When to start investing in an index fund? Wait for a bear market, use dollar cost-averaging, or another approach?
"First: what's your risk tolerance? How long is your investment going to last? If it's a short-term investment (a few years) and you expect to break even (or better) then your risk tolerance is low. You should not invest much money in stocks, even index funds and ""defensive"" stocks. If, however, you're looking for a long-term investment which you will put money into continually over the next 30 years, the amount of stock you purchase at any given time is pretty small, so the money you might lose by timing the market wrong will also be rather small. Also, you probably do a remarkably poor job of knowing when to buy stocks. If you actually knew how to time the market to materially improve your risk-adjusted returns, you've missed your calling; you should be making six figures or more on Wall Street. :)" The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.
If you're worried about volatility, and you're in mostly long positions, you should be looking to diversify your portfolio (meaning, buying some stocks that will do better in a bear market) if it's not already diverse, but you shouldn't be looking to abandon your positions, unless you anticipate a short-term need for cash.  Other than that, you may want to hold off on the short-term positions for a while if you're concerned about volatility, though many traders see volatility as a great time to make money (as there is more movement, there's more opportunity to make money from mispriced stocks in both directions).  Unless you think the market will be permanently down due to these reasons, anyway, but I don't see any reason to believe that yet.  Even World War Two wasn't enough to permanently hurt the market, after all! Remember that everyone in the market knows what you do.  If there were a sure thing that the market was going to crash, it already would have. Conservative positions tend to involve holding onto a well diversified portfolio rather than simply holding onto cash, unless the investor is very conservative (in which case the portfolio should be cash anyway). The fact that you say this is your rainy day fund does make me a little curious, though; typically rainy day funds are better in cash (and not invested) since you might hit that rainy day and need cash quickly (in which case you could take significant losses if the time isn't right). "I have been considering a similar situation for a while now, and the advice i have been given is to use a concept called ""dollar cost averaging"", which basically amounts to investing say 10% a month over 10 months, resulting in your investment getting the average price over that period. So basically, option 3." I would read any and all of the John Bogle books.  Essentially:  We know the market will rise and fall.  We just don't know when specifically.   For the most part it is impossible to time the market. He would advocate an asset allocation approach to investing.  So much to bonds, tbills, S&P500 index, NASDAQ index.  In your case you could start out with 10% of your portfolio each in S&P500 and NASDAQ.  Had you done that, you would have achieved growth of 17% and 27% respectively.  The growth on either one of those funds would have probably dwarfed the growth on the entire rest of your portfolio.  BTW 2013 and 2014 were also very good years, with 2015 being mostly flat. In the past you have avoided risk in the market to achieve the detrimental effects of inflation and stagnant money.  Don't make the same mistakes going forward. The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds.  Put it all in immediately.  Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time.  You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk.  People do it all the time.  However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences.  This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal.  The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest.  In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible.  Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory.  If you want to invest all that money, do so now.  If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely.  Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles.  It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer. Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion.  Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform.   However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.)  There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term.  By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index.  This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position.   Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have?  But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees.  They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does.  And fees can be a big drag on total return. Disclosure - I love Jack Bogle. Jack basically invented the index fund, and as a result, let the common investor have an opportunity to choose a long term return of (S&P-.05%) instead of losing nearly 2% that many funds in that day charged. The use of index investing has saved investors many billions of dollars.  The 1% round trip, total cost to buy/sell, was common. Fees for trading have since dropped. I happen to use Schwab who charges $9 for a trade. On $100,000, this is not .5% ($500) but less than .01%. I think it's safe to say that billion dollar mutual funds are paying even less for trades that I do. I believe Jack's example here is a combination of old data and hyperbole.  The cost is not so much for the trades, per se, but for the people managing the fund. An index fund has a manager of course, but it's pretty much run by a computer. "Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a ""hot"" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers.  However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this." There are multiple ETFs which inversely track the common indices, though many of these are leveraged.  For example, SDS tracks approximately -200% of the S&P 500.  (Note: due to how these are structured, they are only suitable for very short term investments) You can also consider using Put options for the various indices as well.  For example, you could buy a Put for the SPY out a year or so to give you some fairly cheap insurance (assuming it's a small part of your portfolio). One other option is to invest against the market volatility.  As the market makes sudden swings, the volatility goes up; this tends to be true more when it falls than when it rises.  One way of invesing in market volatility is to trade options against the VIX. There are a number of scholarly articles on the subject including a number at the end of the Vanguard article you reference.  However, unfortunately like much of financial research you can't look at the articles without paying quite a bit. It is not easy to make a generic comparison between lump-sum and dollar cost averaging because there are many ways to do dollar cost averaging.  How long do you average over?  Do you evenly average or exponentially put the money to work?  The easiest way to think about this problem though is does the extra compounding from investing more of the money immediately outweigh the chance that you may have invested all the money when the market is overvalued.  Since the market is usually near the correct value investing in lump sum will usually win out as the Vanguard article suggests. As a side note, while using DCA on a large one time sum of money is generally not optimal, if you have a consistent salary DCA by frequently investing a portion of your salary has been frequently shown to be a very good idea of long periods over saving up a bunch of money and investing it all at once.  In this case you get the compounding advantage of investing early and you avoid investing a large chunk of money when the market is overvalued. If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market.  (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy. Thanks for the advice. I will look into index funds.   The only reason I was interested in this stock in particular is that I used to work for the company, and always kept an eye on the stock price. I saw that their stock prices recently went down by quite a bit but I feel like I've seen this happen to them a few times over the past few years and I think they have a strong catalogue of products coming out soon that will cause their stock to rise over the next few years.   After not being able to really understand the steps needed to purchase it though, I think I've learned that I really don't know enough about the stock system in general to make any kind of informed decisions about it and should probably stick to something lower-risk or at least do some research before making any ill-informed decisions. This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today.  The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob "Hope springs eternal in the human breast. No actively managed fund has beaten the indices over a long period of time, but over shorter periods, actively managed funds have beaten the indices quite often, sometimes quite spectacularly, and sometimes even for many years in a row. Examples from the past include Fidelity Magellan and Legg Mason Value Trust. So people buy actively managed funds hoping to cash in on such  good performance. The difficulty is, of course, that many people don't even think about investing in a fund until it is listed in some ""Top Forty Funds of last year"" compilation, and for many funds, they have already peaked, and new buyers are often disappointed.  Some  people who invested earlier plan on getting out of the fund before  the fund falls flat on its face, and fewer even succeed in doing so. As to why 401k plans often have high-cost actively managed funds, there are several reasons. A most important one is that there are numerous companies that act as administrators of 401k programs and these companies put together package deals of 401k programs (funds, administrative costs etc), and small employers perforce have to choose from one of these packages.  Second, there are various rules that have come into existence since the first days of 401k (and 403b) programs such as the investment choices must include funds of different types, and actively managed funds (large cap, small cap etc) are one of the choices that must be offered. Gone are the days when the only choice was a variable annuity offered by the insurance company administering the 401k program. Finally, program participants also have hopes (cf. opening sentence) and used to demand that the 401k program offer a few actively managed funds, not just index funds." Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit. "Congratulations on deciding to save money and choosing to invest it. One thing to know about mutual funds including index funds is that they typically require a minimum investment of a few thousand dollars, $3000 being a typical amount, unless the investment is in an IRA in which case $1000 might be a minimum. In some cases, automated monthly investments of $50 or $100 might need to be set up if you are beginning with a small balance. There is nothing wrong with your approach. You now should go and look at the various requirements for specific index funds. The Fidelity and Vanguard families are good choices and both offer very low-cost index funds to choose from, but different funds can have different requirements regarding minimum investments etc. You also have a choice of which index you want to follow, the S&P 500 Index, MidCap Indexes, Small-Cap Indexes, Total Stock Market Indexes etc., but your choice might be limited  until you have more money to invest because of minimum investment rules etc.   Most important, after you have made your choice, I urge you to not look every day, or even every month, to see how your investment is doing. You will save yourself a lot of anxiety and will save yourself from making wrong decisions.  Far too many investors ignore the maxim ""Buy Low, Sell High"" and pull money out of what should be long-term investments at the first flicker of a downturn and end up buying high and selling low. Finally, the time is approaching when most stock funds will be declaring dividends and capital gains distributions. If you invest now, you may end up with a paper profit on which you will have to pay taxes (in  non-tax-advantaged accounts) on your 2012 tax return (this is called ""buying a dividend""), and so you might want to spend some time investigating now, but actually make the investment in late December after your chosen fund has made its distributions (the date for this will be on the fund's web site) or in early 2013."