The illusion of Accumulation Plans. Mistakes to avoid with PACs

Last week in the first part of the article – to which I refer you – we said that: 1) there is a popular investment strategy called PAC or accumulation plan, which consists in the systematic entry into a fund or ETF, for a given period of time, e.g.
5 – 10 – 15 years.
2) I demonstrated that on the Italian BCI performance index in the period 1985 – 2019 it is questionable whether the PAC is an appropriate strategy to manage an already existing capital, as it is less profitable than a PIC and not as prudent as its supporters claim, in terms of capital protection.
In this second part of the study I try to answer the question: "on average, if I had done a PIC or a PAC in the last 30 years or so on various national and international indices, how would it have gone?" It should also be noted that the study does not take into account: – tax effects; – commissions, which have a much more negative impact on the PAC's performance; – a possible alternative investment for the uninvested liquidity, which could benefit the PAC's performance.
The results for the German DAX index are as follows: 1) at 180 months (15 years – from 1988 to 2022), the PIC beats the PAC in 88.70% of cases and the average return of the PIC is 62% % greater than CAP.
Furthermore, the PIC always guarantees a return on invested capital, while the PAC fails to achieve its objective once.
2) at 120 months the PIC beats the PAC in 81.72% of cases with an average revenue 42% higher and the PIC does not guarantee the invested capital in 7.24% of cases compared to 5.52% of cases of PAC.
3) at 60 months the PIC beats the PAC 74.86% of the time with an average gain of 22% higher and fails to safeguard the capital 19.14% of the time compared to 15.71% of the PAC.
For the S&P 500 index (1985 – 2022) (in dollars): 1) at 180 months the PIC beats the PAC 90.15% of the time with an average gain of 62% higher and never fails to safeguard capital.
The PAC fails in 3.41% of cases.
2) at 120 months the PIC beats the PAC 84.57% of the time with an average gain greater than 45% and fails to safeguard the capital in 8.64% of cases.
The PAC fails 6.79% of the time.
3) At 60 months, the PIC beats the PAC in 77.60% of cases with a 22% greater profit and fails to safeguard the initial capital 21.61% of the time compared to 13.54% of the PAC.
Similar numbers can be found on the Nasdaq.
While it is clear that the gain in the case of a PIC is greater than that of a PAC, some less obvious issues also emerge.
1) The CAP does not appear to be a particularly prudent or particularly convenient form of approach to the market due to the periodic costs of handling, which on amounts of a few hundred euros can have a very significant impact.
2) Due to its duration, the PAC tends to suppress, postponing but not resolving, the client's emotional tensions about investing in volatile assets, without actually addressing the issue.
3) The PAC commercially binds the proposer by limiting the customer's options.
4) Finally, if the PAC was proposed as a solution for managing an already existing capital without clarity being given on the possible alternatives, there are indications to suspect that the advice received is more of a commercial than professional nature.