>Investment delayed is money lost? That's pretty corny. Is that some kind of ...?
Pay attention. The point is, one shouldn't delay sticking money into the stock market. Start early and take advantage of compounding your gains. If you postpone ...

>Why don't you just show me a picture. Okay, here's a picture: If you had invested $100 per month, since January, 1950, then you'd have a million dollars by the end of year 2000. >In the S&P500? Yes, and ... >And exactly 1,000,000 dollars? Well, close enough for our purposes. It's actually $1,011,229.14, but I think we can assume it's $1M, okay? Anyway, if you had started five years later, in January/55, you'd have had to invest $152 per month in order to end up with the same amount. If you had started in Jan/70 you'd have had to invest $352 and if you started ...

>I get the picture. If you were stoopid enough to start in 1995 you'd have to sock away ... what? $9,000 per month? It's $9,305, but that's a bit unrealistic ... to wait that long. The point is, the amount required grows dramatically as delay is extended. Here's just the first forty years: Besides, if your investments are in some tax deferred pension plan ... >If you ask me, I'd say Investment Delayed is Money Lost. Brilliant.