dollar cost averaging & Beta

If your planning on investing in a fund through DCA for the next 10 years how important is the beta ratio of the fund?

I have read and re-read the definitions, and I think that they are clearly confusing. The best answer is to judge by the "Return per Unit of Risk", but for which I can not give you a formular. It is also known as (RUR). A Beta of 1 indicates that the fund's historical returns are the same as it's benchmark. A Beta of greater than 1 indicates it's historical returns are greater than it's benchmark, which is good. If you are asking about Fidelity Funds, their funds do have a RUR on the first page of each fund, under the chart. If you have a copy of FIDELITY"S Mutual Fund Guide see page the Glossary on page 461, and separate pages about each Fidelity Fund. However, If you wish a complete definition of terms or the latest information aboout a FIDELITY Fund, contact me at corgicorner@verizon.net and put "MutualFunds" in the subject area to keep your e-mail out of my junk pile. Thank you.

I was really after a definition really. Basically I wanted to know if there are 2 funds that double in price over a five year period. One is a smooth incline and the other very volatile. If I am investing through dollar cost averaging will the volatile fund give a considerable higher return

articledon, the short answer to your question is yes ... in this case the DCA into the MORE volatile fund should produce a better return. that said, if you are able to invest it all at once and not ease into the market, you should have a smaller overall gain than DCA - i am speaking quite generally.

corgi, while what you stated is correct about beta the point you are making is invalid in the extreme. what went unsaid in your post is the logical next thought. if the market dropped 10% and the beta was 2 then you could expect the fund to drop by 20%. now, the veracity of beta is not all inclusive. there are many funds that carry considerably LESS volatility yet only slightly underperform the market (or its norm of 1). however, on down years they retain considerably more of their gains than the market so in the LONG run (over 5 years) you may find that a fund with a beta of .7 kicks the ever loving crapola out of the index.

finally, lets remember that you also need to guage the value that the management team brings to (or fails to bring to) the situation. generally an index is not only S L O W to move, but it broadcasts its move through press releases from the board. cutting a tenth of a percent here or there can have a phenomenal long term cumulative return effect on a portfolio.

course, i could be wrong.