Lol. You don't even need AI for that 99% boiler plate. Save 6-12 months of expenses in cash, DCA the rest into total market stock index funds. But people still pay expensive advisors to get worse results.

▲

groundzeros2015 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

An advisor gives you emotional support and helps you not fuck it up.

▲

swat535 an hour ago | parent [-]

The problem with giving financial advice to people is that many struggle to pay their rent. Telling them to invest in index funds from an ivory tower is laughably misguided of the realistic situation they live in.

After they pay their rent and feed themselves, they may have a little left over which they will simply spend on basic pleasures, or simply rack up debt to get by.

The financial advice ignores the fact that we have people like Musk with a net worth of 600M while the rest struggle to afford necessities.

The wealth inequality gap is simply too much to ignore and I worry that it will reach a breaking point.

	▲	groundzeros2015 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t know what this has to do with financial advisors. People in that situation are not seeking investment advice.

▲

yodsanklai 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's more complicated than that. You probably don't want all your equity in stock, unless you're young and you're confident you can keep your strategy when the AI bubble crashes. And what do you do with the part that isn't in stock? bonds? what are they? which ones to buy? Even the 6-12 months of expenses in cash doesn't apply to all people.

That being said, I agree with the bad and expensive advisors, but I think financial planning is hard, and you really need to educate yourself.

▲

singpolyma3 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, never DCA anything that's terrible advice. But still better than what most people do.

▲

sweetjuly 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

DCA is not unreasonable advice given that most people's greatest enemy is themselves. DCA helps avoid the very emotionally upsetting feeling of you throwing money into a fund and it dropping 5% the next day. This emotional volatility can push people to make bad decisions (pull all their money out, try to time the market, stop investing, etc.). Scheduling your investment into smaller sums lets you diffuse the highs and lows in order to keep you steadfast.

▲

orsorna 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you only have a fixed amount of money to put aside every month, DCA makes sense. That applies to 99% of people. Not terrible at all.

▲

zrail 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not really DCA, at least how I understand it. DCA is something like "I have $520,000 in cash right now today sitting in checking, I'm going to buy $10,000 a week of VTSAX for the next 52 weeks" which on average is a bad strategy.

What you're describing is better analyzed as a continuing series of lump sum investments. You're investing as soon as you have cash available, not unnecessarily holding onto cash.

	▲	BeetleB an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This is the original definition of DCA, but by this point most people view DCA as what everyone else in the thread is talking about. Not a hill worth dying on.

▲

lotsofpulp 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's not really choosing to "DCA", that's just not having enough money to not be able to "DCA".

Which is what's so funny about 99% of people that talk about DCA...they don't have any other option.