Individual Investor Safe Reinvest Gains Strategy?
Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think.  The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are  not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps  keeping the principal  amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual  funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment?  Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you  less-than-average gains over long periods of time.  The  unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that  X% of actively managed mutual funds  in a specific category failed  to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the  corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and  100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc.  Indeed, one of the arguments in  favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds.  Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can  get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns?  The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results.  As someone (John Bogle?) said,  when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going.  In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy?
Let me answer by parts: When a company gives dividends, the share price drops by the dividend amount.  Not always by that exact amount for many different reasons (e.g. there are transaction costs if you reinvest, dividend taxes, etc). I have tested that empirically. Now, if all the shareholders choose to reinvest their dividends, will the share price go back up to what it was prior to the dividend? That is an interesting question. The final theoretical price of the company does not need to be that. When a company distributes dividends its liquidity diminish, there is an impact on the balance sheet of the company. If all investors go to the secondary market and reinvest the dividends in the shares, that does not restore the cash in the balance sheet of the company, hence the theoretical real value of the company is different before the dividends. Of course, in practice there is not such a thing as one theoretical value. In reality, if everybody reinvest the dividend, that will put upward pressure over the price of the company and, depending on the depth of the offers, meaning how many orders will counterbalance the upward pressure at the moment, the final price will be determined, which can be higher or lower than before, not necessarily equal. I ask because some efts like SPY automatically reinvest dividends. So what is the effect of this reinvestment on the stock price? Let us see the mechanics of these purchases. When a non distributing ETF receives cash from the dividends of the companies, it takes that cash and reinvest it in the whole basket of stocks that compose the index, not just in the companies that provided the dividends. The net effect of that is a small leverage effect. Let us say you bought one unit of SPY, and during the whole year the shares pay 2% of dividends that are reinvested. At the end of that year, it will be equivalent to having 1.02 units of SPY. Well the article did mention that if you continually beat your bookmaker you're likely to get rejected in future which is hilarious, but personally I have actually bet on sports and I've found that it's a fairly easy game to win at if you don't go for bets with huge odds and I don't think I've ever placed a bet where after I lost and said 'what the hell just happened'. I only really bet on rugby and soccer though, so team sports may be a bit less prone to corruption from the bookmakers.  I'm not saying I think this is a safe way to do business though, I don't think day trading is either. I think they are both speculation. I just think that sports betting has a lot more for a speculator to work with before they develop a strategy.   For instance, I always bet on New Zealand winning a rugby game, their players line up as the top in their respective positions and their game strategy essentially has the rules of the game exploited to the maximum. All of the data on this team based on their past performance is actually applicable to their future performance, skilled players usually continue to be so up till a certain age, skilled coaches who stay in their position mean no variation in team strategy. That makes me feel confident that even though New Zealand might lose a game here or there,  that they will continue to be winners, and even though the gains on their wins aren't much, consistently winning with them over time builds up to a nice bit of profit.   With day trading in the stock market, so much of the variation in prices is due to non accounting fundamentals, and even though historical data can be useful we know that investor sentiment, secret information, and a myriad of other factors mean that unless you are extremely experienced or have a natural eye for reading markets that most traders will lose. I know developing strategies do work for some people, but I think I've seen it said on this sub a couple times that 'trading strategies work - until they don't.' I only speak as a uni student who has limited research beyond Bloomberg articles etc... but from what I can tell, the majority of day traders lose money eventually, and even with AI, the profits are only noteable when the capital input is extremely high.   Sports events can't really be swung by the confidence of supporters, and yes corruption is rampant in sports as with every industry, but at least the data you have tells a fairly good story about where the bets will head in the future. "These are meaningless statistics on multiple levels:  1. These value rises are as of 2016. This does not indicate any sort of significant trend in the rise in value of these bags over time. Did they lose 30% in 2015? Will value stagnate in 2018?  2. Even if a trend were established (it is not), it doesn't suggest any sort of future movements whatsoever, as past price movements don't ensure future movements.  3. The fundamental idea of ""investing"" in an accessory is questionable at best. While collectors will buy things like cars and art, and some will sit on them as stores of value, the economics of generating future returns on these items is not so logically sound as with stocks or bonds. These collectors items do not generate future value in a way that produces cash flows. An individual has to purely hope that somebody is willing to pay more for it in the future; the item does not fundamentally necessitate higher payment. This is the fundamental problem also with ""investing"" in commodities, and why a fundamentalist like Buffet would never do it. You bet on a commodity move (hopefully with information that you believe the market to be incorrectly synthesizing); you don't really ""invest"" in one. What makes a stock or bond (a company) different is that a company can be thought of as a black box that prints more money than it is fed. We feed money into a company as investors; the company uses that money to buy assets (e.g. Machines, inventory) at book value; the assets are made to work in tandem to produce goods/services that have more value than the sum of their parts; those goods/services are sold at the now higher value for a profit, and cash flows are returned to investors for an annual return on your investment (sometimes dividends aren't paid, but are reinvested with the expectation that reinvestment will lead to far larger dividends in the future). As such, the money investors feed into a company is turned into more money at the other end, and thus the company has produced more value than it's inputs alone. It has done so through the combination of resources (assets) in a way that makes their value greater than the sum of their parts. A company fundamentally is a logical investment (barring doubts about management's ability to create this value). It is like a black box that prints more money over time than you feed it. Purses do not; gold does not; oil does not.  Don't invest in purses. Collect then if you love them, but don't bank on a payday." "Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This ""tax deferral"" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term ""carrot"").  However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a ""post-tax deduction"") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place." I think you are mixing two different concepts here. The average investor, in the quoted reference, means an average single investor like you or like me. the average investor consistently under-performs the market. However, you then ask the question and you seem to refer to all investors as a group; individuals, institutions, investment banks, et al. since together, investors own 100% of the stock in every company? Every investor could match the performance of the market easily and at low fees by simply buying an S&P index fund and holding it. In fact, some investors can even beat the market with the addition of some stocks. Here is the ten-year chart of Berkshire-Hathaway B compared to the S&P 500.   There are other examples. However, few of us have the discipline to do so. We read questions here every week about the coming turbulence in the market, about the next big trend, about the next bubble, etc. The average investor thinks he is smarter than the market and buys on a whim or sells likewise and misses out on the long, slow overall growth in the markets. Finally, the title of your question is “Dalbar: How can the average investor lose money?” I doubt that the average investor loses money in the past several years. Not making as much money as is easily possible is not at all the same as losing money. "You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy.  The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for ""frequent traders"" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO." "Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors:  ""Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)"" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock ""winners"", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run." Anybody that offers a bigger return than a deposit claiming 100% safe is a fraud.  There is always a risk: Yes, you can gain 30% in a year, but nobody can guarantee that you'll repeat that gain the next. My own experience (and I do take risks), one year I go up, the next year I go down...