vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
if you know when and by how much something will fluctuate, you can always make money. Buy it when it's cheaper and sell it when it's more expensive. If you just know that it fluctuated a lot recently, then you don't know what it will do next. Most securities that go to zero or go much higher bounce all over the place for a while first.  But you don't know when they'll move decisively lower or higher.  So how could you figure out if you'll make money - you can't know. DCA will on average make you better off, unless the extra commissions are too high relative to your purchase sizes. But it will in retrospect make you worse off in many particular cases. This is true of many investment disciplines, such as rebalancing. They are all based on averages.  If the volatility is random then on average you can buy more shares when the price is lower using DCA. But when the lowest price turns out to have been on a certain day, you'd have been better off with a single lump sum put in on that day. No way to know in advance.  Degree of volatility shouldn't matter; any fluctuation is enough for DCA or rebalancing to get you ahead, though it's true they get you ahead farther if the fluctuations are larger, since there's then more difference between DCA and a lump purchase.  I think the real reason to do DCA and rebalancing is risk control. They reduce the risk of putting a whole lump sum in on exactly the wrong day. And they can help keep a portfolio growing even if the market is stagnant.
Peer to peer lending such as Kiva, Lending Club, Funding Circle(small business), SoFi(student loans), Prosper, and various other services provide you with access to the 'basic form' of investing you described in your question.  Other funds: You may find the documentary '97% Owned' fascinating as it provides an overview of the monetary system of England, with parallels to US, showing only 3% of money supply is used in exchange of goods and services, 97% is engaged in some form of speculation.   If speculative activities are of concern, you may need to denounce many forms of currency. Lastly, be careful of taking the term addiction too lightly and deeming something unethical too quickly.  You may be surprised to learn there are many people like yourself working at 'unethical' companies changing them within.
"It is difficult to find investment banks that offer both low fees and low minimum investments. If you google around for ""no-fee low-minimum mutual funds"" you can find various articles with recommendations, such as this one.  One fund they mention that looks promising is the Schwab Total Stock Market Index Fund, which apparently has a minimum investment of only $100 and an expense ratio of 0.09%.  (I've never heard of this fund before, so I'm just repeating the info from the site.  Be sure to look into it more thoroughly to see if there are any hidden costs here.  I'm not recommending this fund, just mentioning it as an example of what you may be able to find.) Another possibility is to make use of funds in an existing brokerage account that you use for yourself.  This could allow you to make use of Craig W.'s suggestion about ETFs.  For instance, if you already have a brokerage account at Vanguard or another firm, you could add $100 to the account and buy some particular fund, mentally earmarking it as your daughter's."
"Goodness, I wish I could put away half my paycheck. Not to rain on your parade, but a 6-month emergency fund is not quite ""very good.""  It is the typical starting time frame.  Personally, I would feel more comfortable with a 2+ year fund.  That is a bit extreme, but only because many of us can barely seem to make it around to a 6-month fund.  So, we focus on the more attainable goal. I say you do all three.  Make saving money your priority, but do enjoy some of it; in moderation.  Do not plan on making any big purchases with it, but know that you will eventually be able able to do so.  Money not spent is worthless Idle money is worthless.  Make some -- hopefully -- prudent investments with some of your money.   A small portion of that investment portfolio can/should be in speculative investments.  Maybe even as much as 20% of your investment portfolio, since you are young.  Consider that money gone and you will hopefully be surprised by one of those speculative investments.  That is the crucial point: earmark a small portion of your investment portfolio which you are willing to lose.  However, do not gamble with it.  Research the hot emerging technologies, for example, and find a way to make an investment. So, in summary: You may have more money that you know what do with, right now.  However, that does not mean you need to go out and spend it all.  Trust me, as you get older you will think of plenty of good uses for that money."
For your base question, yes.  (Barring some major collapse-of-civilization event, but in that case you're screwed anyway :-))  On the individual points: 1) Depends on whether you choose to invest in index-type funds (where profit is mainly expected from price appreciation), or more value-based investing.  But either or a mix of the two (my own choice) should show returns above inflation, over the long term. 2) Yes, in the US anyway.  You can invest a few hundred dollars at a time, and (with good companies like Vanguard & T. Rowe Price) there are no transaction fees, either for investing or for redeeming.   3) Long-term, it's crash-proof IF you have the self-discipline not to panic-sell at market lows.  In my case, my total fund valuation dropped around 40% in '08.  I didn't sell anything (and in fact tried to cut spending and invest more), and now I have nearly double what I had before the crash. Bottom line is that it has worked for me.  After ~30 years of investing this way without being fanatic about it, I have enough that I could live moderately without working for the rest of my life.  Not - and this is where I part company with MMM and most of the FIRE community - that I'd ever want to actually retire.  But my modest financial independence gives me the freedom to work at things I like, rather than because I'm worrying about paying bills.
Sure, with some general rules of thumb: what is the minimum portfolio balance to avoid paying too much for transaction fees? Well, the fee doesn't change with portfolio balance or order size, so I don't know what you're trying to do here.  The way to have less transaction fees is to have less transactions.  That means no day-trading, no option rolling, etc.  A Buy-and-hold strategy (with free dividend reinvestment if available) will minimize transaction fees.
If this is truly your emergency fund, then you should keep the money safe. Unfortunately interest rates are very low right now and there is not much you can do about that. However, ask your investment advisor for a CDIC insured high interest account, such as these:
"For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The ""return of capital, not return on capital"" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.)
You spread money/investment across different accounts for different reasons: All this is in addition to diversification reasons. Investing all your money into one stock, bond, Mutual fund, ETF is risky if that one segment of the economy/market suffers.  There is a drawback to diversification of accounts. Some have minimum amounts and fee structures. In the original question you asked about 1,000 per account. That may mean that some accounts may be closed to you. In other cases they will charge a higher percentage for fees for small accounts. Those issues would disappear long before you hit the 1,000,000 per account you mentioned in your comment. One problem can occur with having too much diversification. Having dozens of funds could mean that the overlap between the funds might result in over investing in a segment because you didn't realize that one stock segment appeared in 1/3 of the funds.
"We also have a ""minimum daily balance"" account that requires a decent balance, but I'd much prefer to have my money elsewhere, growing little to any interest, versus sitting around collecting dust. Ours is a daily average, so you could have a lots in there for a few days to help make up the days when you're under."
"Note that long term you need to plan for possible inflation, so ""a little bit of return""  generally wants to be at least high enough to offset that plus ""a little bit"". Which is why just shoving it in a bank, while extremely safe, isn't usually the best choice.   You need to make some decisions about how you trade off risk versus return, whether you will comfortable riding out a downturn while waiting for recovery, and so on. My standard advice, as someone else who knows how little he knows: It's worth spending a few hundred of those dollars to talk to a real financial planner. (NOT someone who has any interest in selling you particular products, like a broker or agent!) They can help you ask yourself the right questions about comfort and goals and timeframe to pick a strategy which suits your needs. It won't be ""exciting"", but it sounds luke you agree with me that this shouldn't be exciting and ""market rate of return"" (about 8% annually, long term) is generally good enough, with more conservative positions as you approach the point of needing that money."
"The person who told you ""no-load funds"" had the right idea.  Since you are risk-averse, you tend to want a ""value"" fund; that is, it's not likely to grow in value (that would be a ""growth"" fund), but it isn't like to fall either. To pick an example more-or-less at random, Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund ""usually"" returns around 8% a year, which in your case would have meant about $20,000 every year -- but it's lost 4.35% in the last year. I like Fidelity, as a brokerage as well as a fund-manager.  Their brokers are salaried, so they have no incentive to push load funds or other things that make them, but not you, money.  For intermediate investors like you and me, they seem like a good choice. Be careful of ""short term"".  Most funds have some small penalty if you sell within 90 days.  Carve off whatever amount you think you might need and keep that in your cash account. And a piece of personal advice: don't be too risk-averse.  You don't need this money.  For you, the cost of losing it completely is exactly equal as the benefit of doubling it.  You can afford to be aggressive. Think of it this way: the expected return of a no-load fund is around 5%-7%.  For a savings account, the return is within rounding error of zero.  Do you spend that much, $15,000, on anything in your life right now?  Any recreation or hobby or activity.  Maybe your rent or your tuition.  Why spend it for a vague sense of ""safety"", when you are in no danger of losing anything that you need?"
"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called ""spending"".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about ""investing the money"", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market!
For such a short timeframe, I'd have it in the currency (euros) you need, and in a savings account. The 5 months is not a time to 'invest' this money. Even 2-4 years would suggest just a CD or short term Government bond.
Congratulations on being in such good financial state.  You have a few investment choices. If you want very low risk, you are talking bonds or CDs. With the prime rate so low, nobody is paying anything useful for very low risk investments.  However, my opinion is that given your finances, you should consider taking on a little more risk. A good step is a index fund, which is designed to mirror the performance of a stock index such as the S&P 500. That may be volatile in the short-term, but is likely to be a good investment in the longer term. I am not a fan of non-index mutual funds; in general the management charge makes them a less attractive investment.  The next step up is investing in individual stocks, which can provide very big gains or very big losses.  The Motley fool site (www.fool.com) has a lot of information about investing overall.
not the full amount you talked about, but it is likely a good idea for you to spread things out anyway. That way, if one thing turns out to be not as good as other alternatives it has less impact - it is less likely that all your schemes will turn out to be bad luck. Within the M25 the £450000 limit may restrict you to a small house or flat in 5-10 years time. Again, prices may stall as they seem barely sustainable now. But it is hard to predict (measures like this may help push them upwards :) ). On the plus side, you could then still use the money for pension although I have a hard time seeing governments not adjusting this sort of account between now and your 60th birthday. Like pension funds, there is an element of luck/gambling involved and I think a good strategy is to spread things if you can."
In the short-term, a savings account with an online bank can net you ~1% interest, while many banks/credit unions with local branches are 0.05%. Most of the online savings accounts allow 6 withdrawals per month (they'll let you do more, but charge a fee), if you pair it with a checking account, you can transfer your expected monthly need in one or two planned transfers to your checking account. Any other options that may result in a higher yield will either tie up your money for a set length of time, or expose you to risk of losing money. I wouldn't recommend gambling on short-term stock gains if you need the money during the off-season.
Being able to make small investments in very valuable real estate could make this a game changer. I want to invest in a skyscraper in the UAE, but I only have $10k. I can just use REAL tokens to buy a percentage of that property. At least, that's the way I understand this to work.
Alternatively, you could invest in something like Whole Foods, a company with multiple missions to improve the planet and the community, in addition to the more typical mission of being a prosperous retail chain. Of course, as a general proposition, a less than entirely altruistic, charity-inclined investment doesn't need to be targeted at those with low incomes or at saving the planet. You could invest in almost anything you think is good (yachts, yo-yos, violins, energy production, industrial inputs, music performances) and the company will take care of making more of that good thing. You didn't say whether your goal was to help the poor, the planet, arts, sciences, knowledge, community, or whatever. What I understand you to be saying is you are willing to accept a lower ROI in exchange for some warm-fuzzies from your investment. That seems perfectly valid and reasonable to me, but it makes it much more subjective and particular to your tastes. So you'll need to pick something that's meaningful to you. If you're going to trade ROI for positive feelings, then you should pick whatever gives you your optimal blend of emotions and returns. Alternatively, you could invest in something stable and predictable to beat inflation (some sort of index or fund) and then annually use some portion of those profits to simply give to the charity of your choice. Your investment and your charity do not necessarily need to be the same vehicle.
If markets are efficient (which they aren't, but anyways...), the frequency of DCA investments shouldn't yield any meaningful difference in return.  The one possible item to note is that if you're able to invest more frequently, you'll have more money exposed to the effects of compounding for longer, which *may* increase return. However, there are also transaction costs to consider, which may render something like *continuous* DCA-ing ineffective.   That same compounding effect also negates the potential benefits of DCA altogether, making it more logical to lump sum your investments.   You may be conflating DCA with simply making additional cash every week that's available for investment. If that's the case, again, lump sum as early as possible should yield the best results...  (this isn't financial advice, read the sidebar disclaimers)
"Wow. It's clear I'm outnumbered.  When I'm approached with the question (and keep in mind, it's usually a couple data points and little else) ""I am getting started, with no other money do I fund a retirement or emergency account?"" I often suggest they put the funds into a Roth, in a money market fund, and treat it like an emergency account. If there's in fact an emergency, there's no penalty to withdraw the deposit and we're talking peanuts for interest today.  With no emergency, two things could happen: A) As the account grows beyond what's needed for emergencies, the excess can be invested long term. B) As the investor earns more money and saves up enough to have a true emergency account separate from the IRA, the Roth can be fully invested long term. The 'Bad idea' stems from the view that one is using their Roth as an emergency account, which of course is bad. The subtle difference is one has no retirement savings and puts their Emergency account into the otherwise unused Roth. As time passes, they've protected more funds to grow tax free.  In the end, the most important thing is whether the person is saving and not tapping for simple non-emergency things. I'd rather see a guy with $25K in his Roth and no other funds than to have $5000 in his bank account because every time it gets larger he feels compelled to spend it.  My answer to Matt is to treat it for now as you intended, low risk, CD or cash (money market)."
Are you willing to risk the possibility of investing to prepare for these things and losing money or simply getting meager returns if those crises don't happen? Just invest in a well diversified portfolio both geographically and across multiple sectors and you should be fine.
You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them.
"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a ""lesser bad"" way to invest (MPT).   If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct."
I buy or sell a few shares whenever I have a small amount of money to transfer into out of my mutual funds. Since I'm not paying transaction fees, there is no reason not to, when that is what makes sense. If you are paying a fee for each transaction, of course it makes sense to try to wait until you have a larger amount to move so the overhead per share is lower.
If you are diversifying just for diversification purposes then all you are doing is averaging down your returns. You shouldn't just buy two securities because you think it is safer than putting all your money into one. A better method is to use money management and position sizing to limit your risk and exposure in any one security. You should know what your maximum risk is before you buy any security and know when it is time to get out of it. There are better ways to manage your risk. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket - yes, but don't diversify just for diversification purposes.