average investor. Just keep investing on your set schedule, and you will find that you still do OK, with much less drama.
Exactly. If you got a bonus and you’re deciding whether to invest it into an IRA or into a taxable brokerage, you pick the IRA because it has tax advantages. Likewise, if you consider a Roth IRA to be a form of emergency fund, then putting your efund into a Roth IRA just avoids losing that space.
However, you shouldn’t be investing your emergency fund regardless of tax treatment, so funding and investing in a Roth IRA with money you’re not planning to use for investing just opens you up to more risk.
Likewise, time in the market beats timing the market, so don’t hold back money to invest on Jan. 1. I personally invest an even amount every month and have it automated through my brokerage, and it works really well for me.
The theory is not based on interest rates, but rather tax loss harvesting.
Hmm… this is different from how I interpreted the advice around investing lump sums versus dollar cost averaging them in. I thought it had to do with the adage that in the long run, time in the market always beats timing the market, meaning one should always invest as much of their capital as early as possible—in the case of IRAs, that would mean January 1 assuming the previous tax year’s contributions are already maxed out.
Making any investment yearly at the same time is attempting to time the market, it’s a bet that the market will be lowest at that point vs the rest of the year. Otherwise, why pick Jan 1? Why not pick July 4? If the price is lower on Jul 4, you end up with more shares, as well as a small increase due to 6 months of interest.
When you DCA, you basically admit that you don’t know how prices are going to move, and you are spreading out your risk. Yes, DCA over 12 months may leave you with slightly less than if you put it all in on Jan 1, assuming the price was the lowest on Jan 1. But if you have monthly investments that whole time, it’s likely that at least one or two of those might have been bought at a lower price than Jan, and it may turn out DCA could result in more shares of whatever you are buying.
The “time in the market” adage applies over years, not months. On a scale of 10 years+, it doesn’t really matter whether you bought in Jan or July.
Making any investment yearly at the same time is attempting to time the market, it’s a bet that the market will be lowest at that point vs the rest of the year.
Except when we’re talking about accounts with maximum annual contributions (e.g. IRAs).
As I mentioned in my original comment, assuming one subscribes to the philosophy that in the long run, time in the market always beats timing the market, then logically it follows that one is better off investing a lump sum as early as humanly possible (i.e. as soon as they have the capital available to invest). If somebody doesn’t subscribe to this philosophy, then of course we’ll never agree on investing the lump sum up front vs DCA.
In the context of investing a lump sum all at once versus DCA, DCA is a form of timing the market. The only time DCA isn’t a form of timing the market is when the capital is only available in certain intervals (e.g. disposable income from wages).