How do I handle fund minimums as a beginning investor?
Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks).  Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table. I like Keshlam's answer and would like to add a few notes: While your enthusiasm to invest is admirable learning patience is a key aspect of wealth building and keeping. If you are comfortable picking individual stocks and can get into Robinhood you only need $1000 to get started. This means buying one stock of this, two stocks of that, etc. but it works.
Over time, fees are a killer. The $65k is a lot of money, of course, but I'd like to know the fees involved. Are you doubling from 1 to 2%? if so, I'd rethink this. Diversification adds value, I agree, but 2%/yr?  A very low cost S&P fund will be about .10%, others may go a bit higher. There's little magic in creating the target allocation, no two companies are going to be exactly the same, just in the general ballpark. I'd encourage you to get an idea of what makes sense, and go DIY. I agree 2% slices of some sectors don't add much, don't get carried away with this. Note that many funds just track indexes. In that case, you essentially don't have to worry about the fund manager making bad decisions. In general, the statistics are very clear that you want to avoid any actively managed fund. There are many funds that are good all-in-one investments. If you are in Canada, for example, Canadian Couch Potato recommends the Tangerine Investment Funds. The fees are a little high, but if you don't have a huge investment, one of these funds would be a good choice and appropriate for 100% of your investment. If you have a larger investment, to the point that Tangerine's MER scares you a little, you still may well look at a three or four fund (or ETF) portfolio. You may choose to use an actively-managed fund even though you know there's virtually no chance it'll beat a fund that just tracks an index, long-term. In that case, I'd recommend devoting only a small portion of your portfolio to this fund. Many people suggest speculating with no more than 10% of your combined investment. Note that other people are more positive on actively-managed funds. Personal finance is a fairly broad area.  Which part might you be starting with? From the very basics, make sure you understand your current cashflow: are you bank balances going up or down?  Next, make a budget.  There's plenty of information to get started here, and it doesn't require a fancy piece of software.  This will make sure you have a deeper understanding of where your money is going, and what is it being saved for.  Is it just piling up, or is it allocated for specific purchases (i.e. that new car, house, college tuition, retirement, or even a vacation or a rainy day)? As part of the budgeting/cashflow exercise, make sure you have any outstanding debts covered.  Are your credit card balances under control?  Do you have other outstanding loans (education, auto, mortgage, other)?  Normally, you'd address these in order from highest to lowest interest rate. Your budget should address any immediate mandatory expenses (rent, utilities, food) and long term existing debts.  Then comes discretionary spending and savings (especially until you have a decent emergency fund).  How much can you afford to spend on discretionary purchases?  How much do you want to be able to spend?  If the want is greater than the can, what steps can you take to rememdy that? With savings you can have a whole new set of planning to consider.  How much do you leave in the bank?  Do you keep some amount in a CD ladder?  How much goes into retirement savings accounts (401k, Roth vs. Traditional IRA), college savings accounts, or a plain brokerage account?  How do you balance your overall portfolio (there is a wealth of information on portfolio management)?  What level of risk are you comfortable with?  What level of risk should you consider, given your age and goals?  How involved do you want to be with your portfolio, or do you want someone else to manage it? Silver Dragon's answer contains some good starting points for portfolio management and investing.  Definitely spend some time learning the basics of investing and portfolio management even if you decide to solicit professional expertise; understanding what they're doing can help to determine earlier whether your interests are being treated as a priority. "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." "Yes, you can. You could either go through brokerages like Ameritrade or fund companies like Fidelity or Vanguard. Yes there are minimums depending on the fund where some retail funds may waive a minimum if you sign up for an ""Automatic Investment Plan"" and some of the lower cost funds may have higher initial investment as Vanguard's Admiral share class is different from Investor for example." You don't really have a lot of money, and that isn't a criticism as much as that you are limited to diversification.  For example, I would estimate you can only have one or two stocks for a buy-write scheme.  Secondly you may be only to buy one fund with a high minimum investment, and a second fund with a smaller minimum investment.  Thirdly there is not a whole lot of money to make a large difference. One options might be to look at iShares since your are with Fidelity.  Trading those are commission free and the minimum investment is one share.  They offer many sector funds. Since you were in a CD ladder you might be looking for stability of principle.  If so you can look at USMV and PFF.  If you can tolerate a little more volatility DGRO. Having said that you seem interested in doing some buy-writes.  Why not mix and match?  Pick a stock, like INTC (for example not a recommendation), and buy-write with half the money and some combination of iShares for the rest. "You say: To clarify, my account is with BlackRock and the fund is titled ""MID   CAP GROWTH EQUITY-CLASS A"" if that   helps. Not totally sure what that   means. You should understand what you're investing in.  The fund you have could be a fine investment, or a lousy one.  If you don't know, then I don't know. The fund has a prospectus that describes what equities the fund has a position in.  It will also explain the charter of the fund, which will explain why it's mid-cap growth rather than small-cap value, for example.  You should read that a bit.  It's almost a sure thing that your father had to acknowledge that he read it before he purchased the shares! Again: Understand your investments." I'm of the belief that, long term, fees eat away at your performance. If you chose an ETF, say VOO, with its .05% expense, and a short term bond fund or money market fund, you are going be ahead, long term.  It's pretty much accepted fact that money managers are not beating the average long term.  For you to simply do as well as I do (S&P less .05%) your guy has to beat the market year in, year out, by 1.2%. Not going to happen. Yes, in hindsight, some funds have done this. Over the decades, losing funds are closed, or merged into performing ones. But, in the end, the average fund lags the average market return quite a bit. To pay someone 25% over two decades isn't what I'd recommend to anyone.   There was recently a PBS Frontline special, The Retirement Gamble, (and this link to my article reviewing the show).    I put up an image  which shows the effect of 50 years' impact of expenses. The Vanguard S&P ETF, linked earlier has just a .05% fee. In my chart I show .1%, and then a total 1% or 2% fee. $447K return for .1%, $294K for 1%.  I'm painfully aware that 3/4 of US taxpayers aren't saving at all. For those that are savers, the value in learning about investing is huge. This isn't a onetime $150K saved, but the savings on just that $10K deposit. Meanwhile, before you learn this, a pay-for-his-time fee-only planner is worth it, for a meeting and first year follow up. Its best to dollar cost average adding say 5%-10% a quarter into the fund. That's what Clark Howard would suggest.  Also make sure you do not need the money for 5 years, then you should be okay.   Its tough to lose money if you keep your money there for a long period of time. You will have to rebalance every time your Boolean Buy flag is true. You buy 20% of each fund then next week you have to sell down to 10% of your first 5 funds and buy 10% of the second 5. "In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an ""up"" day or selling on a ""down"" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)" Look into the asset allocations of lifecycle funds offered by a company like Vanguard. This page allows you to select your current age and find a fund based on that. You could pick a fund, like the Target Retirement 2055 Fund (ages 21-25), and examine its allocation in the Portfolio & Management tab. For this fund, the breakdown is: Then, look at the allocation of the underlying funds that comprise the lifecycle fund, in the same tab.  Look at each of those funds and see what asset allocation they use, and that should give you a rough idea for an age-based allocation. For example, the Total Stock Market Index Fund page has a sector breakdown, so if you wanted to get very fine-grained with your allocation, you could. (You're probably much better off investing in the index fund, low-cost ETFs, or the lifecycle fund itself, however; it'll be much cheaper).  Doing this for several lifecycle funds should be a good start. Keep in mind, however, that these funds are rebalanced as the target date approaches, so if you're following the allocation of some particular funds, you'll have to rebalance as well. If you really want an age-based allocation that you don't have to think about, invest in a lifecycle fund directly. You'll probably pay a lower expense ratio than if you invested in a whole slew of funds directory, and it's less work for someone who isn't comfortable managing their portfolio themselves. Furthermore, with Vanguard, the expense ratios are already fairly low.  This is only one example of an allocation, however; your tolerance of risk, age, etc. may affect what allocation you're willing to accept.  Full disclosure: Part of my Roth IRA is invested in the Target 2055 fund I used as an example above, and another part uses a similar rebalancing strategy to the one I used above, but with Admiral Share funds, which have higher minimum investments but lower expense ratios. Thank you fgunthar. I was not aware of ILWs, but I agree - this is also the closest thing I've found.   As for starting a fund, I'm unfortunately nowhere near that point. But, my curiosity seems to inevitably lead me to obscure areas like ILWs. Thanks for the huge insight. I am still a student doing an intern and this was given as my first task, more of trying to give the IA another perspective looking at these funds rather than picking. I was not given the investors preference in terms of return and risk tolerances so it was really open-ended.   However, thanks so much for the quick response. At least now I have a better idea of what I am going to deliver or at least try to show to the IA. TL;DR: The difference is $230. Just for fun, and to illustrate how brackets work, let's look at the differences you could see from changing when you're paid based on the tax bracket information that Ben Miller provided. If you're paid $87,780 each year, then each year you'll pay $17,716 for a total of $35,432: $5,183 + $12,532 (25% of $50,130 (the amount over $37,650)) If you were paid nothing one year and then double salary ($175,560) the next, you'd pay $0 the first year and $42,193 the next: $18,558 + $23,634 (28% of $84,410 (the amount over $91,150)) So the maximum difference you'd see from shifting when you're paid is $6,761 total, $3,380 per year, or about 4% of your average annual salary. In your particular case, you'd either be paying $35,432 total, or $14,948 followed by $20,714 for $35,662 total, a difference of $230 total, $115 per year, less than 1% of average annual salary: $5,183 + $9,765 (25% of $39,060 (the amount $87,780 - $11,070  is over $37,650)) $18,558 + $2,156 (28% of $7,700 (the amount $87,780 + $11,070 is over $91,150))