If I'm cash-flow negative, should I dollar-cost-average the money from my bonus over the entire year?
"Essentially, your question is ""lump sum vs DCA"" and your tags reflect that. In the long run, lump sum, say a Jan 2 deposit each year, will beat DCA by about 1/2 the average annual market return. $12,000 will see a 10% return, vs, $1,000/month over the year seeing 6%. What hurts is when the market tanks in the first half of the year and you think DCA would have helped. This is a 'feeling' issue, not a math problem.  But. By the time you have $100K invested, the difference of DCA vs lump sum with new money fades, as new deposits are small compared to the funds invested.  By then, you need to know your target allocation and deposit to keep that allocation with new money." You will maximize your expected wealth by investing all the money you intend to invest, as soon as you have it available. Don't let the mythos of dollar cost averaging induce you to allocate more much money to a savings account than is optimal.  If you want the positive expected return of the market, don't put your money in a savings account.  That's especially true now, when you are certainly earning a negative real interest rate on your savings account. Dollar cost averaging and putting all your money in at the beginning would have the same expected return except that if you put all your money in earlier, it spends more time in the market, so your expected return is higher.  Your volatility is also higher (because your savings account would have very low volatility) but your preference for investment tells me that you view the expected return and volatility tradeoff of the stock market as acceptable. If you need something to help you feel less stress about investing right away, think of it as dollar cost averaging on a yearly basis instead of monthly.  Further, you take take comfort in knowing that you have allocated your wealth as you can instead of letting it fizzle away in real terms in a bank account.
"Given the current low interest rates - let's assume 4% - this might be a viable option for a lot of people.  Let's also assume that your actual interest rate after figuring in tax considerations ends up at around 3%.  I think I am being pretty fair with the numbers. Now every dollar that you save each month based on the savings and invest with a higher net return of greater than 3% will in fact be ""free money"".  You are basically betting on your ability to invest over the 3%.  Even if using a conservative historical rate of return on the market you should net far better than 3%.  This money would be significant after 10 years.   Let's say you earn an average of 8% on your money over the 10 years.  Well you would have an extra $77K by doing interest only if you were paying on average of $500 a month towards interest on a conventional loan.  That is a pretty average house in the US.  Who doesn't want $77K (more than you would have compared to just principal).  So after 10 years you have the same amount in principal plus $77k given that you take all of the saved money and invest it at the constraints above. I would suggest that people take interest only if they are willing to diligently put away the money as they had a conventional loan.  Another scenario would be a wealthier home owner (that may be able to pay off house at any time) to reap the tax breaks and cheap money to invest. Pros: Cons: Sidenote:  If people ask how viable is this.  Well I have done this for 8 years.  I have earned an extra 110K.  I have smaller than $500 I put away each month since my house is about 30% owned but have earned almost 14% on average over the last 8 years.  My money gets put into an e-trade account automatically each month from there I funnel it into different funds (diversified by sector and region).  I literally spend a few minutes a month on this and I truly act like the money isn't there.  What is also nice is that the bank will account for about half of this as being a liquid asset when I have to renegotiate another loan." Dollar cost averaging is a great strategy to use for investment vehicles where you can't invest it in a lump sum. A 401K is perfect for this. You take a specific amount out of each paycheck and invest it either in a single  fund, or multiple funds, or some programs let you invest it in a brokerage account so you can invest in virtually any mutual fund or stock. With annual or semi-annual re-balancing of your investments dollar cost averaging is the way to invest in these programs. If you have a lump sum to invest, then dollar cost averaging is not the best way to invest. Imagine you want to invest 10K and you want to be 50% bonds and 50% stocks. Under dollar cost averaging you would take months to move the money from 100% cash to 50/50 bonds/stocks. While you are slowly moving towards the allocation you want, you will spend months not in the allocation you want. You will spend way too long in the heavy cash position you were trying to change. The problem works the other way also. Somebody trying to switch from stocks to gold a few years ago, would not have wanted to stay in limbo for months. Obviously day traders don't use dollar cost averaging. If you will will be a frequent trader, DCA is not the way to go.  No particular stock type is better for DCA. It is dependent on how long you plan on keeping the investment, and if you will be working with a lump sum or not. EDIT: There have be comments regarding DCA and 401Ks. When experts discuss why people should invest via a 401K, they mention DCA as a plus along with the company match. Many participants walk away with the belief that DCA is the BEST strategy. Many articles have been written about how to invest an inheritance or tax refund, many people want to use DCA because they believe that it is good. In fact in the last few years the experts have begun to discourage ever using DCA unless there is no other way. If you are very sure, say 90%, that you'll pay the zero percent card off before paying interest, that would be my choice. Less certainty than that, I think the 6.8% over a longer term is less of a cash flow issue, and you can still pay it in full upon getting the job bonus. If you were to stick to your guns, then yes, that's what you'd need to do. In practice, that kind of a hit should get your attention, and you'd be wise to look at why your investment dropped 10% in a month. Value averaging, dollar-cost averaging, or any other investment strategy needs to be done with eyes open and ears to the ground.  At least with value averaging you need to look at your valuation each month!  From my own experience, dollar-cost averaging breeds laziness and I ended up not paying much attention to what I was investing in, and lost a fair bit of money. Bottom line is you still have to think about what you're doing, and adjust. "If you just had one expense once a year of $1200, you would put in $100 a month. The average balance is going to be $600 in that case - the 0 and $1200 months average to $600, as do the $100 and $1100, the $200 and $1000, and so on. If you had one expense twice a year of $600 and put in $100 per month it will average to $300. You have a mix of 3/6/12 months - does 8 months seem reasonable as an ""average"" frequency? If so, there should be about a 4 month slush all the time. Now instead of one expense averaged over 12 months, imagine 12 accounts, each needing $100 a month. If you started at zero, you would put in $1200 the first month and immediately spend it. One account would go from +100 (its share of what you put in) to -1100 while the rest are all at +100. Overall your balance would be zero. Then the next month you would again deposit 1200 and spend 1200, bringing one account to -1000, one to -1100, and the rest to +200. You average to zero actually on deposit because some of the ""accounts"" have negative balances and some have positive. But aren't doing that. You ""caught up"" the months you were  behind. So it would be like putting in $1200 for the first account, $1100 for the second, $1000 for the third and so on - a total of $7800. Then you take out $1200 and go down to 6600. The next month you put in $1200 and take out $1200 but you will always have that $6600 amount in there. All of the accounts will have positive balances - averaging $550 in this example." "This would never apply for tax ""brackets"". It's not as though making an extra dollar will put you into an entire separate bracket, the IRS isn't that bad. They bump up the ""brackets"" every $50, so you will never turn down a raise because it would cause you to lose income. However if your raise would preclude you from contributing to your IRA because it pushes you over $110,000 then yes, you could turn it down or explain to your boss that it would need to be just a little bit higher to cover your IRA contribution loss." Which is actually not usually the case. The bonus is typically in shares which they can only cash in after so many years, to try and align the C-suite's interest with long term plans for the company.   What most screws things over is being in the share market, when management makes itself slave to the vagarities of the intraday price. There are a very few number if companies that have realized this and gone back to annual rather than quarterly reporting. Well like a lot of stuff on money.stackexchange there is not a simple answer, but generally it is not a good thing. Take a look at the wikipedia entry on Net Operating Loss. Basically the company is commenting that when they do make money they will receive preferential tax treatment on that income.    So whether or not this is a positive or a negative depends on a couple of things: NOL doesn't directly impact book value other than how the actual assets of the company changed over the previous quarter. I believe there is a 1:1 correspondence to how the assets change and NOL, but I am sure someone could clarify that for me in another answer or as a comment.