Which kind of investment seems feasible to have more cashflow every week or month?
Over the long run, you can expect to do about as well as the market itself. Depending on what time period you view, the stock market has typically provided returns of approximately 10%. Some years it is up, some years it is down. You may think you can get better returns, but you are mistaken. You may be able to do better over a short time period if you take on vastly more risk, but you won't be able to do so long term. In order to make $2000/month, then, you will need approximately $240,000 to invest. And even then, you won't make that kind of return reliably. Some months, some years, you'll make more. Other times, you'll lose money. If anyone tells you they can double your money in a month (which is what you are hoping for), walk away. Because it is either illegal or a scam. The only way your plan can work is if you are reliably able to predict stocks which will go up by 10% in the next two days. You cannot do this. You can't even predict which stocks will go up by 10% in the next year. Ignoring the wildly unreasonable goal, I'll answer just the Headline question asked. It's possible to choose dividend paying stocks so that you receive a dividend check each month. Dividends are typically paid quarterly, so 3 stocks chosen by quality first, but also for their dividend date will do this. To get $2000/mo or $24,000/yr would only take an investment of $600,000 in stocks that are yielding a 4% dividend. I'll mirror what the others have said in that your expectations for returns are wildly out of line with reality. If you could achieve that with only moderate risk hopefully you can see that you could ladder those returns by re-investing them and become a billionaire in short order. You may have noticed that there are a lot of really financially savvy people who are not billionaires. So the math for your plan falls apart somewhere, obviously. However, in the spirit of being helpful, and with the caveat that super high returns involve super high risk I'll try and point you in the direction where this is theoretically possible, even if the odds would be better buying lottery tickets. One way to get more leverage from your money than just buying stocks is to buy options. With an options strategy your return/loss will be magnified greatly compared to buying stocks. That is, you can lose or gain a much higher multiplier of your original investment. That said, I don't advise doing that with any money that you can't afford to lose every penny of, because you likely will.
I mean isn't it implied that cash flows increase by the amount of the benefit of the investment each year? I'm a little shaky on cash flows tbh. My scope may be limited compared to yours I've never taken a financial management class but just from financial accounting knowledge since I recently finished that, it seems like cash flows would be increased if revenues are increased. Unless the revenue increase is for some reason solely in the form of accounts receivable or some asset other than cash. Not really practical... The real problem is getting the money into a form where you *can* invest it in something.  It's not like E\*Trade will let you FedEx them a briefcase of sequentially numbered hundreds and just credit your account, no questions asked.  That **is** the hard part. If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities. "The existing answers are good, I justed wanted to provide a simpler answer to your question: Would I be able to invest this in a reasonable way that it would provide me with say $200 spending money per month over the school year? No. There is no way to invest $10,000 to reliably get $200 every month.  Any way that you invest it that has even the possibility of getting that much will have a significant possibility of losing a lot of money.  If you want to get ""free"" spending money out without risk of losing money, you're unlikely to be able to find an investment that will give you more than a couple dollars per month." I would suggest looking into Relative Strength Asset Allocation.  This type of investment strategy keeps you invested in the best performing asset classes. As a result of investing in this manner it removes the guesswork and moves naturally (say into cash) when the stock market turns down. There is a good whitepaper on this subject by Mebane Faber titled Relative Strength Strategies for Investing. 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. "Dividend-paying securities generally have predictable cash flows. A telecom, electric or gas utility is a great example. They collect a fairly predictable amount of money and sells goods at a fairly predictable or even regulated markup. It is easy for these companies to pay a consistent dividend since the business is ""sticky"" and insulated by cyclical factors. More cyclic investments like the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Gold, etc are more exposed to the crests and troughs of the economy. They swing with the economy, although not always on the same cycle. The DJIA is a basket of 30 large industrial stocks. Gold is a commodity that spikes when people are faced with uncertainty. The ""Alpha"" and ""Beta"" of a stock will give you some idea of the general behavior of a stock against the entire market, when the market is trending up and down respectively." The following advice assumes that you have a significant amount already in the account in cash equivalents. If you are only talking a few hundred bucks or so, then just jump in at the next dip (like today's). If you have a larger amount to move into equities, the safest approach is to gradually move it into investments over some period of time at regular intervals regardless of what is going on in the market. This mitigates the risk of investing it all into an fund that is peaking at the exact moment you buy.  So, for example, you might invest 20% of the total amount each month for 5 months to gradually get into the market. The larger the amount you are investing, the more you probably want to spread it out, but don't spread it out much further than a year or you are losing opportunity cost by leaving your money in cash-type investments with likely a very poor rate of return. This strategy is called dollar-cost averaging if you want to research it more. "A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 ""invested"" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year. Also consider if you go back to school, are you going to feel better about a $5.25/month payment or a $60/month payment? (Even if the payments on old debt are deferred while you are studying, you will still have to pay the money, and it will likely be accruing interest in the meantime.) Now, I really don't advocate emptying your savings account entirely the way I did in the example above. Stuff happens all the time, and some stuff that happens costs money. Instead, you should be keeping some of that money easily available in a liquid, non-volatile form (which basically means a savings account without withdrawal penalties or a money market fund, not the stock market). How much depends on your necessary expenses; a buffer of three months' worth of expenses is an often recommended starting point for an emergency fund. The above should however help you evaluate how much to keep, how much to invest and how much to use to pay off loans early, respectively." All of this makes perfect sense and I can definitely see the logic behind it.  But I don't think Hedge Funds are the way to go. The real money lies in real estate, more specifically land-banking. The problem, though, is that a lot of land-banking investments are really just scams and it's really hard to tell which ones are real and which ones are fake. "Question 2 Some financial institutions can provide a way to invest small amounts with low or no cost fees over a period of time (like monthly, weekly, etc).  For instance, a few brokerages have a way to buy specific ETFs for no cost (outside of the total expense ratio). Question 3 When someone says that investing is like buying a lottery ticket, they are comparing an event that almost always has at least a 99.9% of no return (large winnings) to an event that has much better odds.  Even if I randomly pick a stock in the S&P 500 and solely invest in it, over the course of a given year, I do not face a 99.9% chance of losing everything. So comparing the stock market to a lottery, unless a specific lottery has much better odds (keep in mind that some of these jackpots have a 99.9999999% of no return) is not the same.  Unfortunately, nothing truly safe exists - risk may mutate, but it's always present; instead, the probability of something being safe and (or) generating a return may be true for a given period of time, while in another given period of time, may become untrue. One may argue that holding cash is safer than buying an index fund (or stock, ETF, mutual fund, etc), and financially that may be true over a given period of time (for instance, the USD beat the SPY for the year of 2008).  Benjamin Franklin, per a biography I'm reading, argued that the stock market was superior to gold (from the context, it sounds like the cash of his day) because of what the stock market represents: essentially you're betting on the economic output of workers.  It's like saying, in an example using oil, that I believe that even though oil becomes a rare resource in the long run, human workers will find an alternative to oil and will lead to better living standards for all of us. Do civilizations like the Mongolian, Roman, and Ottoman empires collapse?  Yes, and would holding the market in those days fail?  Yes.  But cash and gold might be useless too because we would still need someone to exchange goods with and we would need to have the correct resources to do so (if everyone in a city owns gold, gold has little value).  The only ""safe bet"" in those days would be farming skill, land, crops and (or) livestock because even without trading, one could still provide some basic necessities." I like Pocketsmith for simple cashflow forecasting. I use Moneycenter for more complex tracking. Daily &gt; Weekly &gt; Monthly. This statement says that if you use daily returns you will get more noise than if you used weekly or monthly returns. Much of the research performed uses monthly returns, although weekly returns have been used as well. For HFT you would need to detrend the data in order to spot true turning points. At this point the cost of borrowing money is very low.  For the sake of argument, say it is 1% per year for a large institution. I can either go out and find a client to invest 100,000$ and split profit and loss with them. Or, I could borrow 50,000$, pay 500$/year in interest, and get the same return and loss, while moving the market half as much (which would let me double my position!) In both cases the company is responsible for covering all fixed costs, like paying for traders, trades, office space, branding, management, regulatory compliance, etc. For your system to work, the cost to gather clients and interact with them has to be significantly less than 1% of the capital they provide you per year. At the 50% level, that might actually be worth it for the company in question.  Except at the 50% level you'd have really horrible returns even when the market went up.  So suppose a more reasonable level is the client keeps 75% of the returns (which compares to existing companies which offer larger investors an 80% cut on profits, but no coverage on losses). Now the cost to gather and interact with clients has to be lower than 2500$ per million dollars provided to beat out a simple loan arrangement.  A single sales employee with 100% overhead (office, all marketing, support, benefits) earning 40,000$/year has to bring in 32 million dollar-years worth of investment every year to break even. Cash is cheap.  Investment houses sell cash management, and charge for it.  They don't sell shared investment risk (at least not to retail investors), because it would take a lot of cash for it to be worth their bother. More explicitly, for this to be viable, they'd basically have to constantly arrange large hedges against the market going down to cover any losses.  That is the kind of thing that some margin loans may require.  That would all by itself lower their profits significantly, and they would be exposed to counter-party risk on top of that. It is much harder to come up with a pile of cash when the markets go down significantly.  If you are large enough to be worthwhile, finding a safe counterparty may be nearly impossible. "In these situations, one solution is to use the ""I was just about to ask you the same thing..."" response. This is kind of a famous way to deal with people asking you for money, whether it's someone asking to borrow ""$10 at lunch time"" or ""$3000 for a car"" or the like. So: Person X asks you for money, say $2000. Your reply: Ah, that's bad luck, I was just about to ask you the same thing... Follow this immediately - just keep talking - by launching in to a really incredibly detailed discussion of why you need to borrow money (pick a slightly larger amount, slet's ay $3500).  Just ""keep talking"" and don't let the other person get a word in. Go in to great detail about just what you need the $3500 for and why. It's a good trick."