Compound The cost of waiting
The first euros are the hardest-working euros. Waiting doesn't cost you what you didn't deposit; it costs you the decade those euros would have compounded.
Two people invest €500 a month at 7% and both stop in the same year. One starts today, the other starts 10 years later.
| Start now | Start in 10 years | |
|---|---|---|
| Years investing | 30 | 20 |
| Total deposited | €180,000 | €120,000 |
| Ends with | ≈ €610,000 | ≈ €260,000 |
The late starter deposited only €60,000 less but finishes about €350,000 behind. To catch up in 20 years they would need roughly €1,170 a month, more than double.
Why it matters for you
The early years look boring because the growth is small. They matter most anyway: those are the euros with the longest time to compound. This doesn't mean rushing all your cash into stocks today. It means not letting long-term money sit idle once you've set aside what you need.
Three shares, 75 years
In 1935, in the middle of the Great Depression, a 26-year-old secretary named Grace Groner bought three shares of her employer, Abbott Laboratories, for $60 each. About $180 in total.
She never sold. The shares split many times and she reinvested every dividend. She lived in a one-bedroom cottage and shopped at rummage sales. When she died in 2010, those three shares had grown into more than $7 million, which she left to her old college, Lake Forest, to fund student travel and internships.
Why does a 10-year delay cost far more than the deposits you skipped?
Because the skipped deposits are the earliest ones, which would have compounded the longest. Each euro invested at the start of 30 years at 7% becomes about €7.6; a euro invested 10 years later becomes only about €3.9.