Got a large cash sum, wanna buy stocks. Should I buy all at once, or spread it over time?
"When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now.  In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also  mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not ""pure stocks"": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done ""by hand,"" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard.  (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice." It would depend on a) Ones view on Markets and b) Ones nature. If one believes that the market would be going up in the near future then it would be best to buy all at once. If one believes the market is uncertain, it would make sense to invest over a period of time. If one is a disciplined investor and can stick to plan, it would make sense to invest over a period of time as the risk is generally less. How much less is again subjective. If one is not a disciplined investor then buying now and getting done with is a good idea.   As to exactly quantifying this is absolute number for future would not be possible. One can take the data from past, however it would work advantages if the prices moves up and disadvantages if the price moves down. Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.
"Why do people keep talking about 401K's at work?  That is NOT dollar cost averaging.  DCA refers to when you have a large sum of money.  Do you invest it all at once or spread it out over several smaller purchases over a period of time?  There really isn't a ""when"" should I use it.  It is simply a matter of where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum.  DCA has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing.  In my opinion, I don't like it.  DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops.  But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000.  Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a tradeoff.  But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?" Try to find out (online) what 'the experts' think about your stock. Normally, there are some that advise you to sell, some to hold and some to buy. Hold on to your stock when most advise you to buy, otherwise, just sell it and get it over with. A stock's estimated value depends on a lot of things, the worst of these are human emotions... People buy with the crowd and sell on panic. Not something you should want to do.  The 'real' value of a stock depends on assets, cash-flow, backlog, benefits, dividends, etc. Also, their competitors, the market position they have, etc. So, once you have an estimate of how much the stock is 'worth', then you can buy or sell according to the market value. Beware of putting all your eggs in one basket. Look at what happened to Arthur Andersen, Lehman Brothers, Parmalat, Worldcom, Enron, etc. "You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely.  Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most ""adventurous"" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification.  If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well.  Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can ""rebalance"" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began.  You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio.  This essentially forces you to ""buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high"". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification.  Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies.  And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline.  And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline.  And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful.  Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain ""type"" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need.  No more worrying about whether you've picked the ""right"" company to represent a particular sector.  The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!" "Yes, you as the giver will owe US gift taxes if you give her that sum directly. You can reduce it by taking advantage of the threshold being by person. So, for example, if you and your wife each gave your daughter $17k, you'd individually be under the threshold and wouldn't owe gift tax, even if the money comes from and goes to the same account. Given the time of year, you could give her that now and another $34k in January (next tax year) and avoid the gift tax. If she doesn't need all the money immediately, that's the simplest solution. If she does need it all now, and you don't want to try arranging to  ""launder"" the money through relatives' gift allowances (which I think would be legal and legitimate, actually), the other solution is to set this up as an intra-family loan. Web searching that phrase will find details, but it essentially lets you spread the gift over multiple accounting years and pay income tax on a minimal amount of interest (can be under 0.3%, which you'd also gift her with) rather than paying gift tax. It does require some paperwork to document and track it properly, but it isn't bad. (I did this when making a large ""bridge loan"" to help a relative buy their new house before the old one had sold. In that case it really was a loan, though; I'm being paid back out of the proceeds from the sale.)" "A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at ""dry periods"" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan ""relies"" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?" If you are going to be a long term investor you are only going to buy and hold. You will not sell. Thus future price is not relevant. Only dividend payout is relevant. Divide the dividend by the price you paid to get the yeald.  Edit:  once again the sitesite will not allow me to add a comment, so I have to edit a previous post...  What you call 'active investor' is not really investing, it is speculating. When you try to 'buy low, sell high' you have, at best, a 50-50 chance of picking the low. You then pay a commission on that buy. After you buy then you have a 50-50 chance, at best, of picking the high. You also have to pay the commission on the sell. 50% times 50% is 25%.So you have, at best a 25% chance of buying low and selling high. You are churning your account which makes money for the broker whether you make money or not. If, instead, you buy and hold a dividend paying security then the going price is irrelevant. You paid for the security once and do not have to pay for it again. Meanwhile the dividends roll in forever. 'Buy low, sell high' is a fools game. Warren Buffet does not do it, he buys and holds. You spread money/investment across different accounts for different reasons: All this is in addition to diversification reasons. Investing all your money into one stock, bond, Mutual fund, ETF is risky if that one segment of the economy/market suffers.  There is a drawback to diversification of accounts. Some have minimum amounts and fee structures. In the original question you asked about 1,000 per account. That may mean that some accounts may be closed to you. In other cases they will charge a higher percentage for fees for small accounts. Those issues would disappear long before you hit the 1,000,000 per account you mentioned in your comment. One problem can occur with having too much diversification. Having dozens of funds could mean that the overlap between the funds might result in over investing in a segment because you didn't realize that one stock segment appeared in 1/3 of the funds. "General advice is to keep 6 months worth of income liquid -- in your case, you might want to leave 1 year liquid since, even though your income is stable now, it is not static (i.e., you're not drawing salary from an employer).   The rest of it?  If you don't plan on using it for any big purchases in the next 5 or so years, invest it.  If you don't, you will probably lose money in the long term due to inflation (how's that for a risk? :).  There are plenty of options for the risk averse, many of which handily beat inflation, though without knowing your country of residence, it's hard to say.  In all likelihood, though, you'll want to invest in index funds -- such as ETFs -- that basically track industries, rather than individual companies.  This is basically free portfolio diversity -- they lose money only when an entire sector loses value.  Though even with funds of this type, you still want to ensure you purchase multiple different funds that track different industries.  Don't just toss all of your funds into an IT index, for example.   Before buying, just look at the history of the fund and make sure it has had a general upward trajectory since 2008 (I've bought a few ETFs that remained static...not what we're looking for in an investment!).  If the brokerage account you choose doesn't offer commission free trades on any of the funds you want (personally, I use Schwab and their ETF portfolio), try to ""buy in bulk.""  That way you're not spending so much on trades.   There are other considerations (many indexed funds have high management costs, but if you go with ETFs, they don't, and there's the question of dividends, etc), but that is getting into the weeds as far as investing knowledge is concerned.   Beyond that, just keep in mind it'll take 1-2 weeks for you to see that money if you need it, and there's obviously no guarantee it'll be there if you do need it for an emergency."