First time investing advice (Canada)
Question One: Question Two: Your best reference for this would be a brokerage account with data privileges in the markets you wish to trade. Failing that, I would reference the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group (CME Group) website. Question Three: Considering future tuition costs and being Canadian, you are eligible to open a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP). While contributions to this plan are not tax deductible, any taxes on income earned through investments within the fund are deferred until the beneficiary withdraws the funds. Since the beneficiary will likely be in a lower tax bracket at such a time, the sum will likely be taxed at a lower rate, assuming that the beneficiary enrolls in a qualifying post secondary institution. The Canadian government also offers the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG) in which the federal government will match 20% of the first $2500 of your annual RESP contribution up to a maximum of $500. Two to three years? That is one long gestation period!  :^) Welcome.  Congratulations on taking savings into your own hands, you are a winner for taking responsibility for your, and your family's life. If I was you my first priority would be to pay off your car and never buy one on time again.  Or you could sell it and buy something with cash if that would be easier. It is tremendous that you are thinking and planning.  You are already ahead of most people.  Are you working on your basement as you have time/money like when work might be slow?  If so great idea.
It's a good question, I am amazed how few people ask this. To summarise: is it really worth paying substantial fees to arrange a generic investment though your high street bank? Almost certainly not. However, one caveat: You didn't mention what kind of fund(s) you want to invest in, or for how long. You also mention an “advice fee”. Are you actually getting financial advice – i.e. a personal recommendation relating to one or more specific investments, based on the investments' suitability for your circumstances – and are you content with the quality of that advice? If you are, it may be worth it. If they've advised you to choose this fund that has the potential to achieve your desired returns while matching the amount of risk you are willing to take, then the advice could be worth paying for. It entirely depends how much guidance you need. Or are you choosing your own fund anyway? It sounds to me like you have done some research on your own, you believe the building society adviser is “trying to sell” a fund and you aren't entirely convinced by their recommendation. If you are happy making your own investment decisions and are merely looking for a place to execute that trade, the deal you have described via your bank would almost certainly be poor value – and you're looking in the right places for an alternative. ~ ~ ~ On to the active-vs-passive fund debate: That AMC of 1.43% you mention would not be unreasonable for an actively managed fund that you strongly feel will outperform the market. However, you also mention ETFs (a passive type of fund) and believe that after charges they might offer at least as good net performance as many actively managed funds. Good point – although please note that many comparisons of this nature compare passives to all actively managed funds (the good and bad, including e.g. poorly managed life company funds). A better comparison would be to compare the fund managers you're considering vs. the benchmark – although obviously this is past performance and won't necessarily be repeated. At the crux of the matter is cost, of course. So if you're looking for low-cost funds, the cost of the platform is also significant. Therefore if you are comfortable going with a passive investment strategy, let's look at how much that might cost you on the platform you mentioned, Hargreaves Lansdown. Two of the most popular FTSE All-Share tracker funds among Hargreaves Lansdown clients are: (You'll notice they have slightly different performance btw. That's a funny thing with trackers. They all aim to track but have a slightly different way of trading to achieve it.) To hold either of these funds in a Hargreaves Lansdown account you'll also pay the 0.45% platform charge (this percentage tapers off for portolio values higher than £250,000 if you get that far). So in total to track the FTSE All Share with these funds through an HL account you would be paying: This gives you an indication of how much less you could pay to run a DIY portfolio based on passive funds. NB. Both the above are a 100% equities allocation with a large UK companies weighting, so won't suit a lower risk approach. You'll also end up invested indiscriminately in eg. mining, tobacco, oil companies, whoever's in the index – perhaps you'd prefer to be more selective. If you feel you need financial advice (with Nationwide) or portfolio management (with Nutmeg) you have to judge whether these services are worth the added charges. It sounds like you're not convinced! In which case, all the best with a low-cost passive funds strategy. Also, my wealth manager doesn't like to discuss my money with me. To some extent, I understand this because finances are not my forte This is akin to porn surfing all day at your job instead of writing code, fire him ASAP. For now I would stick it in a bank account until you are comfortable and understand the investments you are purchasing.   Here are some options to consider: The last one is tricky.  You might have to interview several in order to find that one gem.  With you being so young it is unlikely any of your friends have a need for such a service.  I would concentrate on asking older work colleagues or friends of your parents for recommendations.  Ask if they are educated by their adviser.   In the end it would really pay for you to educate yourself about finances.  No one can quite do as good as a job as you can in this area.  You recognize that there was a problem with your current guy, that shows wisdom.  If you have an interest in this area, I would recommend attending a Financial Peace University class.  All my kids (about your age and older) are required to take it.  It will help you navigate debt, mortgages, insurance, and investing and will cost you about $100.  If you don't learn enough the first time, and you won't, you can repeat the course as many times as you wish for no additional cost. You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :) 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. "I'm a little confused on the use of the property today.  Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)?  It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible.  Scott W is correct on a number of counts.  The ""cost"" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul.  Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth.  They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to.  $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year.  Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it.  Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim.  If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal.  You are looking at a crappy investment.  It is cheaper and better just to rent.  I don't care if prices are going up right now.  Prices move around.  Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future.  If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying.  That $350 per month you could save in ""rent"" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs).  That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it.  If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, ""But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate?  That's just not possible around here.""  That may be the case.  It IS possible somewhere.  I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties.  They do exist.  They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks.  He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword.  Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword.  It is a gory, ugly mess." "Thanks for the info, things are starting to make more sense now. For some reason I've always neglected learning about investments, now that Im in a position to invest (and am still fairly young) I'm motivated to start learning.   As for help with TD Ameritrade, I was looking into Index Funds (as another commenter mentioned that I should) on their site and am a little overwhelmed with the options. First, I'm looking at Mutual Funds, going to symbol lookup and using type = ""indeces"". I'm assuming that's the same thing as an ""Index Fund"" but since the language is slightly different I'm not 100% sure. However, at that point I need some kind of search for a symbol in order to see any results (makes sense, but I dont know where to start looking for ""good"" index funds).    So my first question is: If I FIND a good mutual fund, is it correct to simply go to ""Buy Mutual Funds"" and find it from there? and if so, my second question is: How do I find a good mutual fund?   My goal is to have my money in something that will likely grow faster than a savings account. I don't mind a little volatility, I can afford to lose my investment, I'd plan on leaving my money in the fund for a several years at least.   My last question is: When investing in these types of funds (or please point me in another direction if you think Index Funds aren't the place for me to start) should I be reinvesting in the funds, or having them pay out dividends? I would assume that reinvesting is the smart choice, but I can imagine situations that might change that in order to mitigate risk...and as I've said a few times in this thread including the title, I'm a complete amateur so my assumptions aren't necessarily worth that much.   Thanks for the help, I really appreciate all the info so far." Loads of financial advisors advise holding index funds they may advise other things as well, but low fee index funds are a staple portfolio item.  I can't speak to the particulars of Canada, but in the US you would just open a brokerage account (or IRA or SEP IRA in the case of a small business owner) and buy a low cost S&P index ETF or low/no fee/commission S&P index mutual fund.  There's no magic to it.   Some examples in no particular order are, Vanguard's VOO, Schwab's SWPPX, and iShares' IVV.  There are also Canadian index equities like Vanguard's VCN and iShare's XIC. I am a firm believer in TD's e-series funds.  No other bank in Canada has index funds with such low management fees.  Index funds offer the flexibility to re-balance your portfolio every month without the need to pay commission fees.  Currently I allocate 10% of my paycheck to be diversified between Canadian, US, and International e-series index funds. In terms of just being for beginners, this opinion is most likely based on the fact that an e-series portfolio is very easy to manage.  But this doesn't mean that it is only for beginners.  Sometimes the easiest solution is the best one! :) Note, the main trade off here is the costs of holding cash rather than being invested for a few months vs trading costs from trading every month.  Let's start by understanding investing every month vs every three months.  First compare holding cash for two months (at ~0% for most Canadians right now) and then investing on the third month vs being invested in a single stock etf (~5% annually?).  At those rates she is forgoing equity returns of around  These costs and the $10 for one big trade give total costs of $16+$8+$10=$34 dollars.   If you were to trade every month instead there would be no cost for not being invested and the trading costs over three months would just be 3*$10=$30.  So in this case it would be better to trade monthly instead of every three months. However, I'm guessing you don't trade all $2000 into a single etf.  The more etfs you trade the more trading more infrequently would be an advantage.  You can redo the above calculations spliting the amount across more etfs and including the added trading costs to get a feel for what is best.  You can also rotate as @Jason suggests but that can leave you unbalanced temporarily if not done carefully.  A second option would be to find a discount broker that allows you to trade the etfs you are interested in for free.  This is not always possible but often will be for those investing in index funds.  For instance I trade every month and have no brokerage costs. Dollar cost averaging and value averaging are for people investing a single large amount instead of regular monthly amounts.  Unless the initial amount is much much larger than the monthly amounts this is probably not worth considering. Edit: Hopefully the above edits will clarify that I was comparing the costs (including the forgone returns) of trading every 3 months vs trading every month. 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. &gt; Theoretically you'd expect the exchange rate to move against you enough to make this a bad investment.   Actually, the theoretical and intentional expectation is that the currency with the highest interest rate should appreciate even more.  Canada has traditionally offered an interest rate premium over the US specifically to help the strength of its currency and attract capital to stay there.  &gt; In reality this doesn't happen  Because carry trades/fx have so little margin requirements, and so many speculators on one side of the trade, there is a significant short squeeze risk any time there is a de-risking shock to the economy.  Any unwinding impulse, scares other carry trade participants to unwind, and then forces many more to unwind. Just saw the update: Here's some ETFs for Canada from Vanguard. I recommend that people think for themselves and get a multitude of counselors.  The more you understand about what drives the prices of various assets, the better. Getting to good advice for a particular person depends on the financial picture for that person.  For example, if they have a lot of consumer debt, then they probably would be better off paying off the debt before investing, as earning 5% (say) in the stock market year over year will be eaten up by the 18%+ they may be paying on their credit cards. Here's a starter list of the types of information that would be better to have in order to get fair investment advice. I think the OP is getting lost in designations.  Sounds to me that what he wants is a 'financial advisor' not an 'investment advisor'.  Does he even have investments?  Does he want to be told which securities to buy?   Or is he wanting advice on overall savings, insurance, tax-shelters, retirement planning, mortgages, etc.  Which is a different set of skills - the financial advisor skill set. Accountants don't have that skill set.  They know operating business reporting, taxes and generally how to keep it healthy and growing.  They can do personal tax returns (as a favour to only the owners of the business they keep track of usually). IMO they can deal with the reporting but not the planning or optimization. But IMO the OP should just read up and learn this stuff for himself.  Accreditation mean nothing.  Eg.  the major 'planner' brand teaches factually wrong stuff about RRSPs - which are the backbone of Canadian's finances. I had an RRSP account with a managed services account at a major Cdn bank that increased its fees to $125 a year per account.  Because I could not trade any of my funds living in the US, it made no sense to throw away $500 a year for nothing (two accounts for me and two accounts for my wife - regular RRSP and locked in RRSP).  I was able to move all my accounts to TD discount brokerage without any issue.  I did this two years ago.