query: Invest in low cost small cap index funds when saving towards retirement?

positive: "I think you're on the right track with that strategy. If you want to learn more about this strategy, I'd recommend ""The Intelligent Asset Allocator"" by William Bernstein. As for the Über–Tuber portfolio you linked to, my only concern would be that it is diversified in everything except for the short-term bond component, which is 40%. It might be worth looking at some portfolios that have more than one bond allocation -- possibly diversifying more across corporate vs government, and intermediate vs short term. Even the Cheapskate's portfolio located immediately above the Über–Tuber has 20% Corporate and 20% Government. Also note that they mention: Because it includes so many funds, it would be expensive and unwieldy for an account less than $100,000. Regarding your question about the disadvantages of an index-fund-based asset allocation strategy:"

positive: You can simply stick with some index funds that tracks the S&P 500 and Ex-US world market. That should provide some good diversification. And of course, you should always have a portion of your money in short/mid term bond fund, rebalancing your stock/bond ratio all the way as deemed necessary. If you want to follow the The Über–Tuber portfolio, you'd better make sure that there's minimum overlapping among the underlying shares that they hold.

negative: "First, two preliminaries, to address good points people made in comments. As AbraCadaver noted, before you move your $30k to something that might lose money, make sure you have enough cash to serve as an emergency fund in case you lose your income. Especially remember that big stock market crashes often go hand-in-hand with widespread layoffs. Also, you mentioned that you're maxed out in a 401k. As JoeTaxpayer hinted, this could very well already be invested in stocks, and, if it isn't, probably a big part of it should be. Regarding your $30k, you don't need to pay anybody. In general, fees and expenses can form a big drag on your investments, and it's good to avoid them as much as possible. In particular, especially with ""only"" $30k, it's unlikely that advisers can save you more than they cost. Also, all financial advisers have a cost: the ""free"" ones usually push you into investing in expensive funds that make them money at your expense. In that regard, keep in mind that, unlike a lawyer or a doctor, a financial adviser is not required by law to give advice that's in your best interest. When investing, there is a pretty short list of important considerations that you should keep in mind: (If anyone has any other points they think are similarly important, feel free to suggest an edit.) Practically speaking, I'd suggest investing in index funds. These are mutual funds that invest very broadly, in a ""passive"" way that doesn't spend a lot of effort (and money) trying to pick individual high-performing stocks or anything like that. Index funds provide a lot of diversification and tend to have low expense ratios. (Other, ""actively managed"" funds tend to be more expensive and often don't outperform index funds anyway.) If you're saving for retirement, there are even target date funds that are themselves composed of a small number of index funds (often domestic and international stocks and bonds), and will increase the proportion invested in bonds (safer) as they get closer to a target retirement date. See, for example the Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 fund. A fund like that one might be all you need if you are saving for retirement. Finally, you can invest online without paying any advisers. Not all companies are created equal, however; do your research. I personally highly recommend Vanguard, since they have a wide variety of no-load index funds and tend to have very low expense ratios. (No-load means you don't have to pay a fee to buy and sell.) Part of why they are inexpensive is that, unlike most financial companies, they are actually a cooperative owned by those who invest in their funds, so they don't need to try and milk a profit out of you. (Don't let that suggest that they're some ""small-potatoes hippie firm"", though: they're actually one of the largest.) I hope I helped. Keep posting if you have more questions!"

negative: "The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account.  The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year.  In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the ""holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income"" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence.  Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche ""continue to live like a student."" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement.  In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly.  If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as ""retirement"" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target."

negative: "In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by ""fundamental indexation"" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is ""price-weighted"" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by ""fundamentals"" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan."

negative: "I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically ""the best"" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500.  The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time.  The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes.  VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, ""passive index investing"" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were ""the best"" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO.  The argument for ""passive index investing"" is simplified for public consumption.  The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees.  In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings.  Investment professionals generally want to avoid ""How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%?  If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold.  They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon?  Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission?  For this simplicity you give up three basis points?  It seems pretty reasonable to me."

negative: "Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age.  This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc).  If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans.  (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two.  Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older.  You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules.  The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk.  There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept.  #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is ""100 minus your age"".  This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks.  If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock.  Over the years, the ""100"" number has varied.  Some financial advisor types have suggested ""150"" or ""200"".  Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly.  At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild.  Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation.  If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary.  (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options.  I do suggest that your focus on selecting a ""passive"" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like ""total market"" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies.  (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.)  The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision.  A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices.  Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments.  There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio).  However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/"

negative: "Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the ""Freedom Funds"" offered.  They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds.  That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account.  All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older.  If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here?  Let's do a quick example.  Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%).  I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds.  Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25:  $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25:  $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year!  Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company.  This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee.  Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund).  Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA.  That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want.  Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those.  Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!"

negative: "Vanguard's Admiral shares are like regular (""investor"") shares in their funds, only they charge lower expense ratios. They have higher investment minimums, though. (For instance, the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund has a minimum of $3,000 and an expense ratio of .18% for the Investor Shares class, but a minimum of $10,000 and an expense ratio of .07% for Admiral Shares). If you've bought a bunch of investor shares and now meet the (recently-reduced) minimum for Admiral shares, or if you have some and buy some more investor shares in the future and meet the minimums, you will qualify for a free, no-tax-impact conversion to the Admiral Shares and save yourself some money. For more information, see the Vanguard article on their recent changes to Admiral Shares minimums. Vanguard also offers institutional-class shares with even lower expense ratios than that (with a minimum of $5 million, .06% expense ratios on the same fund). A lot of the costs of operating a fund are per-individual, so they don't need to charge you extra fees for putting in more money after a certain point. They'd rather be competitive and offer it at cost. Vanguard's funds typically have very low expense ratios to begin with. (The investor shares I've been using as an example are advertised as ""84% lower than the average expense ratio of funds with similar holdings"".) In fact, Vanguard's whole reason for existing is the premise (stated in founder John C Bogle's undergraduate thesis at Princeton) that individuals can generally get better returns by investing in a cheap fund that tracks an index than by investing in mutual funds that try to pick stocks and beat the index and charge you a steep markup. The average real return of the stock market is supposedly something like 4%; even a small-looking percentage like 1% can eat a big portion of that. Over the course of 40 years waiting for retirement, saving 1% on expenses could leave you with something like 50% more money when you've retired. If you are interested in the lower expense ratios of the Admiral share classes but cannot meet the minimums, note that funds which are available as ETFs can be traded from Vanguard brokerage accounts commission-free and typically charge the same expense ratios as the Admiral shares without any minimums (but you need to trade them as individual shares, and this is less convenient than moving them around in specific dollar amounts)."

negative: "Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an ""actively managed"" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to ""time the market"" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years)."

negative: "Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is ""too good to not get into"" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund."

negative: What's the best strategy? Buy low and sell high. Now. A lot of people try to do this. A few are successful, but for the most part, people who try to time the market end up worse. A far more successful strategy is to save over your entire lifetime, put the money into a very low-cost market fund, and just let the average performance take you to retirement. Put another way, if you think that there is an obvious, no-fail, double-your-money-due-to-a-correction strategy, you're wrong. Otherwise everyone would do it. And someone who tells you that there is such a strategy almost surely will be trying to separate you from a good amount of your money.  In the end, $80K isn't a life-altering, never-have-to-work-again amount of money. What I think you ought to do with it is: pay off any credit card debts you may have, pay a significant chunk of student loan or other personal loan debts you may have, make sure you have a decent emergency fund set aside, and then put the rest into diversified low-cost mutual funds. Think of it as a nice leg-up towards your retirement.

negative: "They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index.   Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the   size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap   stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And   most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap   weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total   market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and   market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn   the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting   down in the index.  Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the   economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger   representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is   true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market   cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price   rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact   opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in   underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The ""Composite Index"",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it   introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small   number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index   expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current   500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In   1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged   with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics   Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation.   The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957.   Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in   real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general   level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value   stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement   with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics   computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial   Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index.   Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard   & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P   sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: ""In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,"" said   David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there   are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision   and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads   of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones."

negative: There is a strange puzzle today where savings account interest rates are not rising in-line with the Federal Funds rate. Either customers are apathetic to their alternative uses of cash, or banks have some-how formed a cartel to keep their cost of funding low. I'm leaning towards the former since bank customers today likely value readily accessible cash more than the interest rate they could earn by investing in money market mutual funds.

negative: Let's look at some of your options: In a savings account, your $40,000 might be earning maybe 0.5%, if you are lucky.  In a year, you'll have earned $200.  On the plus side, you'll have your $40,000 easily accessible to you to pay for moving, closing costs on your new house, etc. If you apply it to your mortgage, you are effectively saving the interest on the amount for the life of the loan.  Let's say that the interest rate on your mortgage is 4%.  If you were staying in the house long-term, this interest would be compounded, but since you are only going to be there for 1 year, this move will save you $1600 in interest this year, which means that when you sell the house and pay off this mortgage, you'll have $1600 extra in your pocket. You said that you don't like to dabble in stocks.  I wouldn't recommend investing in individual stocks anyway.  A stock mutual fund, however, is a great option for investing, but only as a long-term investment.  You should be able to beat your 4% mortgage, but only over the long term.  If you want to have the $40,000 available to you in a year, don't invest in a mutual fund now. I would lean toward option #2, applying the money to the mortgage.  However, there are some other considerations: Do you have any other debts, maybe a car loan, student loan, or a credit card balance?  If so, I would forget everything else and put everything toward one or more of these loans first. Do you have an emergency fund in place, or is this $40,000 all of the cash that you have available to you?  One rule of thumb is that you have 3 to 6 months of expenses set aside in a safe, easily accessible account ready to go if something comes up.   Are you saving for retirement?  If you don't already have retirement savings in place and are adding to it regularly, some of this cash would be a great start to a Roth IRA or something like that, invested in a stock mutual fund. If you are already debt free except for this mortgage, you might want to do some of each: Keep $10,000 in a savings account for an emergency fund (if you don't already have an emergency fund), put $5,000 in a Roth IRA (if you aren't already contributing a satisfactory amount to a retirement account), and apply the rest toward your mortgage.

negative: What explains the most of the future returns of a portfolio is the allocation between asset classes. In the long term, stock investments are almost certain to return more than any other kinds of investments. For 40+ years, I would choose a portfolio of 100% stocks. How to construct the portfolio, then? Diversification is the key. You should diversify in time (don't put a large sum of money into your stock portfolio immediately; if you have a large sum to invest, spread it around several years). You should diversify based on company size (invest in both large and small companies). You should also diversify internationally (don't invest in just US companies). If you prefer to pick individual stocks, 20 very carefully selected stocks may provide enough diversification if you keep diversification in mind during stock picking. However, careful stock picking cannot be expected to yield excess returns, and if you pick stocks manually, you need to rebalance your portfolio occasionally. Thus, if you're lazy, I would recommend a mutual fund, or many mutual funds if you have difficulty finding a low-cost one that is internationally diversified. The most important consideration is the cost. You cannot expect careful fund selection to yield excess returns before expenses. However, the expenses are certain costs, so prefer low-cost funds. Almost always this means picking index funds. Avoid funds that have a small number of stocks, because they typically invest only in the largest companies, which means you fail to get diversification in company size. So, instead of Euro STOXX 50, select STOXX 600 when investing to the European market. ETFs may have lower costs than traditional mutual funds, so keep ETFs in mind when selecting the mutual funds in which to invest. For international diversification, do not forget emerging markets. It is not excessive to invest e.g. 20% to emerging markets. Emerging markets have a higher risk but they also have a higher return. A portfolio that does not include emerging markets is not in my opinion well diversified. When getting close to retirement age, I would consider increasing the percentage of bonds in the portfolio. This should be done primarily by putting additional money to bonds instead of selling existing investments to avoid additional taxes (not sure if this applies to other taxation systems than the Finnish one). Bond investments are best made though low-cost mutual funds as well. Keep bond investments in your local currency and risk-free assets (i.e. select US government bonds). Whatever you do, remember that historical return is no guarantee of future return. Actually, the opposite may be true: there is a mean reversion law. If a particular investment has returned well in the past, it often means its price has gone up, making it more likely that the price goes down in the future. So don't select a fund based on its historical return; instead, select a fund based on low costs. However, I'm 99% certain that over a period of 40 years, stocks will return better than other investments. In addition to fund costs, taxes are the other certain thing that will be deducted from your returns. Research what options you have to reduce the taxes you need to pay. 401-K was explained in another answer; this may be a good option. Some things recommended in other answers that I would avoid:

negative: To a certain extent, small cap companies will in general follow the same trends as large cap companies. The extent of this cointegration depends on numerous factors, but a prime reason is the presence of systemic risk, i.e. the risk to the entire market. In simple terms, sthis is the risk that your portfolio will approach asymptotically as you increase its diversification, and it's why hedging is also important.  That being said, small cap businesses will, in general, likely do worse than large cap stocks, for several reasons. This was/is certainly the case in the Great Recession.  Small cap businesses have, on average, higher betas, which is a measure of a company's risk compared to the overall market. This means that small cap companies, on average outperform large cap companies during boom times, but it also means that they suffer more on average during bear times. The debate over whether or not the standard beta is still useful for small cap companies continues, however. Some economists feel that small cap companies are better measured against the Russell 2000 or similar indexes instead of the S&P 500.  Small cap companies may face problems accessing or maintaining access to lines of credit. During the Great Recession, major lenders decreased their lending to small businesses, which might make it harder for them to weather the storm.  On a related point, small businesses might not have as large an asset base to use as collateral for loans in bad times. One notable large cap company that used its asset base to their advantage was Ford, which gave banks partial ownership of its factories during hard times. This a) gave Ford a good amount of cash with which to continue their short-term operations, and b) gave the banks a vested interest in keeping Ford's lines of credit open. Ford struggled, but it never faced the financial problems of GM and Chrysler.  Despite political rhetoric about Main Street vs. Wall Street, small businesses don't receive as much government aid in times of crisis as some large cap companies do. For example, the Small Business Lending Fund, a brilliant but poorly implemented idea in 2010, allocated less than $30 billion to small businesses. (The actual amount loaned was considerably less). Compare that to the amounts loaned out under TARP. Discussions about corporate lobbying power aside, small businesses aren't as crucial to the overall stability of the financial system Small businesses don't always have the manpower to keep up with changes in regulation. When the Dodd-Frank Act passed, large banks (as an example), could hire more staff to understand it and adapt to it relatively easily; small banks, however, don't always have the resources to invest in such efforts.  There are other reasons, some of which are industry-specific, but these are some of the basic ones.  If you want visual confirmation that small cap businesses follow a similar trend, here is a graph of the Russell 2000 and S&P 500 indexes:  Here is a similar graph for the Russell 2000 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average.   If you wanted to confirm this technically and control for the numerous complicated factors (overlap between indexes, systemic risk, seasonal adjustment, etc.), just ask and I'll try to run some numbers on it when I have a chance. Keep in mind, too, that looking at a pretty picture is no substitute for rigorous financial econometrics. A basic start would be to look at the correlation between the indexes, which I calculate as 0.9133 and 0.9526, respectively. As you can see, they're pretty close. Once again, however, the reality is more complicated technically, and a sufficiently detailed analysis is beyond my capabilities. Just a quick side note. These graphs show the logarithm of the values of the indexes, which is a common statistical nuance that is used when comparing time series with radically different magnitudes but similar trends.  S&P500 and Russell 2000 data came from Yahoo! Finance, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average data came from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) Per usual, I try to provide code whenever possible, if I used it. Here is the Stata code I used to generate the graphs above. This code assumes the presence of russell2000.csv and sp500.csv, downloaded from Yahoo! Finance, and DJIA.csv, downloaded from FRED, in the current directory.  Fidelity published an article  on the subject that you might find interesting, and Seeking Alpha has several pieces related to small-cap vs. large-cap returns that might be worth a read too.

negative: Pay the highest rate debt first, it's as simple as that. When that debt is paid (the 24% card in this case) pay off the next one.  As far as having an emergency fund is concerned, I consider it a second priority. If one owes 24% money, that $2000 emergency fund is costing $480/yr. Ouch. Avoid the behaviors that got you into debt in the first place, and pay the cards off as fast as you can. When you have no balance, start to save, first into the emergency account, then toward retirement.

negative: "From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted   indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by   capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares.   The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including   the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the   market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory   more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything   seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the   whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net   after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a   whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again   highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after   expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for   DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical   significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its   benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to   see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund   has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after   expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust   500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before   (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference   Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic   researchers. Dimensional employs a ""patient buyer"" discount block   trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs,   despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982,   Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to   calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks,   Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of   stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a ""representative sample.""   Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask   spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could   tell the market makers in these stocks, ""Look old chaps, we don't have   to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll   pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a   motivated seller wishes to unload a large block."" In a sense, this   gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices   more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term   returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a   decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest   markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks,   which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less   in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index   Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the   idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line   seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you   gotta buy an index fund."

negative: Rules of thumb? Sure - Put down 20% to pay no PMI.  The mortgage payment (including property tax) should be no more than 28% of your gross monthly income.  These two rules will certainly put a cap on the home price. If you have more than the 20% to put down on the house you like, stop right here. Don't put more down and don't buy a bigger house. Set that money aside for long term investing (i.e. retirement savings) or your emergency fund. You can always make extra payments and shorten the length of the mortgage, you just can't easily get it back.  In my opinion, one is better off getting a home that's too small and paying the transaction costs to upsize 5-10 years later than to buy too big, and pay all the costs associated with the home for the time you are living there. The mortgage, property tax, maintenance, etc. The too-big house can really take it toll on your wallet.

negative: ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more.  sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this.  One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years.  And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff.  Last, welcome to SE.    Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you.  To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.

negative: "You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word.  An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard.  The S&P 500 is an example of an index.  The S&P 500 ""index includes 500 leading companies"", many finical companies sell products which track to this index.  The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs).  Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index.  Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares.  If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index.  Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering.  Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds.  For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund).  If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%.  These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month.  When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals).  Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first."

negative: First of all, congratulations on your home purchase.  The more equity you build in your house, the more of the sale price you get out of it when you move to your next house.  This will enable you to consume more house in the future.  Think of it as making early payments towards your next down payment. Another option is to save up a chunk of money and recast your mortgage, paying down the principal and having the resulting amount re-amortized to provide you with a lower monthly payment.  You may be able to do this at least once during your time in the house, and if you do it early enough it can potentially help your savings in other areas. On the other hand, it is possible given today's low interest rates for mortgages that in other forms of investments (such as index funds) you could make more on the money you'd be putting towards your extra payments.  Then you would have more money in savings when you go to sell this house and buy the next one that you would in equity if you didn't go that route.  This is riskier than building equity in your home, but potentially has a bigger pay-off. You do the trade-offs.

negative: 4.7 is a pretty low rate, especially if you are deducting that from your taxes.  If you reduce the number by your marginal tax rate to get the real cost of the money you end up with a number that isn't far off from inflation, and also represents a pretty low 'yield' in terms of paying off the loan early.  (e.g.  if your marginal tax rate is 28%, then the net you are paying in interest after the tax deduction is 4.7 * .72 = 3.384) While I'm all for paying off loans with higher rates (since it's in effect the same as making that much risk free on the money) it doesn't make a lot of sense when you are down at 3.4 unless there is a strong 'security factor' (which really makes a difference to some folks) to be had that really helps you sleep at night.  (to be realistic, for some folks close to retirement, there can be a lot to be said for the security of not having to worry about house payments, although you don't seem to be in that situation yet)  As others have said, first make sure you have enough liquid 'emergency money' in something like a money market account, or a ladder of short term CD's  If you are sure that the sprouts will be going to college, then there's a lot to be said for kicking a decent amount into a 529, Coverdell ESA (Educational Savings Account), uniform gift to minors account, or some combination of those.  I'm not sure if any of those plans can be used for a kid that has not been born yet however.  I'd recommend http://www.savingforcollege.com as a good starting point to get more information on your various options.   As with retirement savings, money put in earlier has a lot more 'power' over the final balance due to compounding interest, so there's a lot to be said for starting early, although depending on what it takes to qualify for the plans there could be such a thing as too early ;-) ). There's nothing wrong with Managed mutual funds as long as the fund objective and investing style is in alignment with your objectives and risk tolerance; The fund is giving you a good return relative to the market as a whole; You are not paying high fees or load charges; You are not losing a lot to taxes.  I would always look at the return after expenses when comparing to other options, and if the money is not in a tax deferred account, also look at what sort of tax burden you will be faced with.  A fund that trades a lot will generate more short term gains which means more taxes than compared to a more passive fund.  Anything lost to taxes is money lost to you so needs to come out of the total return when you calculate that.  Sometimes such funds are better off as a choice inside an IRA or 401K, and you can instead use more tax efficient vehicles for money where you have to pay the taxes every year on the gains. The reason a lot of folks like index funds better is that: Given your described age, it's not appropriate now, but in the long run as you get closer to retirement, you may want to start looking at building up some investments that are geared more towards generating income, such as bonds, or depending on taxes where you live, Municipal bonds.  In any case, the more money you can set aside for retirement now, both inside and outside of tax deferred accounts, the sooner you will get to the point of the 'critical mass' you need to retire, at that point you can work because you want to, not because you have to.

negative: Ending up with nothing is an unlikely situation unless you invest 100% in a company stock and the company goes under. In order to give you a good answer we need to see what options your employer gives for 401k investments. The best advice would be to take a list of all options that your employer allows and talk with a financial advisor. Here are a few options that you may or may not have as an option from an employer: Definitions from wikipedia: A target-date fund – also known as a lifecycle, dynamic-risk or age-based fund – is a collective investment scheme, usually a mutual fund, designed to provide a simple investment solution through a portfolio whose asset allocation mix becomes more conservative as the target date (usually retirement) approaches. An index fund or index tracker is a collective investment scheme (usually a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund) that aims to replicate the movements of an index of a specific financial market... An exchange-traded fund (ETF) is an investment fund traded on stock exchanges, much like stocks.[1] An ETF holds assets such as stocks, commodities, or bonds, and trades close to its net asset value over the course of the trading day. Most ETFs track an index, such as a stock index or bond index. ETFs may be attractive as investments because of their low costs, tax efficiency, and stock-like features. The capital stock (or stock) of an incorporated business constitutes the equity stake of its owners. Which one can you lose everything in? You can lose everything in stocks by the company going under. In Index funds the entire market that it follows would have to collapse. The chances are slim here since the index made up of several companies. The S&P 500 is made up of 500 leading companies publicly traded in the U.S.  A Pacific-Europe index such as MSCI EAFE Index is made up of 907 companies. The chances of losing everything in an ETF are also slim. The ETF that follows the S&P 500 is made up of 500 companies. An Pacific-Europe ETF such as MSCI EAFE ETF is made up of 871 companies. Target date funds are also slim to lose everything. Target date funds are made up of several companies like indexes and etfs and also mix in bonds and other investments depending on your age. What would I recommend? I would recommend the Index funds and/or ETFs that have the lowest fee that make up the following strategy for your age: Why Not Target Date Funds or Stocks? Target date funds have high fees. Later in life when you are closer to retirement you may want to add bonds to your portfolio. At that time if this is the only option to add bonds then you can change your elections. Stocks are too risky for you with your current knowledge. If your company matches by buying their stock you may want to consider reallocating that stock at certain points to your Index funds or ETFs.

negative: You should never buy anything that consumes all of your savings. First you should have 6 months living expenses in a liquid account. Second you should be investing for retirement, index funds or ETFs. The longer you have money invested the better off you'll be.  Pragmatically speaking you're better off getting the cheapest car that is reliable. Cars cost money, depreciation and money, every day you own them. However I get the urge to splurge. Get a loan, pay 2x the standard payment amount.

negative: The common opinion is an oversimplification at best. The problem with buying a house using cash is that it may leave you cash-poor, forcing you to take out a home equity loan at some point... which may be at a higher rate than the mortgage would have been. On the other hand, knowing that you have no obligation to a lender is quite nice, and many folks prefer eliminating that source of stress. IF you can get a mortgage at a sufficiently low rate, using it to leverage an investment is not a bad strategy. Average historical return on the stock market is around 8%, so any mortgage rate lower than that is a relatively good bet and a rate MUCH lower (as now) is that much better a bet. There is, of course, some risk involved and the obligation to make mortgage payments, and your actual return is reduced by what you're paying on the mortage... but it's still a pretty good deal. As far as investment vehicles: The same answers apply as always. You want a rate of return higher than what you're paying on the mortgage, preferably market rate of return or better. CDs won't do it, as you've found. You're going to have to increase the risk to increase the return. That does mean picking and maintaining a diversified balance of investments and investment types. Working with index funds makes diversifying within a type easy, but you're probably going to want both stocks and bonds, rebalancing between them when they drift too far from your desired mix.  My own investments are a specific mix with one each of bond fund, large cap fund, small cap fund, REIT, and international fund. Bonds are the biggest part of that, since they're lowest risk, but the others play a greater part in producing returns on the investments. The exact mix that would be optimal for you depends on your risk tolerance (I'm classified as a moderately aggressive investor), the time horizon you're looking at before you may be forced to pull money back out of the investments, and some matters of personal taste. I've been averaging about 10%, but I had the luxury of being able to ride out the depression and indeed invest during it. Against that, my mortgage is under 4% interest rate, and is for less than 80% of the purchase price so I didn't need to pay the surcharge for mortgage insurance. In fact, I borrowed only half the cost of the house and paid the rest in cash, specifically because leveraging does involve some risk and this was the level of risk I was comfortable with. I also set the duration of the loan so it will be paid off at about the same time I expect to retire. Again, that's very much a personal judgement. If you need specific advice, it's worth finding a financial counselor and having them help you run the numbers. Do NOT go with someone associated with an investment house; they're going to be biased toward whatever produces the most income for them. Select someone who is strictly an advisor; they may cost you a bit more but they're more likely to give you useful advice. Don't take my word for any of this. I know enough to know how little I know. But hopefully I've given you some insight into what the issues are and what questions you need to ask, and answer, before making your decisions.

negative: Carrying $5k debt would cost you $400 per year at an 8% interest rate. At 19%, that would be $950 per year. Pay off your cc debt, put the other 2k on your student loans, and the money you save in interest on your cc debt goes toward your student loans too. When all your debts are paid off, you have an emergency fund saved up (usually 3 months' living expenses), you've met all your other goals (car, house, college fund for the kids, retirement fund), and you still have some money to spend, then go to Vegas and enjoy yourself while probably losing it all.

negative: I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do.  There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier.  Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail.  So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague.  Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares).  Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other  wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose.  US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead.  Some links for further reference:  Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful.  Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds.  I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.

negative: "Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be ""yes.""  Diversification is good.""  Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified.  If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification.  There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund.  Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well?  It depends on what your funds are.  Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment.  If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your ""favorite fund"" early on.  As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not.  I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund.  Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there.  But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things.  You didn't know early on which fund would do well.  You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory.  You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age.  This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory.  Generally speaking, they are not.  They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics.  For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory.  It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things.  Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified.  The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice.  Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be.  There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance.  Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record.  Perhaps the manager really was skilled.  However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight  (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so.  However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a ""hot streak"" and ""can't lose.""  They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy.  This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer.   Diversifying across asset classes.  Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund.  There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold.  Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio.  I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds.  These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure.  Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes.  They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity.  The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity.  Normally people do not do this, though.  Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds.  I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory.  Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated.  If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund.  Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets  International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees.  You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds.  However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well.  That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste.  I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate.  You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT).  Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be.  REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap.  Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure.  It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory.  In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio.  Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain.  Many researchers feel that the small cap ""premium"" may have been a short-term artifact in the data.  Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class.  Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds.  Half the market can be classed as ""value"", while the other half is ""growth.""  Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund.  Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory.  If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds.  There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector.  If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds.  Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent.  Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do.  Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class.  There's very little if any advantage to doing that."

negative: My opinion is that 50% savings is the number to shoot for, and I strive toward that number as often as possible.  10% - savings for retirement 10% - savings for short term emergency fund 25% - payment on mortgage principal 5% - savings for planned big purchases I overpay the principal so that 25% of my income goes to principal payments, and I separately account for the mortgage interest/home owners insurance as another expense in my budget.  Because of this aggressive payment schedule, the house I bought 2 years ago will be payed in full in another 9 years.  I own another property outright that I paid down in the same fashion and I collect rent on it as a supplement to my income.  I started with a small townhouse that I could easily afford, but now I have a much larger home that I can still easily afford. The emergency fund doesn't need to be more than 6 months of expenses, which is 3 months of income if your expenses are only 50% of your income.  I keep 6 months of expenses liquid and another 12 in a low risk investment.  Once you have your emergency fund funded, you can add that percentage to a different category (say 15% to retirement and 10% to planned big purchases), or you can over-fund it.  I have had a few catastrophes that have depleted that fund, so I like having the extra 12 months of income available. I set the last 5% aside for wants that are not regular expenses.  If I want a car, I save 5% of my income until I can pay cash for it.  I have an infinite number of these wants, so I prioritize them and buy them in order when the cash becomes available. The reason I use percentages is to keep me focused when my income increases. Instead of spending all the additional money that I could afford to spend each time I get a raise. I instead only increase my expenses to the 50% mark.  It was much harder to save 50% when I got my first job out of college, but now I live quite comfortably on that percentage and I could take a large hit to my income before I would need to make significant changes to my lifestyle.

negative: If I were you, I would pay off my student loans today or tomorrow.  Wouldn't it be nice to be completely debt free and not owe anyone anything?  It doesn't matter what the interest rate of the loan is; there is no need to spend anymore time trying to worry about whether or not the market will allow you to make a tiny bit extra over what you are spending in interest on the loan.  Just get rid of the debt, and you will get to keep every bit of the growth of your investments from here on out. After the student loans are paid off, that leaves you with $15k.  I would take $10k and put it in a savings account for an emergency fund, and put $5k as a start toward your retirement savings in a Roth IRA. At this point, with a fully funded emergency fund, a start on your retirement savings, and no debts, you have really set yourself up for success.  Learn how to budget your income so that you spend less than you make and can save up toward goals like a car (paid for in cash) and a down payment on a house.

negative: There are three basic concepts finance (as far as I'm concerned). Liquidity is basically an asset's spendability.  Assets range in liquidity from cash (very liquid) to real estate (not very liquid).  You can spend cash immediately, while real estate must first be converted to cash.   Another important concept is your time horizon.  When do you need your money.  Money you need in the near term should be kept in very liquid assets, while money you won't need for a significantly long time can be tied in to something much less liquid. Volatility is the degree to which an assets value is predictable from day to day.  Cash and guaranteed savings accounts have very low volatility, while a stock portfolio will fluctuate in value from day to day, sometimes a lot and sometimes you can lose your initial investment. So really, you need to determine what you need or want this money for, and depending on when you'll need it you can make decisions about whether or not to invest it, or keep it in a savings account, or keep it in literal actual cash. Your TFSA is maxed for the year, so that's out.  Do you have an emergency fund?  Do you want to travel or have other more near term desires that cost money?  If you have a solid financial foundation and already have an emergency fund, you may want to set up a brokerage account and invest in an index fund.  You should not invest money in the stock market unless you are ready to leave it there for at least a few years.  Stocks are volatile but over a long enough period the market generally goes up. In your search for the right index fund, watch out for fees.  Most big brokers will have a list of funds you can invest in with no up front fees and no commission.  The fund itself will charge an expense ratio, look for an index fund with an expense ratio around 0.10%.  This means you'll pay 0.10% of your holdings each year to the fund manager.   No matter how much money we're talking about, I wouldn't put more than half in the market.  Dip your toe in, get used to the value fluctuating.  Don't start reading about technical analysis and derivative trading.  Just put your money in a very low fee big market index and let it ride.

negative: "Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification:  Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner.  Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ.  You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition.  If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position.  Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what ""sector"" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up.    Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%.  At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%.  See how that works?  Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based.  There is an additional twist to this -- currencies.  The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain.  Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain.   Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more ""room to run"" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion.  Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time.  The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income.  So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY.  S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is.  If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index.  In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides.  To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value.   After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's ""all major countries that aren't the USA"" - check out EFA.  In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in.  So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself.  Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it."