By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel agrees that while dollar-cost averaging (DCA) helps mitigate emotional decision-making, it does not address underlying valuation risks, particularly the concentration of mega-cap tech stocks in broad ETFs. They warn of potential multiple compression risks if earnings disappoint at high forward multiples.
Risk: Multiple compression in mega-caps if earnings disappoint at high forward multiples
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Fear can often keep investors on the sidelines, missing out on potential gains.
Fear of missing out, meanwhile, can cause investors to pile into hot stocks at the wrong times.
Fear is one of the biggest drivers of investing. It often comes in two forms. The first is the fear of losing money, which can often keep investors from pulling the trigger to invest. This can be because the stock market is trading near all-time highs, like it is now, so some investors worry that they are buying near a top.
However, this is often an overblown worry. The S&P 500 hitting all-time highs is not an unusual event. In fact, a J.P. Morgan study found that since 1950, the S&P 500 has hit a new high on about 7% of all trading days. Meanwhile, it never traded lower on about a third of those occasions. This means that if you waited for a dip, most of the time you were left waiting, missing out on solid gains.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Fear of losing money also often occurs when stocks correct or enter a bear market. While the common mantra is to buy the dip, that is often easier said than done when stocks are getting crushed day in and day out. This also causes some investors to sell with the intent to buy later. However, the market's largest gains typically follow its largest down days, and studies have found that investors who miss these big reversals typically greatly underperform the market.
In addition to the fear of losing money, investors will also get caught up in the fear of missing out (FOMO). When they see the latest hot stock climbing every day and hear other people talking about all the money they've made, it's not uncommon for some investors to start to chase these stocks. That's not always a great decision, as over the long term, valuations do matter, and momentum doesn't last forever. Buying hot stocks that have already climbed a lot often leaves late investors with losses, which is why they are sometimes derogatorily called bag holders.
One of the best ways, in my view, to avoid the trap of emotions affecting your investment decisions is to stick to dollar-cost averaging into index-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs). With dollar-cost averaging, you invest a set amount regularly, regardless of how the market is performing. Over the long term, this will average out your cost basis and set you up to build long-term wealth.
ETFs are the best type of investment to implement this strategy, because they give you an instant portfolio of stocks. Index ETFs, like the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: VOO) and Invesco QQQ Trust (NASDAQ: QQQ), which tracks the Nasdaq-100, are particularly great options with long track records of strong returns. Most individual stocks tend to underperform, but index ETFs do well because they let their winners run.
Stick to this strategy over the long term, and you'll eventually build a million-dollar portfolio with a lot less worry.
Before you buy stock in Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $469,293! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,381,332!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 993% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 207% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 16, 2026. *
JPMorgan Chase is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Geoffrey Seiler has positions in Invesco QQQ Trust and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends JPMorgan Chase and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Dollar-cost averaging into market-cap-weighted ETFs like VOO currently masks extreme sector concentration risk that could lead to prolonged underperformance if tech leadership falters."
The article promotes a passive, dollar-cost averaging (DCA) approach as a panacea for emotional investing, which is sound advice for the average retail participant. However, it glosses over the current concentration risk in the S&P 500. With the top 10 names now accounting for over 35% of the index, buying VOO at all-time highs isn't just 'investing in the market'—it's taking a massive, undiversified bet on a handful of mega-cap tech stocks. While DCA mitigates timing risk, it does not solve for the underlying valuation expansion. We are seeing forward P/E ratios for the Nasdaq-100 nearing 30x, which historically precedes periods of stagnant returns, regardless of your entry timing.
If we are in the early innings of an AI-driven productivity supercycle, current valuations are not 'expensive' but rather a rational reflection of future margin expansion that traditional metrics fail to capture.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"The article undermines its own argument by simultaneously claiming index funds outperform stock picks while advertising a service that claims 993% returns from individual stock picks, signaling the real motive is conversion, not education."
This article conflates two distinct problems. Yes, emotional decision-making hurts returns—that's well-supported. But the prescription (dollar-cost averaging into broad ETFs) is presented as universal truth when it's actually optimal only under specific conditions: long time horizons, stable income, and acceptance of market-rate returns. The J.P. Morgan stat about all-time highs is cherry-picked; it ignores *when* those highs occurred relative to subsequent drawdowns. More critically, the article's own contradiction is glaring: it dismisses individual stock picking as underperforming, then immediately pivots to promoting Stock Advisor's 993% returns via individual picks (Netflix, Nvidia). That's not advice—that's marketing masquerading as analysis.
If the market truly hits all-time highs 7% of trading days with minimal subsequent losses, and DCA into VOO/QQQ compounds reliably, then the article's core thesis is sound—emotions ARE the enemy and passive indexing IS the answer for most retail investors. The Stock Advisor plug, while awkward, doesn't invalidate the base case.
"Dollar-cost averaging into broad-market ETFs can build long-run wealth, but its effectiveness hinges on valuation, macro regime, and ETF concentration risks that the article glosses over."
The piece correctly flags fear as a market driver and promotes dollar-cost averaging into broad ETFs, but it treats that strategy as a universal antidote. In reality, DCA into VOO/QQQ can reduce timing risk, yet it won’t shield you from elevated starting valuations, macro regime shifts (rates, inflation), or a protracted drawdown. The article glosses over the risk of concentration in mega-cap tech within ETFs, the potential for multiple compression if earnings don’t meet lofty expectations, and the possibility that “buy the dip” can underperform in a stagnant or rising-rate environment. Also, the touted Stock Advisor gains don’t guarantee future performance and may reflect selective backtesting.
A bears on this view would argue that at high valuations and with policy uncertainty, passive DCA into indices could underperform a selectively active approach, and a prolonged high-rate regime or AI hype fading could punish broad-market returns more than a few stock picks.
"Passive inflows into concentrated indices are creating a feedback loop that destroys price discovery and increases systemic fragility."
Claude is right to call out the marketing hypocrisy, but everyone is missing the liquidity trap. By pushing passive DCA into mega-cap heavy indices, we are fueling a feedback loop where index inflows force buying of the top 10 names regardless of valuation. This creates a 'passive bubble' where price discovery dies. If retail continues this, we aren't just ignoring volatility; we are creating a systemic fragility that will amplify the eventual unwind.
[Unavailable]
"Index concentration creates valuation risk, not a liquidity trap that invalidates DCA's behavioral benefits."
Gemini's 'passive bubble' thesis conflates two separate risks. Index inflows do concentrate buying in mega-caps, but that's a *liquidity* phenomenon, not a valuation trap—it doesn't invalidate DCA's core edge: behavioral discipline. The real fragility isn't passive indexing itself; it's what happens if earnings disappoint at 30x forward multiples. That's a *multiple compression* risk, not a structural market failure. Passive flows can reverse quickly without systemic collapse.
"Regime-driven multiple compression in mega-caps is the real, under-flagged risk that DCA into megacap ETFs won't shield you from."
Gemini, the 'passive bubble' idea implies a one-way unwind, but the more probable shock is regime-driven multiple compression in mega-caps if policy, rates, or AI earnings disappointments re-rate future cash flows. Concentration remains real, but the bigger risk is that 30x forward multiples in NDX/mega-caps snap back rapidly as discount rates normalize or AI hype cools. DCA won't shield you from that; you’d need hedges, tilt toward cyclicals/value, or dynamic risk controls.
The panel agrees that while dollar-cost averaging (DCA) helps mitigate emotional decision-making, it does not address underlying valuation risks, particularly the concentration of mega-cap tech stocks in broad ETFs. They warn of potential multiple compression risks if earnings disappoint at high forward multiples.
Multiple compression in mega-caps if earnings disappoint at high forward multiples