I’ve read that if you have the money up front, investing it as a lump sum on January 1st will produce higher returns more often that investing on a monthly/weekly basis. Is there more to consider in 2024 with our current high interest rates?

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 months ago

    The theory is not based on interest rates, but rather tax loss harvesting. People have a better idea of what their tax liability might be at the end of the year, and it’s possible they might want to reduce their Capital Gains tax bill by selling positions that are negative to lock in a loss, offsetting some other gain. That means more selling in December, so it would make sense to buy as close to Jan 1 as possible, when the extra selling stops.

    But it’s just another way to time the market, and timing the market is a bad strategy for the average investor. Just keep investing on your set schedule, and you will find that you still do OK, with much less drama.

    • yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The theory is not based on interest rates, but rather tax loss harvesting.

      Hmm… this is different from how I interpreted the advice around investing lump sums versus dollar cost averaging them in. I thought it had to do with the adage that in the long run, time in the market always beats timing the market, meaning one should always invest as much of their capital as early as possible—in the case of IRAs, that would mean January 1 assuming the previous tax year’s contributions are already maxed out.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Making any investment yearly at the same time is attempting to time the market, it’s a bet that the market will be lowest at that point vs the rest of the year. Otherwise, why pick Jan 1? Why not pick July 4? If the price is lower on Jul 4, you end up with more shares, as well as a small increase due to 6 months of interest.

        When you DCA, you basically admit that you don’t know how prices are going to move, and you are spreading out your risk. Yes, DCA over 12 months may leave you with slightly less than if you put it all in on Jan 1, assuming the price was the lowest on Jan 1. But if you have monthly investments that whole time, it’s likely that at least one or two of those might have been bought at a lower price than Jan, and it may turn out DCA could result in more shares of whatever you are buying.

        The “time in the market” adage applies over years, not months. On a scale of 10 years+, it doesn’t really matter whether you bought in Jan or July.

        • yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Making any investment yearly at the same time is attempting to time the market, it’s a bet that the market will be lowest at that point vs the rest of the year.

          Except when we’re talking about accounts with maximum annual contributions (e.g. IRAs).

          As I mentioned in my original comment, assuming one subscribes to the philosophy that in the long run, time in the market always beats timing the market, then logically it follows that one is better off investing a lump sum as early as humanly possible (i.e. as soon as they have the capital available to invest). If somebody doesn’t subscribe to this philosophy, then of course we’ll never agree on investing the lump sum up front vs DCA.

          In the context of investing a lump sum all at once versus DCA, DCA is a form of timing the market. The only time DCA isn’t a form of timing the market is when the capital is only available in certain intervals (e.g. disposable income from wages).

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Exactly. If you got a bonus and you’re deciding whether to invest it into an IRA or into a taxable brokerage, you pick the IRA because it has tax advantages. Likewise, if you consider a Roth IRA to be a form of emergency fund, then putting your efund into a Roth IRA just avoids losing that space.

      However, you shouldn’t be investing your emergency fund regardless of tax treatment, so funding and investing in a Roth IRA with money you’re not planning to use for investing just opens you up to more risk.

      Likewise, time in the market beats timing the market, so don’t hold back money to invest on Jan. 1. I personally invest an even amount every month and have it automated through my brokerage, and it works really well for me.

  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The sooner the better, the only caveat being that you might not know whether to fund a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA until you’ve done your taxes for the year. That’s why the IRS lets you fund the previous year’s IRA until tax filing deadline of the next year (usually April 15th).

  • Fleamo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Say you have $7000 day 1. Option 1 is to invest it all immediately. Option 2 is to invest only a portion and just keep the rest in cash until you invest later.

    In the long run, the invested side always does better than the cash side, interest rates on a savings account by definition never match the long run gains in the stock market. You get a premium for your money in the stock market because it can go negative in the short term.

    There is a reason to do Option 2, if you’re saving for a house or a car or something you probably don’t want to risk the market going down right before you want to make that purchase. Or if you are very sensitive to losses and you would he anxious or devastated if you put the money in and saw the value drop.

    But for retirement funds, you want to maximize long term gains so it makes the most sense to put it in Day 1.

  • Otherbarry@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    investing it as a lump sum on January 1st will produce higher returns more often that investing on a monthly/weekly basis

    Correct, you’re referring to investing via lump sum versus DCA (dollar-cost averaging). And you also need to consider your investment’s time in the market - Most often the longer you are invested the better your returns are over a long timeframe. And this is where lump sum comes in since you are investing everything as soon as possible in the tax year.

    But of course no one knows the future. A terrible year in the market = your early year lump sum looking like a bad bet. But we’re talking about an IRA here, the whole idea is to leave it invested long term so even a terrible year should pan out on its own over time.

    All that aside if you’re really worried about it and/or strongly feel that markets are going be down for the entirely of 2024 then there’s nothing wrong with going DCA (investing every week/month/whatever).

  • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Typical long term gains for an Ira mutual fund is 10%. Current high yield interest accounts are around 5%. If you put everything in at the beginning of the year, it has the whole year to earn double what it would in a high yield savings account. If you put it in each month, then only 1/12 of it is earning extra returns for the whole year.