如何打理意外之财？

While investors of all stripes have had their confidence in the markets badly shaken, those sitting on a rollover from an individual retirement account, an inheritance or other windfall are in a particularly tough spot.

如今各类投资者对市场的信心都严重动摇，而那些拿个人退休账户、遗产或其他意外之财进行滚动投资的人更是处于两难境地。

Should they invest the money all at once (so-called lump-sum investing) or dribble it into the markets in equal increments over a period of months or years (dollar-cost averaging)?

他们应该将整笔钱一起投资（所谓的一次性投资），还是分散到数月或数年中进行多笔等额投资（平均成本投资法）？

The answer depends, in part, on whether they are more concerned with maximizing their long-term returns or minimizing their short-term risk of losses─and the psychological pain that can come from diving in just before a market tumble.

答案部分取决于投资者更关心长期收益最大化还是短期损失风险最小化──以及如果刚好在市场暴跌前入市会产生的心理痛苦的程度。

Studies have shown that, mathematically, you are better off diving in. This is because, historically, markets have gone up more than they've gone down.

研究表明，从数学上看，大举入市是更好的选择。这是因为，历史上市场上涨的机会多于下跌的机会。

'So just playing the odds, you're better off getting the money invested right now because chances are prices will be higher later,' says Tim Courtney, chief investment officer of Exencial Wealth Advisors.

Exencial Wealth Advisors的首席投资长蒂姆·考特尼（Tim Courtney）说，“因此不妨碰碰运气，你最好现在就进行投资，因为很有可能股价以后会升高。

A recent study by Vanguard Group found this was true not only in the U.S. but in the U.K. and Australia as well. In all three markets, lump-sum investing would have outperformed dollar-cost averaging about two-thirds of the time, on average.

先锋集团（Vanguard Group）最近的一项研究发现，不仅在美国是如此，而且在英国和澳大利亚也是如此。在三个市场上，一次性投资法的平均表现在约2/3的时间中都优于平均成本投资法。

Vanguard compared immediately investing $1 million (and pounds and Australian dollars) in a stock and bond portfolio and holding it for 10 years, versus starting with the same amount in cash, investing it in equal portions over a period of months or years and then, once fully invested, standing pat through the end of year 10.

先锋集团比较了两种方法：一次性对一个股票和债券组合投资100万美元（以及等额英镑和澳元）并持有其10年；以及将相同金额的现金在数月或数年内进行多笔等额投资，投完后静待至第10年年底。

The comparison was repeated over rolling periods (starting in the U.S. with January 1926, then February 1926, and so on) and for various stock-and-bond allocations (ranging from 100% equities to 100% bonds) and various holding periods (from one to 30 years).

这种比较在循环滚动的时期中重复进行（在美国从1926年1月开始，然后是1926年2月，依此类推），包括各种股票和债券配置（从股票占100%到债券占100%）以及各种持有期（从一年到30年）。

The results were similar across all three markets, regardless of how long it took the dollar-cost averager to become fully invested or the ratio of stocks to bonds in the portfolio.

全部三个市场的结果都类似，不论按照平均成本投资法将资金投完需要多久，也不论投资组合中股票与债券之比是多少。

For example, in the U.S., the average ending balance for a 60%/40% stock/bond portfolio following rolling 10-year investment periods was 2.3% more for the lump-sum investor than for someone who averaged in over 12 months. In the U.K. and Australia, lump-sum investors ended with 2.2% more and 1.3% more, respectively.

例如，在美国，对于以10年期为单位进行投资、股票与债券之比为60%/40%的投资组合，一次性投资者的平均期末余额比在12个月内平均投资的投资者高2.3%。在英国和澳大利亚，一次性投资者的平均期末余额分别比在12个月内平均投资的投资者高2.2%和1.3%。

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。

Of the 1,000-plus 12-month rolling periods Vanguard analyzed for the U.S. markets, lump-sum investors saw their portfolios decline in value during 229 periods, or 22% of the time, with the loss during those periods averaging $84,000. Averaging in produced losses during just 180 periods, or 18% of the time, with the typical loss approaching $57,000.

先锋集团分析了美国市场的1,000多个12月滚动投资期，其中一次性投资者的投资组合价值在其中229期，即22%的时间里下降，在这些投资期的平均损失为84,000美元。平均成本投资法只在180期，即18%的时间里有损失，平均损失将近57,000美元。

Bottom line: Having some money in cash blunted losses in the short run, but in the long run it dragged down returns. If you average in, you are choosing to pay higher prices down the road for the protection it buys you against losses and regrets today, or you are betting on a paradigm shift where stocks and bonds won't continue to outperform cash.

基本结论：保留部分现金会在短期内减少损失，但在长期内将降低收益。如果你采用平均成本投资法，就相当于选择了在将来支付更高的价格，换取对目前损失风险的防范，要么就是你认定将出现范式转移，即股票和债券的表现不会持续胜过现金。

Mr. Courtney has one solution for the risk-averse with a large sum to invest: Try investing one-quarter to one-half of the money upfront and the rest over six months to a year. That way, if the market does fall, at least you'll get some of your money in at the lower prices.

考特尼为有一大笔钱可以投资的风险厌恶者提供了一种解决方法：尝试先投资1/4至1/2的资金，然后再将剩下的资金在六个月至一年内投资。通过这种方法，如果市场确实下跌，至少你可以较低价格拿回部分资金。

Note: No one is suggesting that you shouldn't invest part of each paycheck in a 401(k) or other automatic investment plan. Such 'periodic investing' fosters healthy savings habits, and is a good way to invest relatively small chunks of money as soon as they become available to you.

注意：没有人建议你不应该拿出每月薪水的一部分投资于401(k)计划或其他自动投资计划。这种“定期投资能培养健康的储蓄习惯，而且是一种有了钱就进行相对小额投资的好方法。

Think of it as lump-sum investing in miniature.

不妨将其视为小规模的一次性投资。