Are Certificates of Deposit worth it compared to investing in the stock market?
"Another factor to consider, beyond the fact that growth and volatility go together, is that the times when many people will need to liquidate their investments will correlate with the times that many other people need to liquidate their investments, and such correlation will push down the immediate value of those investments. While certificates of deposit have penalties for early withdrawal, one can establish up front what the worst-case penalty would be for cashing it in at the most inopportune time.  By contrast, stocks offer no such assurance.  Stocks sometimes have weird downward spikes that may be short-lived, but if life circumstances force one to liquidate stocks during such a downward spike the ""penalty"" can be much larger than on a CD." The difference is downside risk. Your CD, assuming you are in the US and the CD is purchased from a deposit bank, will be FDIC insured, your $10,000 is definitely coming back to you.  Your stock portfolio has no such guarantee and can lose money.  Your potential upside is theoretically correlated to the risk that some or all of your money may not be returned to you. A CD is guaranteed to pay its return on maturation.  So if you need a certain amount of money at a specific time in the future, the CD is a more reliable way of getting it.  The stock market might give you more money or less.  More is obviously OK.  Less is not if you're planning to pay basic expenses with it, e.g. food, rent, etc.   Most retirement portfolios will have a mix of investments.  Some securities (stocks and bonds), some guaranteed returns (CDs, treasuries), and some cash equivalents (money market, savings, and checking accounts).  Cash equivalents are good for short term expenses and an emergency fund.  Guaranteed returns are good for medium term expenses.  Securities are good for the long term.   Once retired, the general system is to maintain enough cash equivalents for the next few months of expenses and emergencies.  Then schedule CDs for the next few years so that you have a predictable amount.  Finally, keep the bulk of your wealth in securities.  As you get older, your potential emergencies increase and your need for savings decreases, so the mix shifts more and more to the cash equivalents and guaranteed returns and away from securities.   CDs have limited use prior to retirement (and the couple years right before retirement), mainly saving up for a large purchase like a house, car, or major appliance.  Even there if you have the option of delaying the purchase, that might allow you to use securities instead.  Perhaps some of your emergency fund in a short term CD that you keep rolling over.   Note that the problem isn't so much that securities will fall.  It's that they'll fall right when you need the money.  So rather than sell 1% of your securities to meet your needs, you have to sell 2%.  That's a dead weight loss of 1% that you have to deduct from your returns.  That roughly matches the drop from the height of 2007 to the trough of 2009 of the S&P 500.  And it was 2012 before it recovered.  If in 2007, you had put the 1% of your portfolio in a two-year CD, you'd be ahead even at zero interest in 2009. Growth is how well the investment will grow on average.   In the long term, this is a sure thing.  Volatility is how much the value will jerk up and down in the short term.   Do you want both... Or neither?  When are you going to use the money? If it's IRA money you can't touch for 30 years, it really ought to be in the market, since growth is hugely important, and volatility is not a big concern. You're in it for the very long game, and volatility will average out, leaving pure growth.  If the market drops 25% in 6 months, who cares?  Stocks go up, stocks go down. It has 29 years to recover, and it will.   If you are planning to buy a house in 6 months, you want that money in something like a CD, because volatility could be devastating: an untimely 25% drop in stock price could really, really suck. For the specific example you gave, a CD with a 0.05% rate of return, I'd shop around some more, that's a VERY low rate of return. A more realistic one would be 0.5%, depending on the terms. As has been mentioned, CDs are good when you need to preserve your capital. What might be a situation for that? They are great for Emergency funds, which you should always have a reasonable amount of cash in. I have a set up 3 CDs with 12 month terms, each carrying about 30% of my emergency savings. The remaining 10% I keep in a standard savings account, for quick access dealing with a short term emergency. The 3 are spaced about 4 months apart, so that I'm always within 4 months of having one come to term. They have a 3 month penalty if I withdraw early, but based on the fact that I have never had to touch more than 10% of my emergency savings, I'm perfectly okay with that. What about more long term savings? Well, it depends on what your timeframe is for using the money. If it's more than 10 years, and you are willing to risk losing some of it, then by all means invest in a higher risk higher reward investment. If it's only a few years, maybe a bond fund is something that would be better. And if you really need to preserve the money, then a CD can be great too. "Of course CDs are worth it compared to the stock market. In fact, most institutional investors are envious of the CDs you have access to as an individual investor that are unavailable to them. You just need to be competent enough to shop around for the best rates and understand your time horizon. There are several concepts to understand here: Banks give out CDs with competitive rates projecting future interest rates. So while the Federal funds rate is currently extremely low, banks know that in order to get any takers on their CDs they have to factor in the public expectation that rates will rise, so if you lock in a longer term CD you get a competitive rate. Institutional investors do not have access to FDIC insured CDs and the closest analog they participate in are the auctions and secondary markets of US Treasuries. These two types of assets have equivalent default (non-)risk if held to maturity: backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Here are the current rates (as of question's date) taken from Vanguard that I can get on CDs versus Treasuries (as an individual investor). Notice that CDs outperform Treasuries across any maturity timescale! For fixed-income and bond allocations, institutional investors are lining up for buying treasuries. And yet here you are saying ""CDs are not worth it."" Might want to rethink that. Now going into the stock market as an investor with expectations of those high returns you quote, means you're willing to stay there for the long-term (at least a decade) and stay the course during volatility to actually have any hope of coming up with the average rate of return. Even then, there's the potential downside of risk that you still lose principal after that duration. So given that assumption, it's only fair to compare against >= 10 year CDs which are currently rated at 2 percent APY. In addition, CDs can be laddered -- allowing you to lock-in newer (and potentially higher) rates as they become available. You essentially stagger your buyin into these investments, and either reinvest upon the stilted maturity dates or use as income. Also keep in mind that while personal emergencies requiring quick access to cash can happen at any time, the most common scenario is during the sudden change from a bull market into a recession -- the time when stocks plummet. If you need money right away, selling your stocks at these times would lock in severe losses, whereas with CDs you still won't lose principal with an early exit and the only penalty is usually a sacrifice of a few months of potential interest. It's easy to think of the high yields during a protracted bull market (such as now), but personal finance has a huge behavioral component to it that is largely ignored until it's too late. One risk that isn't taken care of by either CDs or Treasuries is inflation risk. All the rates here and in the original question are nominal rates, and the real return will depend on inflation (or deflation). There are other options here besides CDs, Treasuries, and the stock market to outpace inflation if you'd like to hedge that risk with inflation protection: Series I Savings Bonds and TIPS." If you want to spend all of your money in the next few years, then a CD protects you from the risk of a bear market. however, if your time horizon is longer than 10 years, then the stock market is a better bet, since it is less effected by inflation risk. also, as you point out average stock returns are much higher, ignoring volatility.  On the whole, CD's appeal to people who would otherwise save their money in cash.  generally, it seems these people are simply afraid of stocks and bonds because those securities can lose nominal value as well as real value.  I suspect this is largely because these people don't understand inflation, nor the historical long-term index fund performance. This all depends on your timeline and net worth.  If you're short on time before you plan to start spending it or have a large net worth, parking some of your money in CDs is a good idea. If you have lots of time or not much net worth, then index funds are a better bet. Equity or dividend index funds are the way to go when you have 10+ years before you reach your goal. CDs major downside is that they don't beat inflation 1 - 3% a year. This is why you only use them when it's absolutely critical you hold onto every penny of the principal. The reason is because with CDs your 10k is actually losing its value (not the principal) the longer you leave it in CDs. I generally wouldn't recommend CDs unless you are in or approaching your 60s or have assets over 500k. Even still I would limit the use of CDs to no more than 20%. I would view them as catastrophic loss protection.
Investing money in the stock market with [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) is a great way to build wealth and plan for the future. However, few people know what the stock market is let alone how to begin investing in it. It is important to understand how companies and stocks work before investing in them. Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly.  Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc. "But I don't see how it's any different than buying a stock at a low price and holding on to it for some months. Based on your question, I would say the difference is time. Day trading by its nature is a 6-hour endeavor. If you buy low and are planning to sell high, then you only have a few hours to make this happen. As a previous poster mentioned, there is a lot of ""white noise"" that occurs on a weekly/daily/hourly/min basis. Long-term investors have the time to wait it out. Although, as a side note, if you were a buy-and-hold investor from the 1960s-early 1980s, then buy and hold was not very good. Is it just the psychological/addictive aspect of it? This is the biggest reason. Day trading is stressful and stress can cause financially destructive decisions such as over-leveraging, over-trading, etc. Why is day trading stressful? Because you are managing hundreds to thousands of trades a year. When combined with the lack of time in a day to make moves, it becomes stressful. Also, many day traders do it full time. Which adds to the pressure to be correct and to be incredible at money managment. A lot of buy-and-hold investors have full time jobs and may only check their positions every month or so." "I think I understand what you're trying to achieve. You just want to see how it ""feels"" to own a share, right? To go through the process of buying and holding, and eventually selling, be it at a loss or at a gain.  Frankly, my primary advice is: Just do it on paper! Just decide, for whatever reason, which stocks to buy, in what amount, subtract 1% for commissions (I'm intentionally staying on the higher side here), and keep track of the price changes daily.   Instead of doing it on mere paper, some brokers offer you a demo account where you can practice your paper trading in the same way you would use a live account. As far as I know, Interactive Brokers and Saxo Bank offer such demo accounts, go look around on their web pages.  The problem about doing it for real is that many of the better brokers, such as the two I mentioned, have relatively high minimum funding limits. You need to send a few thousand pounds to your brokerage account before you can even use it. Of course, you don't need to invest it all, but still, the cash has to be there.  Especially for some younger and inexperienced investors, this can seduce them to gambling most of their money away. Which is why I would not advise you to actually invest in this way. It will be expensive but if it's just for trying it on one share, use your local principal bank for the trade.  Hope this gets you started!" "A dividend is one method of returning value to shareholders, some companies pay richer dividends than others; some companies don't typically pay a dividend.  Understand that shareholders are owners of a company.  When you buy a stock you now own a portion (albeit an extremely small portion) of that company. It is up to you to determine whether holding stock in a company is worth the risk inherent to equity investing over simply holding treasury notes or some other comparable no risk investment like bank savings or CDs.   Investing isn't really intended to change your current life.  A common phrase is ""investing in tomorrow.""  It's about holding on to money so you'll have it for tomorrow.  It's about putting your money to work for you today, so you'll have it tomorrow.  It's all about the future, not your current life." The above is very true, but the biggest bang for your buck can also be in the RESP, assuming you qualify for the grant of 20% per year...it's hard to beat free money from the government...in this account, your investment grows, and the growth and grant is taxed in the hands of the child when it is withdrawn. (Normally, they dont have much income at this point, so pay little or no tax)  However, you do not get any income tax deduction or tax break at the time you make the deposit. CDs pay less than the going rate so that the banks can earn money. Investing is risky right now due to the inaction of the Fed.  Try your independent life insurance agent. You could get endowment life insurance. It would pay out at age 21. If you decide to invest it yourself try to buy a stable equity fund. My 'bedrock' fund is PGF.  It pays dividends each month and is currently yealding 5.5% per year. Scottrade has a facility to automatically reinvest the dividend each month at no commission.  http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PGF?CountryCode=US "If by ""putting money in the bank"" you mean regular savings or checking, then the bond locks a rate for a period of time, whereas your savings/checking rate can vary over that period.  That variation might go for you or against you.  Depending on your situation, you might prefer to take a determined rate to the variations.  In addition, some bond types provide tax benefits (e.g. treasuries and municipal bonds) that change the effective return - You cannot just compare the interest rates. Finally, the bonds have ""resale"" value on the secondary market like stock - Depending on your outlook and strategy, you might by the bond for its value as a security rather than for the interest specifically just like you'd could buy a dividend-paying stock for its value as a security rather than for the dividend.  In other words, you might think that bond values are going up, so you buy bonds with the intent of making a capital gain rather than counting on the interest returned. (The bond market does depend on the interest rate, so these are not independent factors.) I see the other answer that mentions the potential for your bank busting and you losing money beyond the FDIC insurance limit.  The question doesn't specify U.S. Government bonds though, so I don't think that answer is generally good.  It would be good in the case that you had a lot of money (especially an institution or foreign government) and you were specifically interested in U.S. Treasury bonds.  Not so much if you invest in corporate bonds where you have no government insurance / assurance of any sort.  Municipal bounds are also not backed by the U.S. (federal) government, but they may have some backing at the state level, depending on the state." Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios.  Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!)  If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs. It seems to me that the CBV is just about equity valuation in the public and private markets. The CFA, on the other hand, does valuation of equity, debt, and derivatives, as well as economics, portfolio management, and some other stuff related to investments.   I had never heard of the CBV before today ('murican here), but it seems that it does have value in a way that the CFA doesn't: consulting services. I have a CFA and have done valuations for public and private businesses, but I can definitely see where increased training specifically in valuation (especially in the legal aspects) could be very valuable.   The CBV may have more value if you're looking to partner up with lawyers dealing with estate planning or private business sales. If you're looking at public markets, I'd say CFA.   One thing to be aware of, though, is that the CFA is probably significantly more work. If you are in an economy which has a decent liquid debt market (corporate bonds, etc.), then you may look into investing in AA or AA+ rated bonds. They can provide higher returns than bank deposits and are virtually risk-free. (Though in severe economic downturns, you can see defaults in even very high-rated bonds, leading to partial or complete loss of value however, this is statistically quite rare). You can make this investment through a debt mutual fund but please make sure that you read through the offer document carefully to understand the investment style of the mutual fund and their expense ratio (which directly affect your returns). In any case, it is always recommended to reach out to an investment adviser who is good with local tax laws to minimize taxes and maximize returns. GIC perhaps? These would be quite similar to Certificates of Deposit where one is agreeing to lock up their money for a term and be paid a percentage for doing so. There are various kinds as some may be linked to market returns in some cases and others are just simple interest. This is a very good question! The biggest difference is that when you put money in a savings bank you are a lender that is protected by the government, and when you buy stocks you become an owner. As a lender, whether the bank makes or loses money on the loans it makes, they still maintain your balance and pay you interest, and your principal balance is guaranteed by the government (in the USA). The bank is the party that is primarily at risk if their business does not perform well. As an owner, you participate fully in the company's gains and losses, but you also put your money at risk, since if the company loses money, you do too. Because of this, many people prefer to buy funds made up of many stocks, so they are not at risk of one company performing very poorly or going bankrupt. When you buy stock you become a part owner and share in the profitability of the company, often through a dividend. You should also be aware that stocks often have years where they do very poorly as well as years when they do very well. However, over a long period of time (10 years or more), they have historically done better in outpacing inflation than any other type of investment. For this reason, I would recommend that you only invest in the stock market if you expect to be able to leave the money there for 10 years or more, ideally, and for 5 years at the very least. Otherwise, you may need to take the money out at a bad time. I would also recommend that you only invest in stocks if you already have an emergency fund, and don't have consumer debt. There isn't much point in putting your money at risk to get a return if you can get a risk-free return by paying off debt, or if you would have to pull your money back out if your car broke down or you lost your job. Investing in the stock market early is a good thing.  However, it does have a learning curve, and that curve can, and eventually will, cost you. One basic rule in investing is that risk and reward are proportional.  The greater the reward, the higher the risk that you either (a) won't get the reward, or (b) lose your money instead.  Given that, don't invest money you can't afford to lose (you mentioned you're on a student budget). If you want to start with short but sercure investments, try finding a high-interest savings account or CD.  For example, the bank I use has an offer where the first $500 in your account gets ~6% interest - certainly not bad if you only put $500 in the account.  Unfortunately, most banks are offering a pittance for savings rates or CDs. If you're willing to take more risk, you could certainly put money into the stock market.  Before you do, I would recommend spending some time learning about how the stock market works, it's flows and ebbs, and how stock valuations work.  Don't buy a stock because you hear about it a lot; understand why that stock is being valued as such.  Also consider buying index funds (such as SPY) which is like a stock but tracks an entire index.  That way if a specific company suddenly drops, you won't be nearly as affected.  On the flip side, if only 1 company goes up, but the market goes down, you'll miss out.  But consider the odds of having picked that 1 company. CDs or money market funds. Zero-risk for the CD and ultra-low risk for the money market account; better return than most savings accounts.