@jjg...you are posting pure nonsense.
@bitebits reference analyzed ALL scenarios and the conclusion is there:
"LS consistently outperforms DCA across all time periods, short term and long term.
The longer the time period, the more LS tends to outperform DCA."
You can't fight the math...but, of course, you will.
Hiding behind "normies" having no money, etc etc does not mean that what you peddle is correct.
"Normies" have money, and if they don't, they could even borrow some against some property if they want to get a lump some.
I did it myself a couple times in the oughts.
In fact, we both know that my LS strategy vastly outperfomed your DCA.
I stand by my points.
You are not making any new points, and you are also refusing to actually either work with the actual hypothetical that's in front of us (which is the $100 per week income starting from January 2014) or to provide specifics regarding at which point in time extra lump sum dollar amounts would be available (at the beginning of the investment period or at various points in the middle).
You are also failing/refusing to deal with my already concession that the more sophisticated that you are (or the more time that you have to study the matter), then the more likely you can tweak to improve upon a strict DCA approach by employing lump sum buying and or buying on dips.
In other words, you seem to be making up your own bullshit, attributing false issues to me and then saying: "lookie, lookie, I am the winner" blah blah blah.. It's not that I don't even like you, but you surely are not grappling with the actual employment of a system or attempting to make fair, reasonable and practical comparative applications with anything more than vague innuendos.. with some kind of seeming maniacal obsession of wanting to be right no matter what.. .
