Avoiding timing traps with long term index investing
1) The risks are that you investing in financial markets and therefore should be prepared for volatility in the value of your holdings. 2) You should only ever invest in financial markets with capital that you can reasonably afford to put aside and not touch for 5-10 years (as an investor not a trader). Even then you should be prepared to write this capital off completely. No one can offer you a guarantee of what will happen in the future, only speculation from what has happened in the past. 3) Don't invest. It is simple. Keep your money in cash. However this is not without its risks. Interest rates rarely keep up with inflation so the spending power of cash investments quickly diminishes in real terms over time. So what to do? Extended your time horizon as you have mentioned to say 30 years, reinvest all dividends as these have been proven to make up the bulk of long term returns and drip feed your money into these markets over time. This will benefit you from what is known in as  'dollar cost averaging' and will negate the need for you to time the market. What are the risks pertaining to timing on long term index   investments? The risks are countless for any investment strategy.  If you invest in US stocks, and prices revert to the long term cyclically adjusted average, you will lose a lot of money.  If you invest in cash, inflation may outpace interest rates and you will lose money.  If you invest in gold, the price might go down and you will lose money.  It's best to study history and make a reasonable decision (i.e. invest in stocks). Here are long term returns by asset class, computed by Jeremy Siegel:  $1 invested in equities in 1801 equals $15.22 today if was not invested and $8.8 million if it was invested in stocks.  This is the 'magic of compound interest' and cash / bonds have not been nearly as magical as stocks historically. 2) How large are these risks? The following chart shows the largest drawdowns (decreases in the value of an asset) since 1970 (source):  Asset prices decrease in value frequently.  Financial assets are volatile, but historically, they have increased over time, enabling investors to earn compounded returns (exponential growth of money is how to get rich).  I personally view drawdowns as an excellent time to buy - it's like going on a shopping spree when everything in the store is discounted. 3) In case I feel not prepared to take these risks, how can I avoid   them? The optimal asset allocation depends on the ability to take risk and your tolerance for risk.  You are young and have a long investment horizon, so if stocks go down, you will have plenty of time to wait for them to go back up (if you're smart, you'll buy more stocks when they go down because they're cheap), so your ability to bear risk is high.  From your description, it seems like you have a low risk tolerance (despite a high ability to be exposed to risk).  Here's the return of various asset classes and how the average investor has fared over the last 20 years (source):  Get educated (read Common Sense on Mutual Funds, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, etc.) and don't be average! Closing words: Investing in a globally diversified portfolio with a dollar cost averaging strategy is the best strategy for most investors.  For investors that are unable to stay rational when markets are volatile (i.e. the investor uncontrollably sells their stocks when stocks decrease 20%), a more conservative asset allocation is recommended.  Due to the nature of compounded interest, a conservative portfolio is likely to have a much lower future value. "It's amusing that despite all the evidence that ""you can't time the market"", everyone still wants to try.  Of course I understand your fear.  If you invest all your money in the stock market today and it suddenly falls tomorrow you will feel very bad.  There are a few things you can do to reduce your risk with respect to timing, however: Don't plop all your money down on the same day.  Invest in the market over time, perhaps a few hundred dollars per month worth (depending on your appetite).  This averages your purchase cost to ensure you aren't buying at the time when prices are highest.  The down side is of course that if you leave cash sitting around, you might also not be buying when the prices are lowest either and will probably miss out on some gains.  Still, if risk is your concern, this is a sound strategy. Invest in various markets overseas.  This will expose you to some currency risk, but lower your timing risk, as even with globalization markets don't rise and fall in tandem.   Even with both of the above, you can still be just plain unlucky (or lucky).  I would recommend that you invest only money that you don't need to take out in the near future (in order to reduce the chance that the money will have lost value since you put it in!), and that you don't watch the markets since it makes a lot of people nervous and tends to prod them into doing exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time."
"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to ""time"" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying  - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown." If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand.  You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard).  If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here. R/stockmarket is probably the best.  When I have some free time I can test that strategy back as long as you would like in quantstrat, although the only problem with testing futures is joining the consolidated contracts, however I can test it with SPY as SPY returns and ES_F track very closely. There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors. 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 If you have such a long term investment goal there really is no reason to try time the markets, 1990s market high was nothing compared to 1999s market high which was nothing to 2006  etc and so on(years quoted as example).  Also consider cost of opportunity missed by holding back investing your immediately available investment capital and have it sit in a bank account for 18-24months, collecting meager returns instead of a 5-10% potential return for example(which isnt a strech by any means). Now if you re really hell-bent on timing the market, since you re in the UK, if you really want to attempt it, I would pay close attention to Brexit news and talks that are scheduled for 2018 onwards. Any delays on that deal and/or potential bad development may lead to speculation and temporary lows for you to buy in. If thats worth the effort and cost of opportunity mentioned before is up to you. "This simulation game uses actual historical S&P 500 data to test whether you can ""time the market."" You start with $10,000 invested, and it plays back 10 years of index values, in which time you can choose to sell (once), and if you do sell you can subsequently buy (once). Then you find out how you did relative to just holding what you started with.  If you play it enough times, you might eventually beat it once. I never did." I assume you mean Stock Mutual funds.  2008 wasn't that long ago. Down 37%. 07/08 combined were down 34%, or 07/09 down 20%.  The point of the long term is that over time, a decade will almost ensure a positive return.  2 years is too short, in my opinion. "You have a good thing going. One of the luxuries of being invested in an index fund for the long term is that you don't have to sweat the inevitable short term dips in the market. Instead, look at the opportunity that presents itself on market dips: now your monthly investment is getting in at a lower price. ""Buy low, sell high."" ""Don't lose money."" These are common mantras for long term investment mentality. 5-8 years is plenty of time -- I'd call it ""medium-term"". As you get closer to your goals (~2-3 years out) you should start slowly moving money out of your index fund and start dollar cost averaging out into cash or short-term bonds (but that's another question). Keep putting money in, wait, and sell high. If it's not high, wait another year or two to buy the house. A lot of people do the opposite for their entire lives: buying high, panic selling on the dips, then buying again when it goes up. That's bad! I recommend a search on ""dollar cost averaging"", which is exactly what you are doing right now with your monthly investments." Stop loss orders are the exact opposite of what you should be doing if you are implementing a long term buy-and-hold strategy. The motivation of a buy-and-hold strategy is that in the long term, the market rises even despite the occasional crash or recession. Setting a stop loss simply increases the probability that you will sell for a low price in a temporary market downturn. Unless you are likely to need near-term liquidity (in which case you're not a long term investor), that makes no sense. "Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the ""outcome"" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M?  Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word ""average"". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. ""Heavyweights"" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes.  Jack Bogle is simply saying low cost indexing is one of the better strategies for the average person, given the data. But nowhere is it guaranteed that in this lifetime (e.g. next 30 years) will provide the best outcome. Berkshire on the other hand are in the business of chasing maximum outcomes (mid or short term returns). It's two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed together in my opinion." "If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever ""long term"" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones.  Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence ""momentum"" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of ""daily rebalancing"" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad.  If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a ""real world"" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing." "There was a time when everyone felt their goal was to beat the respective index they followed. But of course, in aggregate, that's a mathematical impossibility. The result was that the average say large cap fund, whose benchmark index would be the S&P, would lag on average by 1-2%.  A trend toward ETFs that would match the market had begun, and the current ETFs that follow the S&P are sub .1% expense.  For the fact that studies (Google ""Dalbar"" for examples) show the typical investor lags not by 1% or 2%, but by far more for reasons of bad timing, my own statement that ""I've gotten a return these past years of .06% less than the S&P"" would have been seen many years ago as failure, now it's bragging. It handily beats the typical investor and yet, can be had by anyone wishing to stay the course, keep the ETF very long term." True, but the number of investors who are successful with this strategy is negligible. You are basically just trading return for volatility. A well built portfolio will be better than trying to time the market, at least historically. I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases.      Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon.  Source