I will gladly offer some friendly advice based on my experience and readings.

1. Regular investing is a good idea for most of us, particularly for a 401(k). It’s hard if not impossible to time the market. Big rallies take place on a handful of days, so we don’t want to miss those. For a 401(k), company matches are also based on paycheck contributions, so you don’t want to miss those.

2. The “buying low” argument for regular investing never really made sense to me. If a stock were to fall even lower, I would rather have waited. If it will go higher, then I would like to buy even more. There are studies that show lump-sum investing beats regular investing. The problem is most of us don’t have lump-sums to invest. So I think the “buying low” argument is a convenient way to support the idea of regular investing, which is a good idea.

3. If you are worried, you can consider changing investments. After all, a 401(k) is an account with many options. The problem is you might miss a rally when you switch to a “safer” investment. Such a choice depends on your time horizon. Investors who need investment income when approaching retirement are told to rely on bonds rather than stocks, so they adjust appropriately.

Personally, I’ve kept my regular investing up in the same funds, but I have not added more investments as I used to to. Hence, I now have more cash than I usually do (in a high-yield savings account).

About point 3, in terms of fluctuations in investments, if you’re investing long-term, assuming for retirement, and you have some liquid assets for an emergency situation, does it matter much what fluctuations your investments have? As long as they’re worth much more when you retire that’s the goal right? I feel like I’m missing something here.

1) sure, but let’s pretend we’re investors who are batting above .500

2) right, inflation doesn’t matter over two-years, but aren’t we talking about long-term investments? i mean, patience is pretty key to good investing. anything short term isn’t investing, it’s bloody speculation and gambling…

3) baseball’s a bad example since the farm system is unique amongst all pro sports. basketball might be a better example, football being the best. sports on the whole, is not a good metaphor for that. middle-class, white-collar management jobs or software jobs might be a better illustration. the whole reason ageism matters is stability of income–as a younger person, you have a higher average chance (not saying you’re a hotshot VP) of having a stable income to ride out fluctuations in investments. as an average older person, it’s likely that the number of future years where you’re likely to have a stable income are numbered and thus much less likely to sustain risky investments.