I think its generally better to be cost averaging - why does everyone always prefix this with dollar or pound when the two words will do
However, I think the exception to this is when we have had a big crash (2020 would be a prime example)
So I wouldn't put *all* your disposable into cost averaging.
This is where you want to have had some cash to throw at it, you know its coming back, its just a matter of time. If you had bought RMG in the dip for example you would be looking at 14% yield on cost now
I feel cost averaging investing is better. Because cost averaging can help reduce the impact of short-term price swings. It helps to minimize the impact of volatility when investing. As we know that the market can be extreme and vary significantly.
If you get Lump sum in form of inheritance or Capital gain, then lump sum investing would be better. As money's value decreases every day it is better to invest quickly in a good companies share. Rather than keeping it idle in savings bank account.
But if you go for systematic investment Cost averaging is much better investment method compared to lump sum investing. Can accumulate shares at lower prices and can get a very good return in the long run. Risk is also minimized in Cost averaging method.
I am a executive and get paid every month. So, I invest every month. This seems efficient for me and I can avail many tax benefits thanks to this. At the year end when I file for my income tax returns it's very easy for me, I can work peacefully without rushing or hurrying. And I also cut my losses in stocks invested and would adjust in the gains I made. This frees up my capital and helps me save money in taxes. Saving today is more important than investing tomorrow. Because you can invest tomorrow only if you save today.