Good/Bad idea to have an ETF that encompasses another
Let's simplify things by assuming you only own 2 stocks. By owning VOO and VTI, you're overweight on large- and mid-cap stocks relative to the market composition. Likewise, by owning VTI and VT, you're overweight on U.S. stocks; conversely, by owning VXUS and VT, you're overweight on non-U.S. stocks. These are all perfectly fine positions to take if that's what you intend and have justification for. For example, if you're in the U.S., it may be a good idea to hold more U.S. stocks than VT because of currency risk. But 4 equity index ETFs is probably overcomplicating things. It is perfectly fine to hold only VTI and VXUS because these funds comprise thousands of stocks and thus give you sufficient diversification. I would recommend holding those 2 ETFs based on a domestic/international allocation that makes sense to you (Vanguard recommends 40% of your stock allocation to be international), and if for some reason you want to be overweight in large- and mid-cap companies, throw in VOO. You can use Morningstar X-Ray to look at your proposed portfolio and find your optimal mix of geographic and stock style allocation. "You are overthinking it. Yes there is overlap between them, and you want to understand how much overlap there is so you don't end up with a concentration in one area when you were trying to avoid it. Pick two, put your money in those two; and then put your new money into those two until you want to expand into other funds. The advantage of having the money in an IRA held by a single fund family, is that moving some or all of the money from one Mutual fund/ETF to another is painless. The fact it is a retirement account means that selling a fund to move the money doesn't trigger taxes. The fact that you have about $10,000 for the IRA means that hopefully you have decades left before you need the money and that this $10,00 is just the start. You are not committed to these investment choices. With periodic re-balancing the allocations you make now will be adjusted over the decades. One potential issue. You said: ""I'm saving right not but haven't actually opened the account."" I take it to mean that you have money in a Roth TRA account but it isn't invested into a stock fund, or that you have the money ready to go in a regular bank account and will be making a 2015 contribution into the actual IRA before tax day this year, and the 2016 contribution either at the same time or soon after. If it is the second case make sure you get the money for 2015 into the IRA before the deadline."
But if you add a security to the index you also remove one from the index, thus both a buy and sell. If weights change some go up, some go down thus some need to be purchased and some need to be sold.   So I still don't see how ETFs are net sinks beyond their simple AUM. Putting your money in the same account as a parent could cause many problems, with very few benefits. One of you would have to claim the dividends and capital gains that the fund might earn during the year. That person might have to pay taxes on those earnings. You would have to find some way of figuring out how to split the costs, and somebody would have to reimburse the other. If one person wanted to sell, figuring out which shares to sell would be much more complex. If these are retirement accounts, which have maximum limits based on income, and the use of other retirement accounts, there is no way to co-mingle the funds. Even if it was possible to combine the funds, the reality is that two people decades apart have different investment goals, and risk tolerances, so the types of investments that a great for one, are very poor for the other. The only benefit is that an existing account would already have more than the minimum investment, so some investments would be easier to make. Also some investments have lower fees if you meet specific investment thresholds. If the fund increases in value by 10% in a year, it doesn't make a difference if the value at the start of the year was 10K or 100K. The rate is the same. The benefits are minor and few; the drawbacks are many; and some situations make it impossible to co-mingle the funds. Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances?   ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper.  Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too. "Of course. ""Best"" is a subjective term. However relying on the resources of the larger institutions by pooling with them will definitely reduce your own burden with regards to the research and keeping track. So yes, investing in mutual funds and ETFs is a very sound strategy. It would be better to diversify, and not to invest all your money in one fund, or in one industry/area. That said, there are more than enough individuals who do their own research and stock picking and invest, with various degrees of success, in individual securities. Some also employe more advanced strategies such as leveraging, options, futures, margins, etc. These advance strategies come at a greater risk, but may bring a greater rewards as well. So the answer to the question in the subject line is YES. For all the rest - there's no one right or wrong answer, it depends greatly on your abilities, time, risk tolerance, cash available to invest, etc etc." An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?) If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations.  But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets.  Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory.  Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good.  Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes.  You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations.   It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds.  If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities. http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker. While you would reduce risk by diversifying into other stock ETFs across the world, Developed Market returns (and Emerging Markets to a lesser extent) are generally highly correlated with another (correlation of ~0.85-0.90). This implies that they all go up in bull-markets and go down together in bear markets. You are better off diversifying into other asset-classes given your risk tolerance (such as government bonds, as you have mentioned). Alternatively, you can target a portfolio owning all of the assets in the universe (assuming you're trading in Frankfurt, a combination of something similar to H4ZJ and XBAG, but with higher volumes and/or lower fees)! A good starting resource would be the Bogleheads Wiki: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Asset_allocation Well on a levered fund it makes a lot of sense.  If you lose 10% on day one and you are 2x levered you just lost 20%.  Now on the next day if it corrects 10% you are still down because you've gone up 20% of a lesser amount then you went down by.  Then even worse with oil or commodity funds they are forced to roll their futures since they don't want to take delivery, which allows them to be picked off by traders.  This is referred to as levered ETF decay.  If you do trade levered funds it should be on an intraday basis, and then you're dealing with serious transaction costs. Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short).  Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation? That's not 100% correct, as some leveraged vehicles choose to re-balance on a monthly basis making them less risky (but still risky).  If I'm not mistaken the former oil ETN 'DXO' was a monthly re-balance before it was shut down by the 'man' Monthly leveraged vehicles will still suffer slippage, not saying they won't.  But instead of re-balancing 250 times per year, they do it 12 times.   In my book less iterations equals less decay. Basically you'll bleed, just not as much.  I'd only swing trade something like this in a retirement account where I'd be prohibited from trading options. Seems like you can get higher leverage with less risk trading options, plus if you traded LEAPS, you could choose to re-balance only once per year. "Don't put money in things that you don't understand. ETFs won't kill you, ignorance will. The leveraged ultra long/short ETFs hold swaps that are essentially bets on the daily performance of the market. There is no guarantee that they will perform as designed at all, and they frequently do not. IIRC, in most cases, you shouldn't even be holding these things overnight. There aren't any hidden fees, but derivative risk can wipe out portions of the portfolio, and since the main ""asset"" in an ultra long/short ETF are swaps, you're also subject to counterparty risk -- if the investment bank the fund made its bet with cannot meet it's obligation, you're  may lost alot of money. You need to read the prospectus carefully. The propectus re: strategy. The Fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to twice the inverse (-2x) of the daily performance of the Index. The Fund does not seek to achieve its stated investment objective over a period of time greater than a single day. The prospectus re: risk. Because of daily rebalancing and the compounding of each day’s return over time, the return of the Fund for periods longer than a single day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which will very likely differ from twice the inverse (-2x) of the return of the Index over the same period. A Fund will lose money if the Index performance is flat over time, and it is possible that the Fund will lose money over time even if the Index’s performance decreases, as a result of daily rebalancing, the Index’s volatility and the effects of compounding. See “Principal Risks” If you want to hedge your investments over a longer period of time, you should look at more traditional strategies, like options. If you don't have the money to make an option strategy work, you probably can't afford to speculate with leveraged ETFs either." They have ETFs for most of what you listed above.  Except the deep-fried candy bars.  You know that's just a distributed candy bar that is THEN fried right?  They have a few religious ETFs as well as some socially responsible ones.   There is no reason to make one based on a single person's preference though - ETFs make their money on fees.  For that they need VOLUME.   Move Volume = More Money  Also, there are over 1,411 ETF's in the US as of 2014.  That means there are a lot of options already. You could always create your own if you are a great salesperson though. Source How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to  make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks. The general rule is: Generally, in order to claim a business deduction for your home, you must use part of your home exclusively and regularly: Exclusively seems to be the toughest standard and I do not know exactly how strict the IRS's interpretation is. Working in your living room where you regularly watch TV and have people over on the weekends would seem to fail that test. A separate room with your computer in it would pass it. If it was your only computer and you regularly played online games with it, that would seem to be a grey area.  The IRA booklet covering this area is here http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p587.pdf I know people that have rented rooms in other places or made use of rental offices for this purpose.