Suze Orman and the glories of dollar-cost averaging

Felix Salmon has a long and rousing defense of Suze Orman against an attack piece by documentary filmmaker James Scurlock:

There are millions of Americans out there who fail to pay their credit card in full each month despite the fact that they have money in the bank to do so. There are tens of millions who have stock-market investments in taxable accounts alongside large consumer debts. And there are probably a hundred million or more Americans who are simply having a huge amount of difficulty living within their means, especially after taking into account their financial burdens.

Orman provides hope for these people — an eminently sensible roadmap for the future — in a quintessentially American demotic as opposed to the arcane language of the financial press. Not everyone who buys her books will end up acting on her advice: the temptation to borrow and spend is all around us, after all. But from a financial-literacy perspective, Suze Orman has made America a much better place than any other individual alive. Long may she continue to do so.

I wouldn’t go quite that far. Suze does say silly things on occasion, as Scurlock documents. And I think any praise for Suze should be showered in at least equal measure upon her heartland counterpart Dave Ramsey, who in my experience is a bit more careful and reasoned in his advice than the Divine Ms. O. But there was one part of Scurlock’s screed that did get me almost as worked up as Felix:

But it is not Suze’s hypocrisy or even her intellectual laziness that really bothers me; no, that would be something Suze “loves” called “dollar cost averaging,” which involves buying the same stock over and over again as it falls. “It’s a great opportunity for you when the value of the shares drops,” claims Suze in the inaptly named The Road to Wealth, “because you can buy shares at ‘bargain’ prices and average down your cost per share.” Oh, where to begin? Maybe with the obvious: Since when does throwing good money after bad make you rich?

Well, “dollar cost averaging” (some freaks across the sea call it “pound cost averaging“) is also about continuing to buy stocks as their prices rise. It simply means investing bit by bit over time (as one does in a 401k), and it is basically the only rational approach for those who (a) think the stock market is a good long-run investment and (b) can’t reliably  predict its short- or even its medium-term movements. Category (b) takes in the vast majority of investors. Category (a) has been losing a lot of adherents lately, but that’s sort of the point. Sticking to a regime of dollar cost averaging forces one to keep putting money into the market when it is most unfashionable, which happens to be exactly when one should be putting money into the market. Over time it may be even better to put money into the market only when it’s unfashionable, but that’s a mighty hard discipline for those of us who aren’t Warren Buffett to stick to.

Scurlock doesn’t offer an alternate investing approach, but he seems to be saying that one should stay away from the stock market at all costs. Because, you know, stock prices have gone down a lot lately. This is logically equivalent to saying in early 2000 that one should pile into the stock market because stock prices had gone up a lot. It was really bad advice then. I can’t be sure it’s bad advice now—the Dow could easily drop another couple thousand points. But it will be bad advice eventually, and dollar-cost averaging is the simplest way to make sure you don’t follow it.

Update: Money magazine’s Walter Updegrave, who thinks much harder about this kind of stuff than I ever will, makes the case against dollar-cost averaging. He’s not opposed to regularly putting money into the stock market as you earn it; he just thinks that, if you have a lump sum of money, you should go ahead and invest all of it rather than trickle it in to the market. But then he offers an out:

That said, I suppose there is one instance in which I could see dollar-cost averaging playing a role. If you’re so nervous about investing in stock and bond funds that you simply can’t do it without tiptoeing in, then you’re better off going in gradually than not investing at all.

I dunno, I think most people are nervous about investing—or at least about investing at the wrong time. Minimizing regret should be an important part of their investing strategy. And dollar-cost averaging definitely does that, even if it doesn’t always maximize returns.

Related Topics: Wall Street & Markets
  • Latest on Business

    LM Otero / AP

    Senate Approves Hike in Airline Security Fees

    (WASHINGTON) — A Democratic-controlled Senate panel Tuesday approved a $2.50 increase in airline security fees that would double the per-passenger fee for those taking nonstop flights.

    Why Greece Isn't Leaving the Eurozone YetSlate

    Associated Press

    Stocks Rally Further in Run-up to EU Summit

    MOSCOW — Global stocks enjoyed one of their best days in weeks on Tuesday ahead of a summit of European leaders that’s expected to be dominated by calls to boost economic growth.

    Europe remains the focus of attention across all financial markets in the run-up to the June 17 Greek election that could go a long way to determining the country’s membership of the euro as well as the future of the single currency zone.

  • dotybj

    I happened to read the Scurlock piece earlier and had a similar reaction. I was waiting for him to make a point or tell me why I should be listening to him instead of Orman, but there was nothing. It reminded me of a politician incredulously stating his opponent’s position, without offering any meaningful criticism or alternative. I’m not a big fan of Suze Orman, but I still have no idea what really is this guy Scurlock’s problem with her.

  • bryanfromhouston

    The problem with dollar cost averaging is that it doesn’t take advantage of the market in the most ruthless way to obtain the greatest possible gains.
    -
    Right now, for instance, I am fully invested into the market in broad indices both domestic and foreign at a 70/30 split. I will get back into treasuries when the price goes down. By always buying things which are out of favor (kind of like buying winter clothes in the spring or swimsuits just before fall), you will consistently get more value for your money.
    -
    Ah, but Bryan you say, there is a problem…and I admit that there is. Most Americans do not possess the fundamental rigour in their financial ability to make investments in a downturn. For those many, dollar cost averaging which takes place automatically and squirrels away funds before they even have a chance to spend them is preferable even at the risk of some pretty big gains. It is better to have made a reasonable bit of investment than no investment at all.

  • Chaddogg

    @Bryan — there is a problem with both your and Scurlock’s opinion on dollar-cost averaging. It’s the somewhat incorrect assumption that such averaging involves either (A)buying individual stocks (as Scurlock suggests) or (B) buying a sector or industry of stocks (which you seem to suggest).
    .
    What dollar-cost averaging IS, though, is a process of buying a broad, pre-determined, diversified portfolio across many industries, and is preferably done with mutual funds. So if you have, say, three funds (a U.S. total stock fund, a foreign total stock fund, and a total bond fund), what you would do is set your risk tolerance for those categories (say, 60-20-20), then buy at regular intervals (say, each paycheck) that proportion of those funds, REGARDLESS of their performance. So, when one fund goes down, you’re getting more shares, while one of your other funds you’re getting less shares but the price is increasing.
    .
    Also, Brian — how can you be sure you’re investing in something that is out of favor? Doesn’t that necessitate, to a degree, buying shares when they’re going up and missing out on shares as the go down? Timing the lows is just as impossible as timing the highs…

  • bryanfromhouston

    Chaddogg,
    -
    I am not suggesting anybody buy a sector or industry of stock. Note that I said “broad indices” think S&P 500, Russell 3000, etc. :-)

  • bryanfromhouston

    Further, I think it is important to recognize the distinction between diversification and asset allocation. I fully recognize that DCA involves regulated buying on a consistent basis, but my point is that it is not the most efficient means of getting value out of the market. An elementary examination of Warren Buffet’s strategy over the last 30 years would clearly show this to be true.
    -
    Determinations of out of favor is pretty easy. For some, it is any time that a broad sector is off 10% – 20%. For some, it might be less where they just buy on the dips. As a pretty simple test, take the median income of a man currently approaching retirement and have them make the same investments that a person would have made in the S&P 500 on a DCA basis. Go back and then run the numbers so that this same individual only buys in lump sums on triggers of 10% down. Right now, today, the guy buying out of favor is 12-15% (variation due to timing) better off than the guy that utilized DCA.
    -
    The simple reality is that percentage of performance given up is tremendous. Further, this has nothing to do with the serious reduction in transaction costs. Anybody could do this and easily so.
    You could start a sharebuilder account and just buy the index directly. WIth transaction costs as low $4 per buy, your transactional costs may be as low as .2% for someone like myself investing a few thousand at a time.

blog comments powered by Disqus