How much lump sum investment in stocks would be needed to yield a target stable monthly income?
If your requirements are hard (must have $1000/month, must have the same or bigger in capital at the end), stocks are a poor choice of investment. However, in many cases, people are willing to tolerate some level of risk to achieve the expected returns. You also do not mention inflation, which can take quite a lot out of your portfolio over the course of ten years. If we make some simplifying assumptions, you want to generate $12,000 a year. You can realistically expect the (whole) stock market, long term (i.e. over time periods substantially longer than 10 years), to return approximately 4 - 5% after factoring in inflation. That means an investment of $240,000 - $300,000 (the math is simplified somewhat here). If you don't care about inflation, you can up the percentage rather somewhat. According to this article, the S&P 500 returned an average of 11.31% from 1928 through 2010 (not factoring in inflation), which would require an investment of approximately $106,100. But! This opens you up to substantial risk. The stock market may go down 30% this year! According to the above article, the S&P returned only 3.54% from 2001 to 2010. Long-term, it goes up, but your investment case is really unsuited to investing in an index to the entire stock market given your requirements. You may be better suited investing primarily in stable bonds, or perhaps a mix of bonds and stocks. Alternatively, you may want to consider even more stable investments such as treasury notes. Treasury notes are all but guaranteed, but with a lousy rate of return. Heck, you could consider a GIC (that may be Canada-only) or even a savings account. There's also the possibility of purchasing an annuity, though almost everyone will advise against such. Personally, I'd go for a mutual fund which invested approximately 70% bonds and the rest in stocks over such a time period. Something like ING Direct's Streetwise Balanced Income Portfolio, if you were in Canada. It substantially lowers your expected return but also lowers your risk. I can't honestly say what the expected return there is; at this point, it's returned 4% per year (before inflation), but has been around only since the beginning of 2008. And to be clear, this is absolutely not free of risk. "I will add another point to ChrisinEdmonton's answer... I recognize that this is perhaps appropriate as a comment--or maybe 1/2 of an answer, but the comment formatting is inadequate for what I want to say.  The magic formula that you need to understand is this:  (Capital Invested) * (Rate of Return) = (Income per Period) When ChrisinEdmonton says that you need $300,000, he is doing some basic algebra... (Capital Required) = (Income per Period) / (Rate of Return)  So if you're looking at $12,000 per year in passive income as a goal, and you can find a ""safe"" 4% yield, then what ChrisinEdmonton did is:  $12,000 / 0.04 = $300,000 You can use this to play around with different rates of return and see what investment options you can find to purchase. Investment categories like REITs will risk your principal a little more, but have some of the highest dividend yields of around 8%--12%. You would need $100,000--$150,000 at those yields.  Some of the safest approaches would be bonds or industrial stocks that pay dividends. Bonds exist around 3%--4%, and industrial dividend stocks (think GE or UTX or Coca Cola) tend to pay more like 2%-3%.  The key point I'm trying to make is that if you're looking for this type of passive income, I recommend that you don't plan on the income coming from gains to the investment... This was something that ChrisinEdmonton wasn't entirely clear about. It can be complicated and expensive to whittle away at a portfolio and spend it along the way."
First thing to know about investing is that you make money by taking risks. That means the possibility of losing money as well as making it.  There are low risk investments that pretty much always pay out but they don't earn much. Making $200 a month on $10,000 is about 26% per year.  That's vastly more than you are going to earn on low risk assets. If you want that kind of return, you can invest in a diversified portfolio of equities through an equity index fund.  Some years you may make 26% or more.  Other years you may make nothing or lose that much or more.  On average you may earn maybe 7%-10% hopefully. Overall, investing is a game of making money over long horizons.  It's very useful for putting away your $10k now and having hopefully more than that when it comes time to buy a house or retire or something some years into the future.  You have to accept that you might also end up with less than $10K in the end, but you are more likely to make money than to use it. What you describe doesn't seem like a possible situation.  In developed markets, you can't reliably expect anything close to the return you desire from assets that are unlikely to lose you money.  It might be time to re-evaluate your financial goals.  Do you want spending money now, or do you want to invest for use down the road? Deposit $3,500 each month in a brokerage account and invest that money across a handful of diversified index funds. Rebalance those investments every quarter. The hard part is coming up with $3,500 each month; this is where your budget comes in. We can't know the future, of course, but we know that on average it's better to invest a lump sum. We can look at some periods of recent history to get a sense of the difference between a lump sum 450k investment and maybe say 5 years of 90k. Using S&P 500 return rates, let's say you started investing on Jan 1, 2008: Here, spreading your investing over 5 years earns you an extra $163k.  Starting a year later, the same strategy would earn you $327k less than a lump investment: I looked at some other periods, but the story doesn't change from what we already knew; you can reduce risk of losing a big chunk due to a bad year, but it comes at the cost of potential gains. Perhaps you could make a killing by waiting for the next down-turn and buying on the cheap, or maybe you'll just be wasting time and money as the market enjoys sustained growth. I'd go with a lump, trusting the averages; but you're right, another 2008 with no recovery would suck. As for holding $50k back it depends primarily on your monthly budget, many people suggest a 3-8 month liquid emergency fund, I like 6 months. Go with what you're comfortable with. There will quickly come a time when buying to rebalance is impractical. Consider, you save 10%, and at some point, you have 5x your income saved. (you earn $50K and have accumulated $250K). A simple allocation, 50/50, so $125K stock, $125K bonds. Now, in a year the market is up much over 4%, your $5K deposit will not be enough to balance. Earlier on, the method may work just fine, later on, not so much. Edit - The above is an example, to show that there will come a time when deposits are not enough to rebalance. The above single year produces a 52/48 split, and the rebalance deposits more than 2 years. If the market continues to rise a reasonable amount, 2 years later you are even more out of balance, perhaps 56/44.  I chose reasonable numbers as a starting point, just 5X income saved, and a 10% annual deposit. In the end, you can waive off any divergence from your target. That's your choice. Paying $12,000 in lump sumps annually will mean a difference of about $250 in interest vs. paying $1,000 monthly. If front-load the big payment, that saves ~$250 over paying monthly over the year. If you planned to save that money each month and pay it at the end, then it would cost you ~$250 more in mortgage interest. So that's how much money you would have to make with that saved money to offset the cost. Over the life of the loan the choice between the two equates to less than $5,000. If you pay monthly it's easy to calculate that an extra $1,000/month would reduce the loan to 17 years, 3 months. That would give you a savings of ~$400,000 at the cost of paying $207,000 extra during those 17 years. Many people would suggest that you invest the money instead because the annual growth rates of the stock market are well in excess of your 4.375% mortgage. What you decide is up to you and how conservative your investing strategy is. Your edit indicates that you may not yet be ready to get heavily involved in investing. I say this because it seems you are not very familiar with foundational finance/investing concepts.  The returns that you are seeing as 'yearly' are just the reported earnings every 12 months, which all public companies must publish. Those 'returns' are not the same as the earnings of individual investors (which will be on the basis of dividends paid by the company [which are often annual, sometimes semi-annual, and sometimes quarterly], and by selling shares purchased previously. Note that over 3 months time, investing in interest-earning investments [like bank deposits] will earn you something like 0.5%. Investing in the stock market will earn you something like 2% (but with generally higher risk than investing in something earning interest). If you expect to earn significant amounts of money in only 3 months, you will not be able to without taking on extreme levels of risk [risk as high as going to a casino].  Safe investing takes time - years. In the short term, the best thing you can do to earn money is by earning more [through a better job, or a second part-time job], or spending less [budget, pay down high interest debt, and spend less than you earn]. I highly recommend you look through this site for more budgeting questions on how to get control of your finances. If you feel that doesn't apply to you, I encourage you to do a lot more research on investing before you send your money somewhere - you could be taking on more risk than you realize, if you are not properly informed. I think the dividend fund may not be what youre looking for. You mentioned you want growth, not income. But I think of dividend stocks as income stocks, not growth. They pay a dividend because these are established companies that do not need to invest so much in capex anymore, so they return it to shareholders. In other words, they are past their growth phase. These are what you want to hold when you have a large nest egg, you are ready to retire, and just want to make a couple percent a year without having to worry as much about market fluctuations. The Russel ETF you mentioned and other small caps are I think what you are after. I recently made a post here about the difference between index funds and active funds. The difference is very small. That is, in any given year, many active ETFs will beat them, many wont. It depends entirely on the market conditions at the time. Under certain conditions the small caps will outperform the S&P, definitely. However, under other conditioned, such as global growth slowdown, they are typically the first to fall. Based on your comments, like how you mentioned you dont want to sell, I think index funds should make up a decent size portion of your portfolio. They are the safest bet, long term, for someone who just wants to buy and hold. Thats not to say they need be all. Do a mixture. Diversification is good. As time goes on dont be afraid to add bond ETFs either. This will protect you during downturns as bond prices typically rise under slow growth conditions (and sometimes even under normal conditions, like last year when TLT beat the S&P...) "Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value.  So each year, another .02N is removed.  Assume the property value rises with inflation.  Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N.   After inflation return.   Let's assume a 20% rate.  And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation.  Inflation is still taxable.   Result  Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase.   Return after inflation.   After-inflation return minus property taxes.   Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry).   Amount left.   If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes.  But with the property, that drops to .008N.  Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k.   So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year?  If so, then no problem.  If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house.   On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N.  You still need housing out of the .036N without the house.   These formulas should be considered examples.  I don't know how much your property taxes might be.  Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes.  Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation.  You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return.  But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is.   If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly.  The ""no house"" number becomes .024N.  The ""with house"" number becomes  So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed).  There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the ""with house"" option.  Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year.   This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually.  Lower property taxes would of course make this better.  Higher property taxes would be even less feasible.   When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home.  If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested.  You'll also have less tied up with property taxes.  It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k.   Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes.  You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually.   There are options with a house that you don't have without one." "I argued for a 15% rule of thumb here: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? Though if you'll let me, I'd refine the argument to: use a rule of thumb to set your minimum savings, then use Monte Carlo to stress-test and look at any special circumstances, and make a case to save more. You're right that the rule of thumb bakes in tons of assumptions (great list btw). A typical 15%-works scenario could include: If any of those big assumptions don't apply to you (or you don't want to rely on them) you'd have to re-evaluate. It sounds like you're assuming 4-5% investment returns? As you say that's probably the big difference, 4-5% is lower than most would assume. 6-7% (real return) is maybe a middle-of-the-road assumption and 8% is maybe an unrealistic one. Many of the assumptions you list (such as married/kids, cost of living, spouse's income, paying for college) can maybe be bundled up into one assumption (percentage of income you will spend). Set a percentage budget and as you go along, stay within your means by sacrificing as required. Also smooth out income across layoffs and things by having an emergency fund. By staying on-budget as you go you can remove some of the unpredictability. The reason I think the rule of thumb is still good, despite the assumptions, is that I don't think a ""more accurate"" number based on a lot of unpredictable guesses is really better; and it may even be harmful if you use it to justify saving less, or even if you use it to save far too much. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bias Many (most?) important assumptions are not predictable: investment returns, health care inflation, personal health, lifestyle creep (changing spending needs/desires), irrational investment behavior. I agree with you that for many scenarios and people, 15% will not be enough, though it's a whole lot more than most save already. In particular, low investment returns over your time horizon will make 15% insufficient, and some argue that low investment returns over the coming 30 years are likely. Without a doubt, 20% or more is safer than 15%. Do consider that ""saving enough"" is not a binary thing. If you save only 15% and it turns out that doesn't completely replace your income, it's not like you're out on the street; you might have to retire a few years later, or downsize your house, or something, but perhaps that isn't a catastrophe. There's a very personal question about how much to sacrifice now for less risk of sacrifice in the future. Maybe I'd better qualify ""not a binary thing"": some savings rates (certainly, anything less than 10%), make major sacrifices pretty likely... so in that sense there is a binary distinction between ""plausible plan"" and ""denial."" Also, precise assumptions and calculations get a lot more useful as you approach retirement age. You can pretty much answer the question ""is it reasonable to retire right now?"" or ""could I retire in 5 years?"" (though with a retirement that could last 30 years, plenty of unknowns will remain even then). I think at age 20 or 30 though, just saving 15% (20% if you're conservative), and not spending too much time on a speculative analysis would be a sound decision. That's why I like the rule of thumb. Analysis paralysis (saving nothing or near-nothing) is the real danger early in one's career. Any plausible percentage is fine as long as you save. As your life unfolds and you see what happens, you can refine and correct, adjusting your savings rate, moving your retirement age around, spending a little less or more. The important thing earlier in life is to just get in the right ballpark." There is a fundamental flaw in this statement:  For example, a home bought cash $100,000 would have to be sold $242,726.247 30 years later just to make up with inflation, and that would be a 0% return. You forgot to deduct rent from your monthly carrying costs.  That changes the calculations significantly.   Your calculations are valid ONLY if you were to buy a house, and let it sit empty, which is unlikely.  Either you are going to live in it, and save yourself $1000 a month in rent, or, you are going to rent it out to someone, and earn an income of $1000 a month. Either way, you're up $1000 a month and this needs to be included. Using a simple investment calculator to get a sense of scale here, to have 70k total, including the 500 a month invested, after ten years you just need returns of 2%.  To earn 70k on top of the money invested you would need returns over 20%.  To do that in five years you would need over 50% annual return. That is quite a big difference.  Annualized returns of 20% would require high risk and a very large amount of time invested, skill and luck.  2% returns can be nearly guaranteed without much effort. I would encourage you to think about your money more holistically. If you get very unlucky with investments and don't make any money will you not go on the vacations even if your income allows?  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  As always, spend all your money with the current and future in mind.  Investment return Euros are no different from any other Euros. At that point, the advice is the same for all investors try to get as much return as possible for the risk you are comfortable with.  You seem to have a high tolerance for risk.  Generally, for investors with a high risk tolerance a broadly diversified portfolio of stocks (with maybe a small amount of bonds, other investments) will give the most return over the long term for the risk taken. After that generally the next most useful way to boost your returns is to try to avoid taxes which is why we talk about 401(k)s so much around here.  Each European country has different tax law, but please ask questions here about your own country as well as you mention money.se could use more ex-US questions. Not sure of your locality. In the USA, there are many options. There are many corporate bonds that pay interest monthly. You can invest in a handful of bonds, chosen so at least one of them pays interest each month. (Minimum investment requirements make this an expensive option)  Unit Trusts made of bonds (a handful of bonds wrapped into a single fixed investment) usually pay monthly interest. As the bonds begin to mature, the interest payments shrink (but you begin to get principal payments which can be reinvested). Bond mutual funds and ETFs usually provide monthly dividends (that come from the interest and capital gains of the bonds held by the fund). Dividends are usually consistent, but not necessarily fixed.  You can produce a monthly income from stocks in the same way as the above mentioned bond methods. Income can be consistent, but not fixed. "Step 2 is wrong. Leverage is NOT necessary. It increases possible gain, but increases risk of loss by essentially the same amount. Those two numbers are pretty tightly linked by market forces. See many, many other answers here showing that one can earn ""market rate"" -- 8% or so -- with far less risk and effort, if one is patient, and some evidence that one can do better with more effort and not too much more risk. And yes, investing for a longer time horizon is also safer." What's the present value of using the payment plan? In all common sense the present value of a loan is the value that you can pay in the present to avoid taking a loan, which in this case is the lump sum payment of $2495.  That rather supposes the question is a trick, providing irrelevant information about the stock market. However, if some strange interpretation is required which ignores the lump sum and wants to know how much you need in the present to pay the loan while being able to make 8% on the stock market that can be done. I will initially assume that since the lender's APR works out about 9.6% per month that the 8% from the stock market is also per month, but will also calculate for 8% annual effective and an 8% annual nominal rate. The calculation If you have $x in hand (present value) and it is exactly enough to take the loan while investing in the stock market, the value in successive months is $x plus the market return less the loan payment.  In the third month the loan is paid down so the balance is zero. I.e. So the present value of using the payment plan while investing is $2569.37. You would need $2569.37 to cover the loan while investing, which is more than the $2495 lump sum payment requires.  Therefore, it would be advisable to make the lump sum payment because it is less expensive: If you have $2569.37 in hand it would be best to pay the lump sum and invest the remaining $74.37 in the stock market.  Otherwise you invest $2569.37 (initially), pay the loan and end up with $0 in three months. One might ask, what rate of return would the stock market need to yield to make it worth taking the loan? The APR proposed by the loan can be calculated.   The present value of a loan is equal to the sum of the payments discounted to present value.  I.e. with  ∴ by induction  So by comparing the $2495 lump sum payment with $997 over 3 x monthly instalments the interest rate implied by the loan can be found. Solving for r If you could obtain 9.64431% per month on the stock market the $x cash in hand required would be calculated by This is equal to the lump sum payment, so the calculated interest is comparable to the stock market rate of return.  If you could gain more than 9.64431% per month on the stock market it would be better to invest and take the loan. Recurrence Form Solving the recurrence form shows the calculation is equivalent to the loan formula, e.g. becomes v[m + 1] = (1 + y) v[m] - p where v[0] = pv where In the final month v[final] = 0, i.e. when m = 3 Compare with the earlier loan formula: s = (d - d (1 + r)^-n) / r They are exactly equivalent, which is quite interesting, (because it wasn't immediately obvious to me that what the lender charges is the mirror opposite of what you gain by investing). The present value can be now be calculated using the formula. Still assuming the 8% stock market return is per month. If the stock market yield is 8% per annum effective rate and if it is given as a nominal annual yield, 8% compounded monthly Here are my re-run figures.  Not counting capital gains taxes, I calculate you need to be making 1.875% per annum or 0.155% per month on your $8,000 investment to break-even on the loan.  It's interesting that the return you need to gain to break-even is less than the interest you're paying, even with commission.  It happens because the investment is gaining a return on an increasing amount while the load is accruing interest on a decreasing amount.    Ref. r, logarithmic return