kareemsabri

I dunno what your N=1 point is supposed to mean. Being a sanctuary city is a progressive policy. And calling needle exchange a straw man is odd. How is it a straw man? A straw man means I'm setting up a fake version of my opponent's argument and arguing with that. It's an example of a progressive policy that exists. You seem to be saying it's not progressive because it doesn't solve the root causes. So the only cities that get to be considered progressive have to SOLVE drug addiction? I don't buy into that definition of progressivism. A harm-reduction drug program is a hallmark of progressive cities all over the world.

> Take a breath from American politics for a second and it's abundantly clear that SF politicians, and policies, are peak Liberal America.

> For Americans, that looks like communism I guess. For the rest of us, it's milquetoast centrism and performative virtue signaling to further protect capital interests.

I'm not American. I've lived the majority of my life in Canada, and about 8 years in America now. It doesn't look like communism. Being "progressive" does mean enacting communism, though if that's your bar, yeah I agree San Francisco isn't communist. You're kind of all over the map here, but your general claim seems to be that because San Francisco is not successful at achieving the desirable outcomes of progressive policies (low incarceration, safety, material needs met, low income inequality), it's not progressive. And cause they have empty houses? That's just... bizarre. Everyone knows it's a failed city. That doesn't make it "milquetoast liberal". You know it's a city right? It has to operate within the constraints of the nation it's a part of. Comparing to to sovereign nations that have the full autonomy of the state to enact their policies (Norway, Singapore, Japan) makes no sense.

I'll try to zero in on a few well known progressive policies in San Francisco.

- open air drug markets have been allowed to operate with impunity, drug laws are generally not enforced

But as your article points it, DCA is not about getting the absolute best return, it's about risk mitigation.

> The only times when DCA beats LS is when the market crashes (i.e. 1974, 2000, 2008, etc.). This is true because DCA buys into a falling market, and, thus, gets a lower average price than a lump sum investment would.

If you are fearful of a crash (like now, as we are in the midst of war, recession, energy shortages, coming out of a pandemic etc.) risk mitigation may be higher on your list of priorities. I also think it just lowers cognitive load for people who aren't investing for a living.

All that said, I 100% agree with DCA as the best approach for people investing out of income!

First, 25% of the time is a lot of the time. It may be possible to recognize an overheated market, by looking at historical earnings multiple averages for example. Second, they are using a "total market" index, even broader than the S&P 500. I don't know that many people who buy a total market index. Usually it's the S&P 500, or even a sector focus. The more specific you get, the more these results are likely to break down I would bet.

We focus on DCA for people who are working for a living and investing out of income, which is obviously a different cohort than Fred Wilson, the VC. So lump-sum investing doesn't really factor into it.

That said, if you're very long it's hard to picture entering Google or Apple at 15-18x earnings and doing very poorly. Personally I am DCA'ing because i) it's how I invest and ii) I do think there is more pain to come. There are many reasons for that, rallies amongst meme stock names after dips is one indicator imo.

His analysis of Airbnb is interesting. Airbnb's trailing 12 month P/E ratio is 40x, not 15.5x. He is projecting forward Airbnb's recent monster quarter. This is a bit risky imo, though maybe he knows the business better than me. I'd still be more comfortable DCA'ing into Airbnb or travel as a sector, but 2 quarters ago their P/E was 150x, so at 40x it does look pretty attractive.

Shameless plug, since this is right in our wheelhouse, I am the creator of a DCA focused custom indexing investing product[1] and a simulator to backtest DCA investing[2].

I don't know what the conjecture is that would make it not de-risking that, or what a proof would be, maybe GP will clarify.

It should be noted that many analyses of DCA versus lump sum are around the S&P 500 overall. In the case of highly volatile growth stocks or just single stock investing like Fred is discussing in the article, market timing risk is more acute, since the drawdowns are more severe (it is quite rare for the S&P 500 to drop 70-80%).

Shameless plus, I am the owner of a DCA investing app + a simulator tool to backtest DCA with different stocks, over different time periods