March 5, 2010

Making progress by dollar-cost averaging

Lots of number crunching has been going on since early January, as fund companies and related organizations compile data for the decade just ended. (SMI is no different: you can find our recently released 2000-2009 performance data here.)

Fidelity, the top provider of employer-based retirement plans, has completed an analysis of the 10-year experience of 11 million investors who have Fidelity 401(k) accounts. Here are the overall results (from a Fidelity news release):

Even during a decade that included unprecedented volatility coupled with two of the worst market downturns in history, analysis of employed participants with a Fidelity 401(k) plan for the past 10 years ([2000] to 2009) showed their account balance increased nearly 150 percent to $163,900 at the end of 2009 from $65,800 at the end of 1999.
The increase in balance was due to continued participant and employer contributions, dollar cost averaging and market returns. The analysis also showed that these continuous participants had a median age of 51 years with a deferral rate of 10.4 percent.

The New York Times' Bucks Blog digs a bit deeper:

While [results differ] for every employee, about three-quarters of [the increase reported by Fidelity] was from worker and employer contributions. And roughly one-quarter could be attributed to market returns and what's known as dollar-cost averaging (when investors make regular investments over time, thereby evening out their chances of buying at market highs and lows).

In other words, over the decade most workers just kept plugging away at making contributions to their retirement accounts. Sometimes stock prices were high (e.g. September 2007), sometimes they were low (February 2009 anyone?). Regardless, most 401(k) investors stuck with their plan.

Looking back now, it is clear that these workers — despite one of the worst market decades ever — made substantial progress toward their retirement goals simply by being diligent to the task of setting aside about 10% of their income, paycheck after paycheck.

Sure, a worker who 1) pulled out of the market before each downturn and 2) got back in at the bottoms would have come out much better, but who can know when such drops begin and end? They're easy to see in hindsight but almost impossible to spot, at least consistently, in the present.

The moral of the story: slow and steady wins the race — or at least it's a solid strategy for moving you toward where you want to go. For more, here's a 2007 SMI article on dollar-cost averaging.