When should I start saving/investing for my retirement?
Start as early as possible and you will want to kiss your younger self when you get to retirement age. I know you (and everyone else at that age) thinks that they don't make enough to start saving and leans towards waiting until you get established in your career and start making better money. Don't put it off. Save some money out of each paycheck even if it is only $50.  Trust me, as little as you make now, you probably have more disposable income than you will when you make twice as much. Your lifestyle always seems to keep up with your income and you will likely ALWAYS feel like you don't have money left over to save. The longer you wait, the more you are going to have to stuff away to make up for that lost time you could have been compounding your returns as shown in this table (assuming 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market from 1926-2010).  I also suggest reading this article when explains it in more detail: Who Wants to be a millionaire? Start now.   It's a lot easier to save now than it is to start to save later. Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine.  Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent.  Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want. Does you job offer a retirement plan?  (401k, SIMPLE, etc)  Does your employer offer a match on contributions? Typically an employer will match what you put in, up to a certain percentage (e.g. 3%). So, say you contribute 3% of your paycheck into your retirement plan. If your employer mathes that, you've effectively contributed 6%. You've just doubled your money! The best thing a young professional can do is to contribute to your employer-matched retirement plan, up to the maximum amount they will match. You should do it immediately.  If not, you are leaving money on the table. Here's a good strategy: Open up a Roth IRA at a discount-broker, like TD Ameritrade, invest in no-fee ETF's, tracking an Index, with very low expense ratios (look for around .15%) This way, you won't pay brokers fees whenever you buy shares, and shares are cheap enough to buy casually. This is a good way to start. When you learn more about the market, you can check out individual stocks, exploring different market sectors, etc. But you won't regret starting with a good index fund. Also, it's easy to know how well you did. Just listen on the radio or online for how the Dow or S&P did that day/month/year. Your account will mirror these changes! "My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first ""real"" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice."
If you're worried about investing all at once, you can deploy your starting chunk of cash gradually by investing a bit of it each month, quarter, etc. (dollar-cost averaging).  The financial merits and demerits of this have been debated, but it is unlikely to lose you a lot of money, and if it has the psychological benefit of inducing you to invest, it can be worth it even if it results in slightly less-than-optimal gains. More generally, you are right with what you say at the end of your question: in the long run, when you start won't matter, as long as you continue to invest regularly.  The Boglehead-style index-fund-based theory is basically that, yes, you might save money by investing at certain times, but in practice it's almost impossible to know when those times are, so the better choice is to just keep investing no matter what.  If you do this, you will eventually invest at high and low points, so the ups and downs will be moderated. Also, note that from this perspective, your example of investing in 2007 is incorrect.  It's true that a person who put money in 2007, and then sat back and did nothing, would have barely broken even by now.  But a person who started to invest in 2007, and continued to invest throughout the economic downturn, would in fact reap substantial rewards due to continued investing throughout the post-2007 lows.  (Happily, I speak from experience on this point!) I like many of the answers, but here is a summary of reasons: Almost everyone will retire, and it is almost certain that government or company pensions schemes will not alone give you a lifestyle you would like in retirement. Money invested early is worth much more in retirement than money invested late, thanks to the miracle of compound interest. In some countries there are tax advantages to investing a little bit of money every year, compared with nothing for a few years and then a lump sum later. Much investment advice is given by investment consultants, who profit when you make investments. It's always in their interests to have you invest as early and as often as possible (that doesn't invalidate the first three reasons). Having said that, it isn't always in your best interests to invest in retirement funds very heavily at the start of your career. You might want to consider paying off any debts, or saving for a house, or even having a bit of fun while you are young enough to enjoy it. That back-packing trip to Nepal is going to be a lot easier when you are 23 than when you are 40 with kids. We don't have a good answer for how to start investing in poland.  We do have good answers for the more general case, which should also work in Poland.  E.g. Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? This answer provides a checklist of things to do.  Let's see how you're doing:   Match on work pension plan. You don't mention this.  May not apply in Poland, but ask around in case it does.  Given your income, you should be doing this if it's available.   Emergency savings. You have plenty.  Either six months of spending or six months of income.  Make sure that you maintain this.  Don't let us talk you into putting all your money in better long term investments.   High interest debt. You don't have any.  Keep up the good work.   Avoid PMI on mortgage. As I understand it, you don't have a mortgage.  If you did, you should probably pay it off.  Not sure if PMI is an issue in Poland.   Roth IRA. Not sure if this is an issue in Poland.  A personal retirement account in the US.   Additional 401k. A reminder to max out whatever your work pension plan allows.  The name here is specific to the United States.  You should be doing this in whatever form is available.   After that, I disagree with the options.  I also disagree with the order a bit, but the basic idea is sound:  one time opportunities; emergency savings; eliminate debt; maximize retirement savings.  Check with a tax accountant so as not to make easily avoidable tax mistakes.   You can use some of the additional money for things like real estate or a business.  Try to keep under 20% for each.  But if you don't want to worry about that kind of stuff, it's not that important.  There's a certain amount of effort to maintain either of those options.  If you don't want to put in the effort to do that, it makes sense not to do this.   If you have additional money split the bulk of it between stock and bond index funds.  You want to maintain a mix between about 70/30 and 75/25 stocks to bonds.  The index funds should be based on broad indexes.  They probably should be European wide for the most part, although for stocks you might put 10% or so in a Polish fund and another 15% in a true international fund.   Think over your retirement plans.  Where do you want to live?  In your current apartment?  In a different apartment in the same city?  In one of the places where you inherited property?  Somewhere else entirely?  Also, do you like to vacation in that same place?   Consider buying a place in the appropriate location now (or keeping the one you have if it's one of the inherited properties).  You can always rent it out until then.  Many realtors are willing to handle the details for you.   If the place that you want to retire also works for vacations, consider short term rentals of a place that you buy.  Then you can reserve your vacation times while having rentals pay for maintenance the rest of the year.   As to the stuff that you have now:   Look that over and see if you want any of it.  You also might check if there are any other family members that might be interested.  E.g. cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.  If not, you can probably sell it to a professional company that handles estate sales.  Make sure that they clear out any junk along with the valuable stuff.   Consider keeping furniture for now.  Sometimes it can help sell a property.   You might check if you want to drive either of them.  If not, the same applies, check family first.  Otherwise, someone will buy them, perhaps on consignment (they sell for a commission rather than buying and reselling).   There's no hurry to sell these.  Think over whether you might want them.   Consider if they hold any sentimental value to you or someone else.  If not, sell them.  If there's any difficulty finding a buyer, consider renting them out.  You can also rent them out if you want time to make a decision.  Don't leave them empty too long.  There's maintenance that may need done, e.g. heat to keep water from freezing in the pipes.   That's easy, just invest that.   I wouldn't get in too much of a hurry to donate to charity.  You can always do that later.  And try to donate anonymously if you can.  Donating often leads to spam, where they try to get you to donate more. "Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that.  Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion ""don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so"" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the ""don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all"" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds." If you set a savings amount now and leave it totally fixed you're likely to massively undershoot or overshoot.  What is more likely is that you will adjust either your savings or your retirement expectations as things go along.  If it turns out you have $10M (2010 dollars) at age 50 perhaps you'll retire early, and if you have $10k perhaps you'll buckle down and work much longer or save much more. So I think what you are looking for is an assurance that if you budget to save x% of your salary over n years, and you get an after-inflation after-tax return of y% pa, you will eventually be able to retire on an income equivalent to z% of your working income.  It's pretty easy to calculate that through a future-value formula.   For instance, one set of values that works is saving 20% of income, 5% real return, 30 years = final income of 66% of working income.  Or save half your income and within 14 years you can retire and keep spending the amount you were previously spending.  Resist the temptation to crank up the assumed return until you get the value you want. I think it would be great hubris to try to make this very precise.  Yes, probably you will get raises, of course there are taxes to take into account (probably higher while you're saving), inflation and returns will vary from year to year, et.  You can guess at them.  But they'll change, and there are bigger things that are unpredictable: your personal life, your health, the economic future of your career or industry.  I reckon this simple formula is about as good as you will get. "First off, I highly recommend the book Get a Financial Life.  The basics of personal finance and money management are pretty straightforward, and this book does a great job with it.  It is very light reading, and it really geared for the young person starting their career.  It isn't the most current book (pre real-estate boom), but the recommendations in the book are still sound.  (update 8/28/2012: New edition of the book came out.) Now, with that out of the way, there's really two kinds of ""investing"" to think about: For most individuals, it is best to take care of #1 first.  Most people shouldn't even think about #2 until they have fully funded their retirement accounts, established an emergency fund, and gotten their debt under control. There are lots of financial incentives for retirement investing, both from your employer, and the government.  All the more reason to take care of #1 before #2! Your employer probably offers some kind of 401k (or equivalent, like a 403b) with a company-provided match.  This is a potential 100% return on your investment after the vesting period.  No investment you make on your own will ever match that.  Additionally, there are tax advantages to contributing to the 401k.  (The money you contribute doesn't count as taxable income.) The best way to start investing is to learn about your employer's retirement plan, and contribute enough to fully utilize the employer matching. Beyond this, there are also Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) you can open to contribute money to on your own.  You should open one of these and start contributing, but only after you have fully utilized the employer matching with the 401k.  The IRA won't give you that 100% ROI that the 401k will. Keep in mind that retirement investments are pretty much ""walled off"" from your day-to-day financial life.  Money that goes into a retirement account generally can't be touched until retirement age, unless you want to pay lots of taxes and penalties.  You generally don't want to put the money for your house down payment into a retirement account. One other thing to note:  Your 401K and your IRA is an account that you put money into.  Just because the money is sitting in the account doesn't necessarily mean it is invested.  You put the money into this account, and then you use this money for investments.  How you invest the retirement money is a topic unto itself.  Here is a good starting point.  If you want to ask questions about retirement portfolios, it is probably worth posting a new question." If your employer matches a percentage of your contributions, then you should try to max out your plan. Once you have completed maxing out your 401k, you may want to open up an IRA for several reasons: will your 401k be enough to sustain your lifestyle in retirement? Your IRA allows you to save even more for retirement. you can invest in all sorts of stuff through your IRA that might not be available in your plan. you can withdraw the principal from your IRA, usually after five years. This serves as another form of savings. IRAs have some asset protection in the event of bankruptcy. A normal savings or investment account usually does not offer such protection. I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year.  The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund.  So your savings should be around $5k.  Build that first.   Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income.  Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses.  Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much.  And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact.  If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up).   Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures.  Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase.  So you need more savings.  By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money.  Doesn't really change the basic analysis though.  Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings.   If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year.  That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard.  So you probably shouldn't invest next year.  With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year).  That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year.   If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500.  Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth.  After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year.  Or just wait until the end.   If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year.  If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution.  At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change.   If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it.  A college education is enough of an investment at your age.  Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement.   That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job.  Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost.  So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment).  This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster.   I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks).  Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose.  Secure your retirement first.  Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out.  If they don't, you're still all right.  But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house.   Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app.  You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock.  If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app.  You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system.  If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds.  The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term.   Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system.  As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same.  At some point, users saturate the app.  All the possible returns are realized.  Then users are competing with each other for returns.  The per user returns will shrink as usage grows.   If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it.  Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria.  Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued.  The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy. "It doesn't really make sense to worry about the details of ""what counts as saving"" unless you also move beyond a simplistic rule of thumb like ""save 10% of your income"". That said, most of the sources I see pushing rules of thumb like that are talking about saving for retirement.  That is, you need to sock that money away so you will be able to spend it after you retire.  (This CNN page is one example.)  On that theory, it only ""counts"" if you put it away and don't touch it until you retire, so things like car and computer funds would not count as saving. Another thing you'll see some people say (e.g., this Nerdwallet article) is to use 20% of your income for ""financial priorities"".  This would include retirement saving, but also things like paying off debt and saving for a down payment on a house. Saving for a small purchase in the near future would not usually be considered ""saving"" at all, since you're not going to keep the money.  If you put $5 in your wallet tonight so you can buy a hamburger for lunch tomorrow, you wouldn't call that saving; likewise setting aside a few hundred dollars for a new computer wouldn't ""count"" as saving under most definitions.  (Some people might ""count"" saving for something like a house, since that is a long-term plan and the house, unlike a computer, may rise in value after you buy it.  But you wouldn't want to fully count the house as part of your retirement savings unless you're willing to sell it and live off the proceeds.) However, none of these rules will help that much if your goal is, as you say at the end of your question, to ""know if I need to save more than what I actually am saving currently"".  Saving 10% of your income won't magically ensure that you're saving ""enough"".  To assess whether you personally are saving ""enough"", you need to actually start running some numbers on how much money you personally will need in retirement.  This will depend on any number of factors, including where you live, what sources of retirement income you might have besides savings (e.g., pensions), etc.  In short, to know if you're saving enough, you can't listen to the generic stuff that ""everyone says""; you need to consider your own situation in a deliberate, focused way." It would be quite the miracle if you found that you know, now, just graduating college, what your tax rate would be at retirement.  But, it's fair to say that chances are that you'll be in a higher tax bracket in years to come due to promotions,better job, or he joy of dual income after marriage. So, I'd suggest Roth for now, with an eye towards pretax savings as your income and bracket rises. Ideally, a retiree finds himself in a bracket no higher than while working, but also not lower. You see, saving in Roth 100% and missing the ability to withdraw at 0, 10, and 15%, is as bad as saving 100% in pretax, and fining you retire in a higher bracket. No one can tell you the best path, but at any given moment, the highest probability outcome may be visible. First priority is to set up an emergency fund of 6 months expenses. If you're going to be making ~30k a year, then that means you'll probably want to put away about 10k of it in a savings account or something else similarly liquid.  After that, paying off your student loans probably makes the most sense depending on the rate. My general rule of thumb (and I'm sure others will disagree with me) is to pay off debts that are >=6.0% first before investing. Paying off debt is a risk-free return on your money, which makes it pretty valuable. It'll let you direct more of your monthly income into retirement savings, too. After that, open up a Roth IRA.  You can put a maximum of $5500 in it for this year.  I like Betterment, but Wealthfront has a similar service. "This Stack Exchange site is a nice place to find answers and ask questions. Good start! Moving away from the recursive answer... Simply distilling personal finance down to ""I have money, I'll need money in the future, what do I do"", an easily digestible book with how-to, multi-step guidelines is ""I Will Teach You To Be Rich"". The author talks about setting up the accounts you should have, making sure all your bills are paid automatically, saving on the big things and tips to increase your take home pay. That link goes to a compilation page on the blog with many of the most fundamental articles. However, ""The World’s Easiest Guide To Understanding Retirement Accounts"" is a particularly key article. While all the information is on the free blog, the book is well organized and concise.  The Simple Dollar is a nice blog with frugal living tips, lifestyle assessments, financial thoughts and reader questions. The author also reviews about a book a week. Investing - hoping to get better returns than savings can provide while minimizing risk. This thread is an excellent list of books to learn about investing. I highly recommend ""The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing"" and ""The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need"". The world of investment vehicles is huge but it doesn't have to be complicated once you ignore all the fads and risky stuff. Index mutual funds are the place to start (and maybe end). Asset allocation and diversification are themes to guide you. The books on that list will teach you." "What percent of my salary should I save? is tightly coupled with its companion, What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? Interestingly, Mr.Christer's answer, 10%, is the number that plugs into the equation that I reference. Jay's 25X rule is part of this. We start with the assumption that one's required income at retirement will be 80% of their pre-retirement income. That's high by some observations, low by others. A quick look at the expenses that go away in retirement - The above can total 35-40% It would be great if it ended there, but there are costs that go up. The above extra spending is tough to nail down, after all, you knew what you spent, and what's going away, but the new items? Crapshoot. (For non-native speakers - this refers to a game with dice, meaning a random event) Again, referencing Mr Christer's answer ""financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number,"" I'm going to disagree with that soundbyte. Consider, when retirement is 30 years away, you don't know much If I can offer an analogy. I once had the pleasure of hearing Jim Lovell (The astronaut played by Tom Hanks in Apollo 13) give a speech. He said that for the first 99% of the trip to the moon, they simply aimed ahead of their target, never directly at the moon. In this manner, I suggest that with so many variables, accuracy is impossible, it's a moving target. Start young, take the 10% MrC offered, and keep saving. Every few years, stop and see if you are on target, if not, bump the number a bit.  Better to turn 50 and find that after a good decade you've reached your number and can drop your savings to a minimum, perhaps just to capture a 401(k) match, than to turn 50 and realize you've undersaved and need to bump to an unsustainable level. Imagine planning ahead in 1999. You've seen 2 great decades of returns, and even realizing that 18%/yr couldn't continue, you plan for a below average 7%, this would double your 1999 balance in 10 years. Instead you saw zero return. For a decade. In sum, when each variable has an accuracy of +/-50% you are not going to combine them all and get a number with even 10% accuracy (as if MrC were wrong, but the pro would tell you 11% is right for you?). This is as absurd as packaging up a bunch of C rated debt, and thinking that enough of this paper would yield a final product that was AAA." "Congratulations on a solid start. Here are my thoughts, based on your situation: Asset Classes I would recommend against a long-term savings account as an investment vehicle. While very safe, the yields will almost always be well below inflation. Since you have a long time horizon (most likely at least 30 years to retirement), you have enough time to take on more risk, as long as it's not more than you can live with. If you are looking for safer alternatives to stocks for part of your investments, you can also consider investment-grade bonds/bond funds, or even a stable value fund. Later, when you are much closer to retirement, you may also want to consider an annuity. Depending on the interest rate on your loan, you may also be able to get a better return from paying down your loan than from putting more in a savings account. I would recommend that you only keep in a savings account what you expect to need in the next few years (cushion for regular expenses, emergency fund, etc.). On Stocks Stocks are riskier but have the best chance to outperform versus inflation over the long term. I tend to favor funds over individual stocks, mostly for a few practical reasons. First, one of the goals of investing is to diversify your risk, which produces a more efficient risk/reward ratio than a group of stocks that are highly correlated. Diversification is easier to achieve via an index fund, but it is possible for a well-educated investor to stay diversified via individual stocks. Also, since most investors don't actually want to take physical possession of their shares, funds will manage the shares for you, as well as offering additional services, such as the automatic reinvestments of dividends and tax management. Asset Allocation It's very important that you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take on. Investment salespeople will prefer to sell you stocks, as they make more commission on stocks than bonds or other investments, but unless you're able to stay in the market for the long term, it's unlikely you'll be able to get the market return over the long term. Make sure to take one or more risk tolerance assessments to understand how often you're willing to accept significant losses, as well as what the optimal asset allocation is for you given the level of risk you can live with. Generally speaking, for someone with a long investment horizon and a medium risk tolerance, even the most conservative allocations will have at least 60% in stocks (total of US and international) with the rest in bonds/other, and up to 80% or even 100% for a more aggressive investor. Owning more bonds will result in a lower expected return, but will also dramatically reduce your portfolio's risk and volatility. Pension With so many companies deciding that they don't feel like keeping the promises they made to yesterday's workers or simply can't afford to, the pension is nice but like Social Security, I wouldn't bank on all of this money being there for you in the future. This is where a fee-only financial planner can really be helpful - they can run a bunch of scenarios in planning software that will show you different retirement scenarios based on a variety of assumptions (ie what if you only get 60% of the promised pension, etc).  This is probably not as much of an issue if you are an equity partner, or if the company fully funds the pension in a segregated account, or if the pension is defined-contribution, but most corporate pensions are just a general promise to pay you later in the future with no real money actually set aside for that purpose, so I'd discount this in my planning somewhat. Fund/Stock Selection Generally speaking, most investment literature agrees that you're most likely to get the best risk-adjusted returns over the long term by owning the entire market rather than betting on individual winners and losers, since no one can predict the future (including professional money managers). As such, I'd recommend owning a low-cost index fund over holding specific sectors or specific companies only. Remember that even if one sector is more profitable than another, the stock prices already tend to reflect this. Concentration in IT Consultancy I am concerned that one third of your investable assets are currently in one company (the IT consultancy). It's very possible that you are right that it will continue to do well, that is not my concern. My concern is the risk you're carrying that things will not go well. Again, you are taking on risks not just over the next few years, but over the next 30 or so years until you retire, and even if it seems unlikely that this company will experience a downturn in the next few years, it's very possible that could change over a longer period of time. Please just be aware that there is a risk. One way to mitigate that risk would be to work with an advisor or a fund to structure and investment plan where you invest in a variety of sector funds, except for technology. That way, your overall portfolio, including the single company, will be closer to the market as a whole rather than over-weighted in IT/Tech. However, if this IT Consultancy happens to be the company that you work for, I would strongly recommend divesting yourself of those shares as soon as reasonably possible. In my opinion, the risk of having your salary, pension, and much of your investments tied up in the fortunes of one company would simply be a much larger risk than I'd be comfortable with. Last, make sure to keep learning so that you are making decisions that you're comfortable with. With the amount of savings you have, most investment firms will consider you a ""high net worth"" client, so make sure you are making decisions that are in your best financial interests, not theirs. Again, this is where a fee-only financial advisor may be helpful (you can find a local advisor at napfa.org). Best of luck with your decisions!" "To me, your question emphasizes something I've heard many times before: personal finance is as much or more about behavior than it is about mathematics or ""head knowledge"".  Sure, you know you shouldn't be wasting a lot of money on something you will use very infrequently, but how do you make this behavior stick?  Here are a few tricks that might help: The other aspects of your question really touch more on psychology than finance.  But getting yourself into a discipline habit with money will help.  And realizing the full cash price of items in relation to how much your disposable income is will help you get control of your impulses, as you review your budget monthly, and keep limit yourself using the envelope system.  But honestly, everybody wants stuff they don't have, it's human nature.  The key is finding ways to put physical limits and guards on yourself to keep you from obeying the self-destructive impulses."