A Lost Decade of Dollar Cost Averaging

Investors who dutifully put money into the stock market on a periodic basis over the decade ended in 2009 would have felt dejected when looking at their statements.

If you started dollar cost averaging $500/month into the S&P 500 in January of 2000, by December of 2009 you would have invested $60,000 in total. This strategy would have netted you a whopping $64k and change, not much more than the amount saved. By way of comparison, simply investing that same $500/month in one-month t-bills would have given you more than $67k.

It’s no secret the lost decade of the 2000s was a difficult one for investors considering on a total return basis the S&P 500 was down more than 9% over a ten year period (so averaging in helped a little but not much).

The upside of that lost decade is mean reversion can actually turn into nice reversion (see what I did there?) when things snap back. Had you continued to plug away with that $500/month and stuck with the strategy you would have been handsomely rewarded on the other side.

Through the end of September of this year, the balance would be more than $300k.

The reason I bring up the lost decade in U.S. stocks is because emerging markets are working through their own lost decade(-ish) at the moment. From November of 2007 through September of 2018 the MSCI EM Index is up just 5.5% in total. Over that time the S&P is up nearly 140% while lowly one-month t-bills have risen 4.9%.

Using the same DCA strategy of investing $500/month in EM over this time would have been an investment of $65,500. The ending balance would now be just shy of $85k.1

I played around with the numbers using data from both of these indexes that show why no investor experience is ever average:

Lump sum investing is fairly straightforward. Because of the excessive valuations from the dot-com bubble, returns since 2000 are still well below average for the S&P 500 from that starting point. From January 2000 through September 2018, the annual returns for the S&P 500 were 5.75%. In that same time, emerging markets were up 7% annually. So even with their struggles over the past 10-11 years, EM would have still been the better investment since the turn of the century.

DCA is not so straightforward. Interestingly enough, even though EM showed better annual returns, investing in the S&P would have given you a better result when dollar cost averaging. Using the same January 2000-September 2018 time frame, investing $500/month into each index would have yielded more than $300k in the S&P but just $255k in EM. In this case, the sequence of returns plays a bigger role in determining the outcome than the actual annual returns of the investment option itself.

Volatility is your friend when investing periodically. The sequence of return risk when dollar cost averaging can be illustrated by taking the return streams of the S&P 500 and MSCI EM and simply reversing their order. So instead of starting with January 2000 and ending in September 2018, we start with September 2018 and end with January 2000 to show how the timing of market cycles can impact these results.

This is what I found:

The EM results are fairly similar since both the start and end dates coincided with bear markets but the S&P 500 results are drastically different. In both cases, the compounded returns are still the same — 5.75% and 7%, respectively — but the outcomes are vastly different depending on the timing of the cash flows and the market environment.

If you’re a saver you want low returns (for a while) and volatility. The biggest reason the actual DCA S&P outcome looks better than the sequence of returns scenario is that returns were so poor at the outset and great towards the end. One of the reasons the EM data wasn’t impacted much by reversing the return stream is because those markets are so much more volatile2. Increased volatility offers more opportunities to buy at depressed prices. It also makes it harder to stick with that investment but a combination of low returns in a volatile return stream should be your hope if you’re a saver.

Luck plays a role in these outcomes. Most normal investors don’t average into the markets because they want to but because they have to save bits and pieces out of their paycheck over time. This can make it difficult for investors to fully understand their individual performance. There are plenty of bad investors out there but many simply suffer from bad luck based on when they were born or started saving.

Diversifying over time by dollar cost averaging is a prudent way to manage risk but it won’t always protect you from a bad market environment. This is yet another reason it pays to diversify across asset classes, market capitalizations, and investment strategies.

You just never know when one will do better than the others.

Further Reading:
Mean Reversion From the Lost Decade

1I’m not taking account costs into these calculations because it’s taken off the actual indexes but close enough.

2Emerging markets volatility was 50% higher than the S&P in this time (21% to 14%).

This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment.

The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client.

References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.

The Compound Media, Inc., an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers

Please see disclosures here.