Even on a risk-adjusted basis, lump-sum investing won the day. The cash component of averaging in has the benefit of reducing your risk to some degree, but at the cost of an even greater decline in potential returns.

即使在经过风险因素调整后，一次性投资的表现也更好。平均成本投资法可以提前收回现金，这有在某种程度上降低风险的好处，但它是以更多的潜在收益下降为代价的。

In the U.S., for example, the average annualized Sharpe ratio─a measure of how well a portfolio manager delivers return in relation to risk taken─for a 100% equity portfolio was 0.77 for the lump-sum investor but only 0.68 for the dollar-cost averager. The higher the Sharpe ratio, the better the manager you are.

例如，在美国，一次性投资者的100%股票投资组合的年均夏普比率（Sharpe ratio）──一种衡量投资组合经理在相应风险下的收益绩效的指标──为0.77，而采用平均成本投资法的投资者的夏普比率仅为0.68。夏普比率越高，说明你的业绩越好。

The only time that dollar-cost averaging outperformed lump-sum investing was during market downturns. This, too, is intuitive. If it pays to be fully invested when the market is going up, the opposite is true when the market is heading south.

平均成本投资法只有在市场低迷期才优于一次性投资法。这也很容易判断。如果在市场上涨时应该完全投资，那么在市场下跌时就应该反其道而行之。

【如何打理意外之财？】相关文章：

★ 欧元区真有理由乐观吗？

★ 渣打银行能否续写增长童话？

★ 六大妙招教您如何提升幸福感（图组）

★ 美国大选体现人口结构变化

★ 谷歌如何让无人驾驶汽车合法化

★ 卡尼——外来的改革者？

★ 惠普减记谁之过？

★ 美国制造业即将复兴？

★ 2020年希腊何去何从？

★ 克里姆林宫如何“摆平”寡头？