Advice for college student: Should I hire a financial adviser or just invest in index funds?
"Couple of clarifications to start off: Index funds and ETF's are essentially the same investments.  ETF's allow you to trade during the day but also make you reinvest your dividends manually instead of doing it for you.  Compare VTI and VTSAX, for example.  Basically the same returns with very slight differences in how they are run.  Because they are so similar it doesn't matter which you choose. Either index funds and ETF's can be purchased through a regular taxable brokerage account or through an IRA or Roth IRA.  The decision of what fund to use and whether to use a brokerage or IRA are separate. Whole market index funds will get you exposure to US equity but consider also diversifying into international equity, bonds, real estate (REITS), and emerging markets.  Any broker can give you advice on that score or you can get free advice from, for example, Future Advisor.  Now the advice: For most people in your situation, you current tax rate is currently very low.  This makes a Roth IRA a very reasonable idea.  You can contribute $5,500 for 2015 if you do it before April 15 and you can contribute $5,500 for 2016.  Repeat each year.  You won't be able to get all your money into a Roth, but anything you can do now will save you money on taxes in the long run.  You put after-tax money in a Roth IRA and then you don't pay taxes on it or the gains when you take it out. You can use Roth IRA funds for college, for a first home, or for retirement. A traditional IRA is not recommended in your case.  That would save you money on taxes this year, when presumably your taxes are already low. Since you won't be able to put all your money in the IRA, you can put the rest in a regular taxable brokerage account (if you don't just want to put it in a savings account).  You can buy the same types of things as you have in your IRA.   Note that if your stocks (in your regular brokerage account) go up over the course of a year and your income is low enough to be in the 10 or 15% tax bracket and you have held the stock for at least a year, you should sell before the end of the year to lock in your gains and pay taxes on them at the capital gains rate of 0%. This will prevent you from paying a higher rate on those gains later.  Conversely, if you lose money in a year, don't sell. You can sell and lock in losses during years when your taxes are high (presumably, after college) to reduce your tax burden in those years (this is called ""tax loss harvesting""). Sounds like crazy contortions but the name of the game is (legally) avoiding taxes.  This is at least as important to your overall wealth as the decision of which funds to buy. Ok now the financial advisor.  It's up to you.  You can make your own financial decisions and save the money but it requires you putting in the effort to be educated.  For many of us, this education is fun.  Also consider that if you use a regular broker, like Fidelity, you can call up and they have people who (for free) will give you advice very similar to what you will get from the advisor you referred to.  High priced financial advisors make more sense when you have a lot of money and complicated finances.  Based on your question, you don't strike me as having those.  To me, 1% sounds like a lot to pay for a simple situation like yours." "Exactly what you do with the money depends on various personal choices you'll have to make for yourself.  Investing your money in Vanguard index funds such as the ones you mentioned is certainly one smart move.  However, I think you're quite right to be suspicious of an advisor with a 1% fee.  In many cases, such advisors are not worth their costs.  The thing to remember is that, typically with that type of fee structure, you always pay the costs, even if the advisor turns out to be wrong and your money doesn't grow. One thing to check is whether the advisor you mentioned is paid only by the fees he charges (a ""fee-only financial planner') , or whether he also makes money via the sales of financial products.  Some advisors earn money by selling you financial products (such as mutual funds), which can create a conflict of interest.  You can read about fee-only financial advisors and choosing a financial advisor on Investopedia." "Two things to consider: When it comes to advice, don't be ""Penny wise and Pound foolish"". It is an ongoing debate whether active management vs passive indexes are a better choice, and I am sure others can give good arguments for both sides. I look at it as you are paying for advice. If your adviser will teach you about investing and serve your interests, having his advise will probably prevent you from making some dumb mistakes. A few mistakes (such as jumping in/out of markets based on fear/speculation) can eliminate any savings in fees. However, if you feel confident that you have the resources and can make good decisions, why pay for advise you don't need? EDIT In this case, my opinion is that you don't need a complex plan at this time. The money you would spend on financial advise would not be the best use of the funds.  That said, to your main question, I would delay making any long-term decisions with these funds until you know you are done with your education and on an established career path. This period of your life can be very volatile, and you may find yourself halfway through college and wanting to change majors or start a different path. Give yourself the option to do that by deferring long-term investment decisions until you have more stability. For that reason, I would avoid focusing on retirement savings. As others point out, you are limited in how much you can contribute per year. If you want to start, ROTH is your best bet, but if you put it in don't pull it out. That is a bad habit to get into. Personal finance is as much about developing habits as it is doing math... A low-turnover index fund may be appropriate, but you don't want to end up where you want to buy a house or start a business and your investment has just lost 10%...  I would keep at least half in a liquid, safe account until after graduation. Any debt you incur because you tied up this money will eliminate any investment gains (if any). Good Luck! EDITED to clarify retirement savings" "Though @mehassee mentioned it in a comment, I would like to emphasize the point that the financial planner (CFP) you talked to said that he was a fiduciary.  A fiduciary has an obligation to act in your best interests.  According to uslegal.com, ""When one person does agree to act for another in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids the fiduciary from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit in relation to the subject matter"".  So, any of these Stack Exchange community members may or may not have your best interest at heart, but the financial advisor you talked to is obligated to. You have to decide for yourself, is it worth 1% of your investment to have someone legally obligated to have your best financial interest in mind, versus, for example, someone who might steer you to an overpriced insurance product in the guise of an investment, just so they can make a buck off of you?  Or versus wandering the internet trying to make sense of conflicting advice?  In my opinion, a fiduciary (registered CFP) is probably the best person to answer your questions." If you use a financial planner not only should they be a fiduciary but you should just pay them an hourly rate once a year instead of a percentage unless the percentage is cheaper at this time. To find a good one, go to the National Association of Personal Financial Advisers website, NAPFA.org. Another good resource is Garrett Planning Network: GarrettPlanningNetwork.com.
"You can't get much better advice for a young investor than from Warren Buffet. And his advice for investors young and old, is ""Put 10% of the cash in short‑term government bonds, and 90% in a very low‑cost S&P 500 index fund."" Or as he said at a different time, ""Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees"".  You are not going to beat the market. So just save as much money as you can, and invest it in something like a Vanguard no-load, low-cost mutual fund.  Picking individual stocks is fun, but treat it as fun. Never put in more money than you would waste on fun. Then any upside is pure gravy." "The advice to ""Only invest what you can afford to lose"" is good advice. Most people should have several pots of money: Checking to pay your bills; short term savings; emergency fund; college fund; retirement. When you think about investing that is the funds that have along lead time: college and retirement. It is never the money you need to pay your bills.  Now when somebody is young, the money they have decided to invest can be in riskier investments. You have time to recover. Over time the transition is made to less risky investments because the recovery time is now limited. For example putting all your college savings for your recent high school graduate into the stock market could have devastating consequences. Your hear this advice ""Only invest what you can afford to lose"" because too many people ask about hove to maximize the return on the down payment for their house: Example A, Example B. They want to use vehicles designed for long term investing, for short term purposes. Imagine a 10% correction while you are waiting for closing." "If I understand correctly, your question boils down to this: ""I have $X to invest over 25 years, are guaranteed returns at a 0.6% lower rate better than what I expect to get from the stock market over the same period?"" Well, I believe the standard advice would go something like: Rational investors pay a premium to reduce risk/volatility. Or, put another way, guaranteed returns are more valuable than risky returns, all things equal. I don't know enough about student loans in America (I'm Australian). Here a student loan is very low interest and the minimum repayments scale with what you earn not what you owe, starting at $0 for a totally liveable wage - Here I'd say there's a case to just pay the minimum and invest extra money elsewhere. If yours is a private loan though, following the same rules as other loans, remember the organisation extending your loan has access to the stock market too! why would they extend a loan to you on worse terms than they would get by simply dumping money into an index fund? Is the organisation that extends student loans a charity or subsidised in some way? If not, someone has already built a business on the the analysis that returns at 6.4% (including defaults) beats the stock market at 7% in some way. What I would put back to you though, is that your question oversimplifies what is likely your more complex reality, and so answering your question directly doesn't help that much to make a persuasive case - It's too mathematical and sterile. Here are some things off the top of my head that your real personal circumstances might convince you to pay off your loan first, hit up Wall Street second:" The nature of this question (finding a financial adviser) can make it a conundrum. Those who have little financial experience are often in the greatest need of a financial adviser and at the same time are the least qualified to select one. I'm not putting you or anyone in particular in this category. And of course it's a sliding scale: In general the more capable you are of running your own finances the more prepared you are to answer this question. With that said, I would recommend backing up half a step. Consider advisers other than strictly fee-only advisers. Perhaps you have already considered this decision. But perhaps others reading this have not. My (Ameriprise) adviser charges a monthly (~$50) fee, but also gets percentage-based portions of certain investments. Based on a $150/hr rate that amounts to four hours per year. Does he spend four hours per year on my account? Well so far he does (~2 yrs). But that is determined primarily by how much interaction I choose to have with him. (I suppose I could spend more time asking him questions and less time on this forum. :P) I have never fully understood the gravitation towards fee-based advisers on principle. I guess the theory is they are not making biased decisions about your investments because they don't have as much of a stake in how well your investments to do. I don't necessarily see that as an advantage. It seems they would have less of an incentive to ensure the growth of your investments. Although if you're nearing retirement then growth isn't your biggest concern. Perhaps a fee-based adviser makes more sense in that scenario. Whatever pay structure your adviser uses, it would seem to make sense to consider a successful adviser with a good client base. This implies that the adviser knows what he/she is doing. (But it could also just be a sign that they are good at marketing themselves.) If your adviser has a good base of wealthy clients then choosing a strictly-fee based adviser would mitigate the risk of your adviser having less incentive to consider your portfolio vs that of more wealthy clients. To more directly answer your question I suggest asking several of your adviser candidates for advice on choosing an adviser. I suspect you will get some good advice as well as good insight on the integrity and honesty of the adviser. "A financial planner can help with investments, insurance, estate planning, budgeting, retirement planning, saving for college, tax planning/prep, and other money topics. One way to get a sense is to look at this Certified Financial Planner topic list. Another idea is to look at this book (my favorite I've read) which covers roughly a similar topic list in a concise form: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 It could not hurt at all to read that before deciding to visit a planner, so you have baseline knowledge. By the way, look for the CFP certification which is a generalist certification. A CFP might also have a deeper cert in certain topics or connect you with someone who does. For example: You really want a generalist (CFP) who may have an additional credential as well. The idea is to holistically look at what you're trying to accomplish and all finance-related areas. Especially because there may be tradeoffs. The CFP would then refer you to or work with lawyers, accountants, etc. Importantly, some advisors are fiduciaries (must act in your interests) and some are not. In particular many stockbrokers are neither qualified planners (no CFP or equivalent) nor are they fiduciaries. Stay away. There are several models for paying a financial planner, including: There's an organization called NAPFA (napfa.org) for fiduciary non-commission-based planners. Membership there is a good thing to look for since it's a third party that defines what fee-only means and requires the no-commissions/fiduciary standard. Finally, the alternative I ended up choosing was to just take the CFP course myself. You can do it online via correspondence course, it costs about the same as 1 year of professional advice. I also took the exam, just to be sure I learned the stuff. This is the ""extreme DIY"" approach but it is cheaper over time and you know you are not going to defraud yourself. You still might do things that are counterproductive and not in your interests, but you know that already probably ;-) Anyway I think it's equivalent to about a quarter's worth of work at a decent college, or so. There are about 6 textbooks to dig through. You won't be an experienced expert at the end, but you'll know a lot. To get an actual CFP cert, you need 3 years experience on top of the courses and the exam - I haven't done that, just the book learning. Someone who puts ""CFP"" after their name will have the 3 years on top of the training. Some editorial: many planners emphasize investing, and many people looking for planners (or books on finance) emphasize investing. This is a big mistake, in my view. Investing is more or less a commodity and you just need someone who won't screw it up, overcharge, and/or lose your money on something idiotic or inappropriate. Some people are in plain-bad and inappropriate investments, don't get me wrong. But once you fix that and just get into anything decent, your biggest planning concerns are probably elsewhere. On investments, I'd look for a planner to just get you out of overpriced annuities and expensive mutual funds you may have been sold (anything you were sold by a salesperson is probably crap). And look for them to help you decide how much to invest, and how much in stocks vs. bonds. Those are the most important investment decisions." At your age (heck, at MY age :-)) I would not think about doing any of those types of investments (not savings) on your own, unless you are really interested in the investment process for its own sake, and are willing to devote a lot of time to investigating companies in order to try to pick good investments. Instead, find a good mutual fund from say Vanguard or TRP, put your money in there, and relax.  Depending on your short-term goals (e.g. will you expect to need the money for college?) you could pick either an index fund, or a low-risk, mostly bond fund. "You should certainly look into investments. If you don't expect to need the money until retirement, then I'd put it in an IRA so you get the tax advantages. It makes sense to keep some money handy ""just in case"", but $23k is a very large amount of money for an emergency fund. Of course much depends on your life situation, but I'm hard pressed to think of an unexpected emergency that would come up that would require $23k. If you're seriously planning to go back to school, then you might want to put the money in a non-retirement fund investment. As I write this -- September 2015 -- the stock market is falling, so if you expect to need the money within the next few months, putting it in the stock market may be a mistake. But long term, the stock market has always gone up, so it will almost certainly recover sooner or later. The question is just when. Investing versus paying off debts is a difficult decision. What is the interest rate on the debt? If it's more than you're likely to make on an investment, then you should pay off the debt first. (My broker recently told me that over the last few decades, the stock market has averaged 7% annual growth, so I'm using that as my working number.) If the interest rate is low, some people still prefer to pay off the debt because the interest is certain while the return on an investment is uncertain, and they're unwilling to take the risk." Certainly reading the recommended answers about initial investing is a great place to start and I highly recommend reading though that page for sure, but I also believe your situation is a little different than the one described as that person has already started their long-term career while you are still a couple years away.  Now, tax-advantaged accounts like IRAs are amazingly good places to start building up retirement funds, but they also lock up the money and have a number of rules about withdrawals. You have fifteen thousand which is a great starting pot of money but college is likely to be done soon and there will likely be a number of expenses with the transition to full-time employment.  Moving expenses, first month's rent, nursing exams, job search costs, maybe a car...  all of this can be quite a lot especially if you are in a larger city.  It sounds like your parents are very helpful though which is great. Make sure you have enough money for that transition and emergency expenses first and if there is a significant pool beyond that then start looking at investments.  If you determine now is the best time to start than then above question is has great advice, but even if not it is still well worth taking some time to understand investing through that question, my favorite introduction book on the subject and maybe even a college course.  So when you land that first solid nursing job and get situated you can start taking full advantage of the 401K and IRAs. This is slightly opinion based. Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time?  At your age and the time period, I would say NO. This is because although the index fund do return 6-7% on average, there are several times it blips and goes negative as well. Stock Markets in short periods like 6 months can be unpredictable. At times a downturn will remain stagnant for periods of 2-3 years before suddenly zoom ahead. If you are not to particular about the time when you need the changes done; i.e. the changes can in worst case wait for few years; then yes investing in Index fund would make sense.  Else you are well off keeping this in savings. Try CD's if they can offer better rates for such durations. "Technically, anyone who advises how you should spend or proportion your money is a financial adviser.  A person that does it for money is a Financial Advisor (difference in spelling). Financial Advisors are people that basically build, manage, or advise on your portfolio.  They have a little more institutional knowledge on how/where to invest, given your goals, since they do it on a daily basis. They may know a little more than you since, they deal with many different assets: stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, bonds, insurances (home/health/life), REITs, options, futures, LEAPS, etc. There is risk in everything you do, which is why what they propose is generally according to the risk-level you want to assume.  Since you're younger, your risk level could be a little higher, as you approach retirement, your risk level will be lower.  Risk level should be associated with how likely you're able to reacquire your assets if you lose it all as well as, your likelihood to enjoy the fruits from your investments. Financial Advisors are great, however, be careful about them.  Some are payed on commissions, which are given money for investing in packages that they support.  Basically, they could get paid $$ for putting you in a losing situation.  Also be careful because some announce that they are fee-based - these advisers often receive fees as well as commissions.  Basically, associate the term ""commission"" with ""conflict-of-interest"", so you want a fee-only Advisor, which isn't persuaded to steer you wrong. Another thing worth noting is that some trading companies (like e*trade) has financial services that may be free, depending how much money you have with them.  Generally, $50K is on the lower end to get a Financial Advisors.  There has been corruption in the past, where Financial Advisors are only given a limited number of accounts to manage, that means they took the lower-valued ones and basically ran them into the ground, so they could get newer ones from the lot that were hopefully worth more - the larger their portfolio, the more $$ they could make (higher fees or more commissions) and subjectively less work (less accounts to have to deal with), that's subjective, since the spread of the wealth was accross many markets." "When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now.  In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also  mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not ""pure stocks"": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done ""by hand,"" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard.  (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice." Large and well-known companies are typically a good starting point. That doesn't mean that they are the best or even above average good, but at least they don't cheat you and run with your money. A core point is someone you pay, not the company whose investment he sell you. Although the latter seems cheaper on first glance, it isn't - if you pay him, his interest is to do good work for you; if they pay him, his interest is to sell you the product with the highest payment for him. That does not imply that they are all that way; it's just a risk. There are many good advisers that live from commissions, and still don't recommend you bad investments. Depending on the amounts, you could also read up a bit and open an account with a online investment company. It is discussable, but I think the cost for an adviser only starts to become worth it if you are deep into 5 digits of money. "A suitable mix of index funds IS a great option if you don't want to spend a lot of time and effort micromanaging your money. If you find amusement in pushing numbers around, you may be able to do better. Notice: MAY. If you have multiple millions, you can hire someone of that sort to push the numbers around for you. They may do better for you. Notice: MAY. And remember that part of your additional gains have to go to pay them, which means they have to do better just to be worth having on staff in the first place. If you have more than that, there are some options available which smaller investors really can't get involved in. As one example: If you have enough money that you can lose $100K without especially noticing, you can get involved in venture capital and the like which require a large commitment AND are higher-risk but can yield higher returns. Anyone who's dismissing index funds as ""only for beginners"" is being foolish. But recommending them to beginners in particular is a good thing since they let you get into the market with fairly predictable risk/benefits without needing a massive investment in education and time." "I'm not following what's the meaning of ""open a mutual fund"". You don't open a mutual fund, you invest in it. There's a minimum required investment ($2000? Could be, some funds have lower limits, you don't have to go with the Fidelity one necessarily), but in general it has nothing to do with your Roth IRA account. You can invest in mutual funds with any trading account, not just Roth IRA (or any other specific kind). If you invest in ETF's  - you can invest in funds just as well (subject to the minimums set). As to the plan itself - buying and selling ETF's will cost you commission, ~2-3% of your investment. Over several months, you may get positive returns, and may get negative returns, but keep in mind that you start with the 2-3% loss on day 1. Within a short period of time, especially in the current economic climate (which is very unstable - just out of recession, election year, etc etc), I would think that keeping the cash in a savings account would be a better choice. While with ETF you don't have any guarantees other than -3%, then with savings accounts you can at least have a guaranteed return of ~1% APY (i.e.: won't earn much over the course of your internship, but you'll keep your money safe for your long term investment). For the long term - the fluctuations of month to month don't matter much, so investing now for the next 50 years - you shouldn't care about the stock market going 10% in April. So, keep your 1000 in savings account, and if you want to invest 5000 in your Roth IRA - invest it then. Assuming of course that you're completely positive about not needing this money in the next several decades." For the CPI, there is actually federal employees whose job it is to visit various stores to collect the prices of specific items (boy's size-14 collared shirt made of 97 percent cotton).  Planet Money did a great podcast on this, actually following one of these people for a day.