本帖最后由 not4weak 于 2011-7-9 22:56 编辑
不呼悠: 用你的模式能算DOLLAR AVERAGING吗? 瞎看一下, 探讨401K等如何投资. 以下的文章关键的地方我给翻译一下.
对于那些不愿意做经常交易的人比较有用.
By Mark Hulbert, MarketWatch
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (MarketWatch) — Interested in a strategy that is virtually guaranteed to beat the market over an entire market cycle?
I thought so.
But there are two catches. First, it won’t beat a buy-and-hold in the event the stock market were to go more or less straight up. Of course, you may not consider this to be a fatal flaw, since in that happy event the strategy will still make lots of money.
The second catch may be a deal killer, however: The strategy is about as exciting as watching grass grow.
I’m referring to dollar-cost averaging: Periodically investing a set sum in the market. Because this set amount ends up purchasing more at lower prices and less at higher prices, the strategy is a close variant of “buying low and selling high” — which, by definition, is guaranteed to make money.
周期性的往市场里投钱, 因为这固定的投入相当于买低卖高.
How has dollar-cost averaging performed in the U.S. stock market? Consider a portfolio that invested $1,000 at the end of each month in the Wilshire 5000’s total-return index, starting at the top of the bull market in the fall of 2007. As of the end of this past June, this portfolio would be worth $56,143 — representing a 24.8% profit on the $46,000 invested. (The portfolio’s internal rate of return is different, since the $46,000 wasn’t invested all at once. But you get the idea.)
假如你从2007年秋天每个月放$1000在WILSHIRE5000指数里, 到今年六月份, 你的帐户涨幅是24.8%(N4W: H CRXP, 这也算多?)
In contrast, if you had invested that $46,000 in a lump sum at the beginning of this 46-month period, your portfolio today would be worth $43,594 — or $12,549 less than if you had dollar-cost averaged.
如果你在开始一下子投了$46000, 现在你还赔$12,549.
Notice carefully, furthermore, that the dollar-cost averaging portfolio earned this additional amount without making any market timing guesses. Its profit was automatic, given the discipline of investing a set sum in the market each and every month.
This is one of the reasons why the average 401(k) account is worth more today than at the bull market peak. Investors almost always pursue dollar-cost averaging approaches in such accounts, since they rarely have any other choice. ( Read column on how the average 401(k) account recently hit a new high. )
Dollar cost averaging has worked over longer periods as well. A dollar-cost averaging portfolio would be well ahead of a buy-and-hold over the period beginning in early 2000, for example.
To be sure, the approach lagged during the decade of the 1990s, when the stock market underwent few serious corrections, much less a bear market. For the 10 years through December 1999, for example, your $1,000 per month investment would have turned $120,000 into $358,447 — representing a 199% profit on original investment, equivalent to 11.6% annualized. Buying and holding, in contrast, produced an 18.5% annualized return over that decade.
In deciding whether to pursue a dollar-cost averaging strategy yourself, therefore, you need to gauge your willingness, should the future be a replay of the 1990s, to make “just” 11.6% annualized when the market itself is rising at an 18.5% annualized rate.
What you get in turn for that willingness: The assurance that, if and when the market endures a serious downleg, you will perform far better than a buy-and-hold.
While many might have such willingness, the bigger problem with dollar-cost averaging may very well be a psychological one. As I mentioned earlier, such a strategy is boring. The question to ask yourself: Are you willing to forego the excitement of correctly calling the market’s zigs and zags in order to be more or less assured of a decent, market-beating return over an entire market cycle.
To ask this question another way: Are you going to bet on the hare, even while nevertheless conceding that slow and steady wins the race? |
发表于 2011-7-9 18:53
| 
发表于 2011-7-9 21:14
| 
