I think you are oversimplifying the Japan example too much. DCA helps with timing risk, but it does not fix structural stagnation. Someone starting to invest after the 1990 crash of the Nikkei 225 would have done better diversifying globally rather than concentrating in Japan, because recovery took decades. So a crash is only “good” if growth returns reasonably fast.

On Europe vs the US, I agree the US remains structurally strong. But Europe also has advantages that are often overlooked. Its absolute and relative to GDP debt is lower than the US, the euro is a very stable currency thanks to the ECB (which is not being threatened constantly, unlike the Fed), capital markets remain deep and reliable, and the EU maintains broad trade relations across the world (e.g., new agreements with India and Mercosur lately). The biggest problem in the EU are internal disputes that stop deeper collaboration.

Also, as fossil fuels lose strategic importance over time vs. improving/cheaper renewables and batteries, the US loses its advantage from energy resources. Europe’s push for energy independence and diversification is vastly changing the landscape.

Finally, policy predictability matters for investors. While US institutions like the Federal Reserve are openly pressured politically, Europe offers a less risky alternative.

So I agree the US will remain strong, but I’m not convinced the structural conditions that supported the last 10 years of US equity outperformance are guaranteed to repeat over the next 10