Dollar Cost Averaging (Or value averaging) vs Lot sizes, what am I missing?
This is more than likely a thing about your financial institution and the exchanges where they trade shares. Some exchanges cannot/will not handle odd lot transactions. Most established brokerages have software and accounting systems that will deal in round lots with the exchanges, but can track your shares individually. Sometimes specific stocks cannot be purchased in odd lots due to circumstances specific to that stock (trading only on a specific exchange, for example).  Most brokerages offer dollar-cost averaging programs, but may limit which stocks are eligible, due to odd lot and partial share purchases. Check with your brokerage to see if they can support odd lot and/or DCA purchases. You may find another similar ETF with similar holdings that has better trading conditions, or might consider an open-end mutual fund with similar objectives. Mutual funds allow partial share purchases (you have $100 to invest today, and they issue you 35.2 shares, for example). Don't take it so literally. 100 is close to 98, so if your formula calls for 98, buy 100.
Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk.  There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it.  The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows:  1) Diversification;  2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away.  When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing.   Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing.  Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes.  Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high;   2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan.  Example -  Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k.  Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever.   Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start  - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging.  Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments.  I hope this helps. Technical analysis is insufficient. You're halfway to figuring it out if you start to question why a 50 day moving average vs 200 vs 173. Invest in companies that are attractively valued vs. their sales/growth/divends/anythingelsereal "Yes, and the math that tells you when is called the Kelly Criterion. The Kelly Criterion is on its face about how much you should bet on a positive-sum game. Imagine you have a game where you flip a coin, and if heads you are given 3 times your bet, and if tails you lose your bet.  Naively you'd think ""great, I should play, and bet every dollar I have!"" -- after all, it has a 50% average return on investment.  You get back on average 1.5$ for every dollar you bet, so every dollar you don't bet is a 0.5$ loss. But if you do this and you play every day for 10 years, you'll almost always end up bankrupt.  Funny that. On the other hand, if you bet nothing, you are losing out on a great investment.  So under certain assumptions, you neither want to bet everything, nor do you want to bet nothing (assuming you can repeat the bet almost indefinitely). The question then becomes, what percentage of your bankroll should you bet? Kelly Criterion answers this question.  The typical Kelly Criterion case is where we are making a bet with positive returns, not an insurance against loss; but with a bit of mathematical trickery, we can use it to determine how much you should spend on insuring against loss. An ""easy"" way to undertand the Kelly Criterion is that you want to maximize the logarithm of your worth in a given period.  Such a maximization results in the largest long-term value in some sense. Let us give it a try in an insurance case. Suppose you have a 1 million dollar asset.  It has a 1% chance per year of being destroyed by some random event (flood, fire, taxes, pitchforks). You can buy insurance against this for 2% of its value per year.  It even covers pitchforks. On its face this looks like a bad deal.  Your expected loss is only 1%, but the cost to hide the loss is 2%? If this is your only asset, then the loss makes your net worth 0.  The log of zero is negative infinity.  Under Kelly, any insurance (no matter how inefficient) is worth it.  This is a bit of an extreme case, and we'll cover why it doesn't apply even when it seems like it does elsewhere. Now suppose you have 1 million dollars in other assets.  In the insured case, we always end the year with 1.98 million dollars, regardless of if the disaster happens.  In the non-insured case, 99% of the time we have 2 million dollars, and 1% of the time we have 1 million dollars. We want to maximize the expected log value of our worth.  We have log(2 million - 20,000) (the insured case) vs 1% * log(1 million) + 99% * log(2 million). Or 13.7953 vs 14.49.  The Kelly Criterion says insurance is worth it; note that you could ""afford"" to replace your home, but because it makes up so much of your net worth, Kelly says the ""hit it too painful"" and you should just pay for insurance. Now suppose you are worth 1 billion.  We have log(1 billion - 20k) on the insured side, and 1%*log(999 million) + 99% * log(1 billion) on the uninsured side. The logs of each side are 21.42 vs 20.72.  (Note that the base of the logarithm doesn't matter; so long as you use the same base on each side). According to Kelly, we have found a case where insurance isn't worth it. The Kelly Criterion roughly tells you ""if I took this bet every (period of time), would I be on average richer after (many repeats of this bet) than if I didn't take this bet?""  When the answer is ""no"", it implies self-insurance is more efficient than using external insurance.  The answer is going to be sensitive to the profit margin of the insurance product you are buying, and the size of the asset relative to your total wealth. Now, the Kelly Criterion can easily be misapplied.  Being worth financially zero in current assets can easily ignore non-financial assets (like your ability to work, or friends, or whatever).  And it presumes repeat to infinity, and people tend not to live that long. But it is a good starting spot. Note that the option of bankruptcy can easily make insurance not ""worth it"" for people far poorer; this is one of the reasons why banks insist you have insurance on your proprety. You can use Kelly to calculate how much insurance you should purchase at a given profit margin for the insurance company given your net worth and the risk involved.  This can be used in Finance to work out how much you should hedge your bets in an investment as well; in effect, it quantifies how having money makes it easier to make money." &gt;Don't shakedown other less profitable industries to subsidize industries that are overflowing with cash.  Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that is at all the case with what is happening here.   Their pay is in line with others in the industry. If you consider the cost of living where they are located, it is above average. If you are making an analogy such as a sports team that pays the industry average, ok, but I don't see the point. A long time ago as sellers will pay a fee on the total amount not the item amount. Plus people are mindless sheep.  Item  A) $5 + $4 shipping B) $10 with FREE SHIPPING!    Guess which one makes more? Even if item A $5+$5 shipping item B will be more profitable especially when multiple units are sold. "Trying to ""time the market"" is usually a bad idea. People who do this every day for a living have a hard time doing that, and I'm guessing you don't have that kind of time and knowledge.  So that leaves you with your first and third options, commonly called lump-sum and dollar cost averaging respectively.   Which one to use depends on where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. Dollar cost averaging (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 trade-off. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up, which is especially true with an index fund! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?" Taking as given that your definition of VA involves selling at intermediate times, your question can be made more general.  After all, value averaging is just one special case of a portfolio that rebalances to target weights periodically. Do back-end fees (and front-end fees) harm the value of portfolios that require rebalancing?  The answer is yes, they do.  Those fees are put in place in order to prevent investors from redeeming shares over any but the longest horizons.  Any portfolio that rebalances periodically will involve some periodic selling.  If you invest in a fund with front-end or back-end fees, it is optimal to leave your money in it for as long as possible and not do any rebalancing. If you want to run a portfolio that is at all active (involves rebalancing), then it is probably wise to use no-load funds. These are often some of the best and cheapest funds anyway, but even if front or back end load funds have a lower expense ratio, you will likely lose money on those loads as you rebalance. you can check google scholar for some research reports on it.  depends how complex you want to get...  it is obviously a function of the size of the portfolio of each type of asset. do you have a full breakdown of securities held? you can get historical average volumes during different economic periods, categorized by interest rates for example, and then calculate the days required to liquidate the position, applying a discount on each subsequent day.