vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mortgages-real-estate/08/tax-deductible-mortgage-canada.asp  &gt; This strategy is not for everyone. Borrowing against your home is psychologically difficult, and if the investments don't yield expected returns, this strategy could yield negative results. By re-borrowing the equity in your home, you are also removing your ""cushion"" of safety if the real estate (or investment) markets take a turn for the worse. By creating an income-producing portfolio in an unregistered account, there can also be additional tax consequences - so always consult with a professional financial advisor to determine whether this strategy is for you, and if it is, have it tailor-made to you and your family's personal financial situation."
That's a terrible idea. Investment properties should be at a maximum value of 10x the yearly rent. I wouldn't pay more then 72K for a house / apartment that rents for only 600 / month (and even then I would look for a better deal, which you can find if you time things right). Don't believe me? Just do the numbers. Renting your 200K house for 600 / month is 7200 / year. Figure you'll need to spend 1% / year (I'm being optimistic here) on maintanence / vacancy (and I'm not even considering your time dealing with tenants). Plus another 1% or so on property tax. That's 4K / year, so your total profit is 3200 which is a return of only 1.6% on your 200K. You can get 1% in an ally savings account for comparison. Really you are much better off investing in a diversified portfolio. You only need 6 months living expenses in cash, so unless your family is ridicuouly wealthy (In which case you should be asking your financial planner what to do and not stack exchange), I have no idea why your parents have 200K sitting around in a savings account earning 0. Open a vanguard account for them and put that money in VTI and your family will be much better off 5 years from now then if you buy that money pit (err house). If risk is a concern, diversify more. I have some money invested with a robo advisor. They do charge a small fee, but it's set it and forget it with auto diversification and tax loss harvesting. Bottom line is, get that money invested in something, having it sitting in a bank account earning 0 is probably the second worst thing you could do with next to buying this house.
"Another problem with this plan (assuming you get past Rocky's answer somehow) is that you assume that $50K in construction costs will translate to $50K in increased value. That's not always true; the ROI on home improvements is usually a lot less than 100%. You'd also owe more property taxes on your improvements, which would cut into your plan somewhat. But you also can't keep doing this forever. Soon enough, you'd run out of physical and/or legal space to keep adding additions to the house (zoning tends to limit how much you can build, unless you're in the middle of nowhere, and eventually you'd fill the lot), even if you did manage to keep obtaining more and more loans. And you'd quickly reach the point of diminishing returns on your expansions. Many homebuyers might be prepared to pay more for a third or fourth bedroom, but vanishingly few in most markets will pay substantially more for a second billiards room or a third home theater. At some point, your house isn't a mansion, it's ""that ridiculous castle"" only an eccentric would want, and the pool of potential buyers (and the price they'll pay for it) diminishes.  And the lender, not being stupid, isn't going to go on financing your creation of a monstrosity, because they are the ones who will be stuck with the place if you default."
"You are in your mid 30's and have 250,000 to put aside for investments- that is a fantastic position to be in. First, let's evaluate all the options you listed. Option 1 I could buy two studio apartments in the center of a European capital city and rent out one apartment on short-term rental and live in the other. Occasionally I could Airbnb the apartment I live in to allow me to travel more (one of my life goals). To say ""European capital city"" is such a massive generalization, I would disregard this point based on that alone. Athens is a European capital city and so is Berlin but they have very different economies at this point. Let's put that aside for now. You have to beware of the following costs when using property as an investment (this list is non-exhaustive): The positive: you have someone paying the mortgage or allowing you to recoup what you paid for the apartment. But can you guarantee an ROI of 10-15% ? Far from it. If investing in real estate yielded guaranteed results, everyone would do it. This is where we go back to my initial point about ""European capital city"" being a massive generalization. Option 2 Take a loan at very low interest rate (probably 2-2.5% fixed for 15 years) and buy something a little nicer and bigger. This would be incase I decide to have a family in say, 5 years time. I would need to service the loan at up to EUR 800 / USD 1100 per month. If your life plan is taking you down the path of having a family and needed the larger space for your family, then you need the space to live in and you shouldn't be looking at it as an investment that will give you at least 10% returns. Buying property you intend to live in is as much a life choice as it is an investment. You will treat the property much different from the way something you rent out gets treated. It means you'll be in a better position when you decide to sell but don't go in to this because you think a return is guaranteed. Do it if you think it is what you need to achieve your life goals. Option 3 Buy bonds and shares.
Just because gold performed that well in the past does not mean it will perform that well in the future.  I'm not saying you should or should not buy gold, but the mere fact that it went up a lot recently is not sufficient reason to buy it. Also note that on the house, an investment that accrues continuous interest for 30 years at an annual rate of about 7.7% will multiply by a factor of 10 in 30 years.  That rate is pretty high by today's standards, but it might have been more feasible in the past (I don't know historical interest rates very well).  Yet again note that the fact that houses went up a lot over the last 30 years does not mean they will continue to do so.
"I very much agree with what @Grade 'Eh' Bacon said about townhouses, but wanted to add a bit about HOA's, renting after moving on, and appreciation: HOA's HOA's can be restrictive, but they can also help protect property values, not all HOA's are created equal, some mean you have zero exterior maintenance, some don't. You'll be able to review the HOA financials to see where the money goes (and if they have healthy reserves). You'll see how much they spend on administration, I think ~10% is typical, and administration can be offset by the savings associated with doing everything in bulk. A well-run HOA should actually save you money over paying for all the things separately, but many people are happy to do some things themselves rather than pay for it, and would come out ahead if they didn't have an HOA. And of course, not all HOA's are well-run. Just do your best to get informed Transitioning to Rental If you are interested in trying your hand being a landlord after living there for a while, a townhouse typically exposes you to less rental risk than a single-family home, because the cost is typically lower and if the HOA maintains everything outside the house then you don't have to worry as much about tenants keeping a lawn in good shape, for example. Appreciation Appreciation varies wildly by market, some research by Trulia suggests in general condo's have outperformed single-family houses over the last 5 years by 10.5%. The same article notes that others disagree with Trulia's assessment and put condo's below single-family houses by 1.3% annually. My first townhouse has appreciated 41% over the last 3 years, while houses in the area are closer to 30% over the same period, but I believe that's a function of my local market more than a nationwide trend. I wouldn't plan around any appreciation forecasts.
When buying investment properties there are different levels of passive investment involved.  At one end you have those that will buy an investment property and give it to a real estate agent to manage and don't want to think of it again (apart from watching the rent come in every week). At the other end there are those that will do everything themselves including knocking on the door to collect the rent. Where is the best place to be - well somewhere in the middle. The most successful property investors treat their investment properties like a business. They handle the overall management of the properties and then have a team taking care of the day-to-day nitty gritty of the properties. Regarding the brand new or 5 to 10 year old property, you are going to pay a premium for the brand new. A property that is 5 years old will be like new but without the premium. I once bought a unit which was 2 to 3 years old for less than the original buyer bought it at brand new. Also you will still get the majority of the depreciation benefits on a 5 year old property. You also should not expect too much maintenance on a 5 to 10 year old property. Another option you may want to look at is Defence Housing. They are managed by the Department of Defence and you can be guaranteed rent for 10 years or more, whether they have a tenant in the property or not. They also carry out all the maintenance on the property and restore it to original condition once their contract is over. The pitfall is that you will pay a lot more for the management of these properties (up to 15% or more). Personally, I would not go for a Defence Housing property as I consider the fees too high and would not agree with some of their terms and conditions. However, considering your emphasis on a passive investment, this may be an option for you.
"From what I've read, paying down your mortgage -- above and beyond what you'd normally pay -- is indeed an investment but a very poor form of investment. In other words, you could take that extra money you'd apply towards your mortgage and put it in something that has a much higher rate of return than a house. As an extreme example, consider: if I took $6k extra I would have paid toward my mortgage in a single year, and bought a nice performing stock, I could see returns of 2x or 3x. Now, that implies I know which stock to pick, etcetera.. I found a ""mortgage or investment"" calculator which could be of use as well: http://www.planningtips.com/cgi-bin/prepay_v_invest.pl (scroll to bottom to see the summary and whether or not prepay or invest wins for the numbers you plugged in)"
No, it's not.  This could be a great question, but with no background, not so much. Do you live there now? For how long, and how much longer? You say investment, are you looking to live in it or rent it out?  I have nothing against China, but I'd not buy anywhere unless the price, location, and timing all were right.
This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness.
Depends what kind of expenses you intend to use this money for. If you plan to buy housing in the future (eg you're saving a deposit), then you need to ensure that the value doesn't deteriorate relative to the value of the housing you are likely to buy - so you could buy a Residential REIT, or buy some investment property. If you expect to use this money for food, then you should buy suitable assets (eg Wheat futures, etc). Link the current asset to the future expense, and you will be fine. If you buy Gold, then you are making a bet that Gold will retain its value compared to the thing you want to purchase in future. It doesn't matter what the price of Gold does in $US.
"If you're trying to hedge the ups and downs of your local residential real estate market, a REIT fund holding commercial properties across the country is not the ideal match. Here's a comparison of an index tracking single-family home prices in one region (Los Angeles) and VNQ (another popular REIT fund).  There's some correlation but there's clearly different magnitudes and sometimes different directions. With a national home price index, the correlation is only 68%, and it would be lower for individual cities. You could still use it for hedging, but there's significant ""tracker error"" risk to be considered. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with any investment that would be a better match for individual residential markets. So, if you decide to use this, I'd also adjust the level of exposure to get a closer result. E.g. using approx. 50% VNQ and 50% cash results in a closer result after 2 years (compared to national single-family home price changes) than either 0% VNQ and 100% cash, or 100% VNQ and 0% cash."
"E) Spend a small amount of that money on getting advice from a paid financial planner. (Not a broker or someone offering you ""free"" advice; their recommendations may be biased toward what makes them the most money). A good financial planner will talk to you about your plans and expectations both short and long term, and about your risk tolerance (would a drop in value panic you even if you know it's likely to recover and average out in the long run, that sort of thing), and about how much time and effort you want to put into actively managing your portfolio. From those answers, they will generate an initial proposed plan, which will be tested against simulations of the stock market to make sure it holds up. Typically they'll do about 100 passes over the plan to get a sense of its probable risk versus growth-potential versus volatility, and tweak the plan until the normal volatility is within the range you've said you're comfortable with while trying to produce the best return with the least risk. This may not be a perfect plan for you -- but at the very least it will be an excellent starting point until you decide (if you ever do decide) that you've learned enough about investing that you want to do something different with the money. It's likely to be better advice than you'll get here simply because they can and will take the time to understand your specific needs rather than offering generalities because we're trying to write something that applies to many people, all of whom have different goals and time horizons and financial intestinal fortitude. As far as a house goes: Making the mistake of thinking of a house as an investment is a large part of the mindset that caused the Great Recession. Property can be an investment (or a business) or it can be something you're living in; never make the mistake of putting it in both categories at once. The time to buy a house is when you want a house, find a house you like in a neighborhood you like, expect not to move out of it for at least five years, can afford to put at least 20% down payment, and can afford the ongoing costs. Owning your home is not more grown-up, or necessarily financially advantageous even with the tax break, or in any other way required until and unless you will enjoy owning your home.
The investment return for a given strategy is directly proportional to the amount invested. Invest twice as much, profit (or lose) twice as much. It's a straight multiplier. However, there are some strategies which are less risky with a larger investment, and some investments which have a minimum unit of purchase that puts them out of reach of smaller investors.
The highest growth for an investment has historically been in stocks. Investing in mature companies that offer dividends is great for you since it is compound growth. Many oil and gas companies provide dividends.
From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance   investment is putting money into something with the expectation of   gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for   the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an   expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with   an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of   principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment.
"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say ""diversify"" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked ""why diversify at all?"", and that is entirely a different question from your original ""what diversification is?"". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market.
Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide.  Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory.   Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years.  http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver.  Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold.  Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand).   Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture.  The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies.  Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.
The best investment is always in yourself and increasing your usable skills. If you invest the money in expanding your skills, it won't matter what the economy does, you will always be useful.
"1. That's a really complicated answer. In short, I think we need to make accounting rules much simpler (I say this as an accountant) in combination with financial education in K-12 school. Most adults in this country can't tell you which is a better investment: something that returns 5% monthly or something that returns 10% annually. They don't know that accounting income and cash flow are different things and what they mean. Accounting rules are sometimes ridiculous. Look at the balance sheet of even a moderate size company. What's in ""Other Comprehensive Income"" and why is that different than net income? Why is it that American Airlines, one of the largest airlines in the world doesn't have a single airplane on their balance sheet?  2. That might be a step in the right direction, but I'm just not sure how effective something like that would be. More comprehensive might be better, but then there's going to be less people that want to take the time."
Ignore sunk costs and look to future returns.  Although it feels like a loss to exit an investment from a loss position, from a financial standpoint you should ignore the purchase price.  If your money could be better invested somewhere else, then move it there. You shouldn't look at it as though you'll be more financially secure because you waited longer for the stock to reach the purchase price.  That's psychological, not financial. Some portion of your invested wealth is stuck in this particular stock.  If it would take three months for the stock to get back to purchase price but only two months for an alternate investment to reach that same level, then obviously faster growth is better.  Your goal is greater wealth, not arbitrarily returning certain investments to their purchase price. Investments are just instrumental.  You want more wealth.  If an investment is not performing, then ignore purchase price and sunken costs.  Look at the reasonable expectations about an investment going forward.