These last few weeks in December present a good time to prepare your finances for the coming year. My personal goal is to start January 1 on a good note, moving my life forward. In the grand scheme putting your finances in order takes a back seat to cleaning up your life as a whole, but it’s an important task because it can set you up for financial success. I’ve suggested changing your 401(k) contribution level early and donating to charity. It’s also a good time to fund your Roth (or traditional) IRA.

Usually, the reminder to fund your Roth IRA comes in March or April. The deadline isn’t until your tax return is due in the following year. For example, I have until April 16, 2012 to transfer money into my IRA and have the contribution count towards my 2011 limit. But why wait?

When investing for retirement, you can choose between two approaches. You can contribute to retirement accounts in a lump sum investment or you can use periodic investments (often called dollar-cost averaging) to spread your contribution over a longer period of time. You can also use a combination of the two approaches. For most savers, the choice comes down to cash flow.

Choose between lump-sum and periodic investments

Dollar-cost averaging, or using the same dollar amount to purchase a theoretically different amount of shares of investment regularly, can help smooth out the short-term volatility in stock prices. When compared to investing a lump sum, with periodic investments, you’ll sometimes invest when the prices of the stocks or funds are higher, and sometimes invest when the prices are lower. It’s one way to mitigate a small amount of risk. If your options are between dollar-cost averaging and saving up to invest in a lump sum later, thanks to the general long-term trend of an increasing overall value of stocks, you’ll generally be better off in the end using periodic investments.

That’s because it’s generally to invest what you can as early as you can. This is why many people choose periodic investments. Cash flow plays a large role in determining how a family or individual will invest. Unless you’re borrowing money to invest into retirement — a dangerous proposition — chances are good you won’t have $5,000, the IRA contribution limit for people under age 50, ready to go on January 1. The first day of the year is also the first day you can contribute to the new year’s IRA.

It can take a while to save up $5,000, so if you can spread the contribution over twelve months at $416.66 per month, now is a great time to configure your coming year’s investment strategy on your IRA plan’s website. If you don’t have an IRA yet, you can start one at any discount brokerage. I use Vanguard, but Fidelity is also good, and TIAA-Cref offers the benefit of very low investment minimums. All allow you to configure periodic electronic investments from your bank account.

If you haven’t invested in this year’s IRA yet and you don’t have the cash available to invest in one lump sum, create periodic investments that help you invest as much as you can budget for between now and the April deadline.

On the other hand, you might have cash available. If so, fund this year’s IRA up to the limit now, and prepare to fund next year’s IRA soon after December 31, both in lump sums. There’s a chance that you won’t get as good a price on your investment as you would the day before or the day after, but if you’re investing for the long-term, the difference between days should be much less influential on your financial success than market performance leading up to the day you begin withdrawing and the period of time to follow.

Choose between traditional and Roth IRAs

While the laws could change at any time, traditional and Roth IRAs have a few differences. In general, if you believe you’ll be in a lower tax bracket than you are now and you qualify for the tax deduction with the traditional IRA, that would be a better option. That’s particularly the case if you don’t have an employer-sponsored retirement plan such as a 401(k). On the other hand, if you’re already receiving the tax advantage of a 401(k), and you believe you could get a better tax advantage by taking a deduction in retirement because you expect to be in a higher tax bracket, the Roth IRA might be a better choice.

Of course, you can hedge your bets by splitting your contribution between the traditional and Roth IRAs. If, however, you earn enough money, you might not qualify for a Roth IRA.

You can use this IRA contribution wizard at Mint.com to determine which IRA is best for your particular situation.

Just do it

Keep in mind that with a long-term view, a lump sum investment is preferable, if you can invest that lump sum right away. If cash flow is a concern, set up a periodic investment to invest smaller amounts over time. Every major brokerage can support this hands-off, automated approach. Saving up to invest is a last resort. If you are not enamored with the idea of investing in the stock market right now, you can always choose a safer investment, even a money market fund or a certificate of deposit. Regardless, the sooner you get invested, the better for your future finances.

Don’t wait for the deadline; for the most part, people who consistently invest the maximum on the first day (January 1 of the coming year) will be better off than those who wait to invest the maximum on the last day (usually April 15 of the following year), because those who wait miss 15 and a half months of potential growth.

{ 1 comment }

It’s widely popular in the financial media to encourage the strategy of dollar-cost averaging (DCA) when investing. It’s a simple strategy that calls for investing the same dollar amount at regular intervals. When you assume that stocks or other investments at lower prices are bargains, dollar-cost averaging allows you to buy more of an investment when the price is better (lower), and less of an investment when the price is higher.

For example, consider someone who invests $100 into a broad index fund or ETF every month on the first day of the month. The price of the index, driven by the market, on January 1 is $10, so $100 buys ten shares. The price on February 1 is $12.50, so at this worse price, $100 buys only eight shares. You’ve received a better deal for a larger portion of your shares than you would have if you kept the number of shares you purchased steady rather than the dollar amount. In other words, if your other option was splitting the eighteen shares over two months, buying nine in January and nine in February, your gains would be lower.

This is, of course, a simplification of the issue. Many people often argue that, under the assumption that the stock market generally rises over long periods of time, you’d almost always be better off by buying the full eighteen shares as early as possible — in this case, January 1. Assuming the values trend upwards, that’s always the case — or at least it averages out to be over time. Many financial gurus then suggest forgetting about the idea of dollar-cost averaging and turn towards investing a lump-sum as soon as possible.

Reality gets in the way of that idea, unfortunately. Over my lifetime, I might invest $1 million. I have no idea of that will be true of course, because I cannot predict my future, but it’s a good figure to start with. Of course I’d be better off investing that $1 million at the moment I am legally allowed to do so, while just letting the account grow (on average) over large swaths of time. In fact, isn’t this the dream of every time-traveler? “If I could just take the $100 I have now, put it in the bank in 1795, and show up to collect the proceeds this year, I’d be a multi-millionaire!” Those who prefer gambling might be interested in taking Grays Sports Almanac: Complete Sports Statistics 1950-2000, a surprisingly thin compendium, back to 1955 and placing bets. (Come to think of it, Biff Tannen from the alternative 1985 reminds me a little of Donald Trump. Is it just me?)

Comparing lump-sum investing with dollar-cost averaging is not feasible most of the time. Thanks to reality, most of us are not time-travelers. We cannot take the amount we intend to invest over our life time and do it all at once at the beginning. You can, however, use leverage to invest more than you can afford to take advantage of these gains, but your returns will be hurt by the interest you pay on this debt and it amplifies your risk to often unacceptable levels. No, most people don’t invest using a lump sum because they need to earn the money they plan to invest through income, and that generally happens over time.

Furthermore, the more frequently buy an investment, the possibility for racking up transaction fees is higher, and these eat into your profits quickly. That’s a negative aspect of DCA, and it’s avoidable by dealing only with low-cost investments.

Dollar-cost averaging is effective because it allows people who can only budget for a small amount of investing to buy more shares of their investment when prices are lower. Most people can’t afford to invest in a lump sum.

{ 11 comments }

Pop writes about the intersection of our lives and economics at Pop Economics. There, you can find biweekly posts on everything from how your behavior affects your personal finance decisions to what the Fed’s most recent move means to you — not to mention some killer pop art. He recently wrote: Resistance is futile: Why buy-and-hold beats value investing.

The fact of the matter is: Most of us dollar-cost average when we invest because we have to. We get paid biweekly or monthly, and we invest our savings as soon as we receive it. We don’t have gigantic piles of money sitting around that we must choose to invest in a lump or over time.

But because dollar-cost averaging is personal finance 101, you’re going to find arguments as to why it’s the “best” way to invest anyway all over the place.

The refrain goes something like this: Let’s say that rather than put all your money into a mutual fund at once, you invest a set amount, say $1,000 per month, over time. When the fund is at $100 per share, you’ll buy 10 shares. When it’s at $150, you’ll only buy 7 or so shares. That way, you force yourself to buy more shares when they’re cheap and fewer when they’re expensive! You’ll see that argument at lots of reputable sites.

The problem with that explanation is that it suggests if you did have the choice between investing over time or all at once, you should invest over time. That doesn’t make sense, and here’s why.

1. Dollar-cost averaging works in reverse when you retire anyway.

Just as you might put $1,000 per month into stocks when you’re in the wealth accumulation stage of your life, you’re going to withdraw, say, $10,000 per month from your portfolio when you retire. And yes, that means you’ll be selling more shares when they’re cheap and fewer when they’re expensive — just the opposite of the supposed benefits dollar-cost averaging gave you when you started!

2. When you rebalance your assets as you age, it’s unrealistic to keep the strategy up.

Most of us invest a lot in stocks when we’re young and less in stocks (and more in bonds) as we age. Conventional wisdom holds that you should have, say, 90% in stocks and 10% in bonds when you’re in your 20s, but closer to 40% in stocks near retirement. But how do you get from one allocation to the other?

Dollar-cost averaging would seemingly dictate that you should slowly re-balance your portfolio as you age every month. In other words, when you hit, say, age 30, you’d sell a bit of your stock portfolio and buy a little bit of bonds each month as you got older. Aside from falling into the trap described in point one, how many of us could keep that up? And if we could, the transactional costs associated with the process, such as commissions from trading ETFs, would eat into our savings.

3. If you do have a lump-sum to invest, and choose to dollar-cost average, you’re throwing your asset allocation off, big time.

Pretend you’re in your 30s, have $100,000 saved so far in a 80/20 stock/bond mix, and come into a $100,000 inheritance. Hearing of the merits of the dollar-cost average approach, you choose to trickle the money into the stock market over time.

Well guess what? On day one, your asset allocation would be 40% stocks, 10% bonds, and 50% cash. Not exactly the aggressive asset allocation you intended, right? Just because you mentally put the $100,000 inheritance into a pile of money separate from your retirement savings doesn’t make it actually so.

And if you believe the stock market generally rises over long periods of time. The short-term volatility you’re trying to smooth out doesn’t matter anyway. The best time to invest will always be ASAP.

Something dollar-cost averaging is good at

At the end of the day, the completely rational individual would choose to make a lump-sum investment instead of to dollar-cost average. But exactly zero of us are completely rational. So there’s one big reason I can see someone choosing the DCA route, despite the arguments against.

In two words: “Loss aversion.” Humans fear losses more than they love gains. This tendency is well-documented by economists. So if you invested all $100,000 in a lump sum and the market dropped 5% the next day, you’d leave with an emotional scar. But alternately, if you began a DCA program and the market rocketed 5% the next day, you wouldn’t be nearly as sad.

That’s not rational — but it is the way we think. If you can’t get over that hump, you might decide that the cost of dollar-cost averaging is worth your emotional well-being. Just don’t pretend it’s making you money.

{ 8 comments }