Kbg wrote:
Either you buy into HBs premise that the future can't be predicted or you don't. You saying DCA is a good thing is the same as you predicting the PP is going down and on an annual returns basis is a very poor bet to make.
You're worried about the returns. I'm worried about the risk. The risk is the PP has had 108-week in a row of of being underwater. That is a fact. DCA is a way to mitigate that risk if it reappears. The returns will more than take care of themselves -- that's why we invest in the PP after all, right?
But if it's "market timing", then investing a lump-sum all at once in the PP at this juncture seems riskier than normal because you're relying on several things continuing to happen: extremely overvalued stocks continue to go up, extremely overvalued bonds continue to go up and gold is not going to fall victim to the deflationary forces that would finally consume us all if either/both of the first two finally mean-revert and because the central banks QEternity has finally lost their magical and illusionary power on the masses. The context of that 108-week drawdown isn't so dissimilar to where the PP is at the moment.
Lest I go all theoretical on us, if I had a very large chunk of money I was going to roll into a PP I would spread it out over year, but using PP historical returns this most likely will prove to not be beneficial to the bottom line.
A year or 108 weeks, its all the same DCA.
108-weeks might actually be too long if you're new and don't have sufficient gold exposure. I do already so I'm less worried about it.