Dan Malone

Do you invest all that 1,000 euro right now?

Or do you say, okay, I'm going to put in 100 quid a month for 10 months and drip feed it in that way?

There's pros and cons to both.

If you lump sum invest from day one and then the market goes down,

obviously you won't be too happy because you've kind of taken the full hit on your full investment.

Whereas if you drip feed it over time, you're constantly buying at a lower price, which is good for the future because your average cost will be lower.

But the thing to remember is nobody knows what's going to happen in the short term.

It's impossible.

There's like, you cannot time the market.

It's not something that's doable.

That's why the long-term mentality is so important.

You shouldn't care what happens over six months or one year or 18 months because...

in the context of a 10 or 15 year stock chart it's you know those couple of bad months are a tiny tiny blip that you can barely even see to begin with but like if you need the money in six months and something goes wrong well then that's a disaster so that's why i would say like it doesn't really matter if you are committed to that lump sum mentality just invest what you have and if you have a certain amount ready and you're committed just get it in because like you

As I said, either way is perfectly fine, but it's impossible to get certainty as to which is going to be best in the end.

Yeah, yeah.

The deemed disposal conversation has been the bane of my existence for a couple of years because obviously like a lot of what I do is try to get people subscribed to the long term investing mentality and they say, oh, well...

Obviously, up until recently, it was 41% tax versus 33% tax on stocks.

And why would I do that if I could just pick individual stocks?

But the thing that people miss is you're assuming that you can achieve a similar performance investing in individual stocks as you can with index funds.

You can't.