Retirement savings vs building lucrative assets
"Well... (in the US, at least) ""making investments and building assets"" is how you save for retirement.  The investments just happen to be in the stock market, and the federal legislature has directed the US version of  Inland Revenue Services to give special tax breaks to investments which are not withdrawn until age 59 1/2. I don't know if there are such tax breaks in Pakistan, or what the stock market is like there, so I'm presuming that by saying, ""building lucrative assets"", your father is referring to buying real estate and/or becoming a trader. Anyway, it's a good thing that you are looking so far ahead in life instead of only thinking of fast cars and pretty girls." Fahad, in finance we make a distinction between investments that tend to grow in value and assets that hold value.  Investments that grow in value are generally related to investing in well-thought out businesses.  Investments can be done in retirement accounts through stocks and bonds but also owning part of a business directly.  Good investments make more and more money off the money you put in. Common examples of assets include gold and other non-productive property like real-estate you don't rent or cars.  You can even have some assets in your retirement account as many would argue government bonds behave like assets.  All of these things tend to (more or less) go up in value as the cost of everything goes up in value, but don't tend to make you any excess money in the long run. There is certainly a place for both investments and assets.  Especially as a young person it is good to lean toward investments as you likely have a lot of time for the money to grow as you get older.  As RonJohn suggests, in the United States this is fairly easy as retirement accounts are common there is a long history of stable financial law even in crises.  Pakistan's institutions are fairly stable and improving but still assets and investments of all types can be riskier. So, I recommend taking your father's advice... partially. Having some assets are good in riskier situations, but good investments are generally the way to grow comfortably wealthy.  A good mix of the two is the way to grow wealthy slowly while protecting yourself from risk.  You, your father and your neighbors know you local situation better than I, who has only visited a number of Pakistan's neighboring countries, so I can't really give more detailed advice but hopefully this gets you started.
Broadly speaking, a traditional account is better if you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement (see for instance here).  When you put the money in now, you pay no taxes on it at your current (high) rate; when you take it out, you will pay taxes at your future (low) rate.  You push the taxes onto your future, lower-rate self. This is, crucially, assuming you can deduct the contribution on the traditional IRA.  If you can't (e.g., because you have an employer-sponsored plan and make too much money), the traditional IRA doesn't really gain you anything (see here). That is the basic story, but there are some other differences to consider as well.  For instance, if your income is too high, you cannot contribute to a Roth at all.  Also, with a traditional IRA you're required to start taking money out at a certain age, whereas with a Roth you never have to; this can make a difference if you have other retirement income and want to leave the money in the Roth (e.g., to pass on to your heirs without having to pay an intermediate tax at withdrawal). On a more speculative level, there is the possibility that tax rates may change between now and your retirement; some people try to hedge against this possibility by strategically allocating their retirement assets based on whether they think tax rates will rise or fall. First, you need to understand the difference in discussing types of investments and types of accounts. Certificate of Deposits (CDs), money market accounts, mutual funds, and stocks are all examples of types of investments. 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts are all examples of types of accounts. In general, those are separate decisions to make.  You can invest in any type of investment inside any type of account.  So your question really has two different parts:   Tax-advantaged retirement accounts vs. Standard taxable accounts FDIC-insured CDs vs. at-risk investments (such as stock mutual funds) Retirement accounts are special accounts allowed by the federal government that allow you to delay (or, in some cases, completely avoid) paying taxes on your investment.  The trade-off for these accounts is that, in general, you cannot access any of the money that you put into these accounts until you get to retirement age without paying a steep penalty.  These accounts exist to encourage citizens to save for their own retirement.  Examples of retirement accounts include 401(k) and IRAs. Standard taxable accounts have no tax advantages, but no restrictions, either.  You can put money in and take money out whenever you like.  However, anything that your investment earns is taxable each year. Inside any of these accounts, you can invest in FDIC-insured bank accounts, such as savings accounts or CDs, or you can invest in any number of non-insured investments, including money market accounts, bonds, mutual funds, stocks, precious metals, etc. Something you need to understand about investing in general is that your potential returns are directly related to the amount of risk that you take on.  Investing in an insured investment, which is guaranteed by the government to never lose its value, will result in the lowest potential investment returns that you can get. Interest-bearing savings accounts are currently paying less than 1% interest.  A CD will get you a slightly higher interest rate in exchange for you agreeing not to withdraw your money for a period of time. However, it takes a long time for your investments to grow with these investments.  If you are earning 1%, it takes 72 years for your investment to double. If you are willing to take some risk, you can earn much more with your investments.  Bonds are often considered quite safe; with a bond, you loan money to a government or corporation, and they pay you back with interest.  The risk comes from the possibility that the government or corporation won't pay you back, so it is important to choose a bond from an entity that you trust. Stocks are shares in for-profit companies.  Your potential investment gain is unlimited, but it is risky, as stocks can go down in value, and companies can close.  However, it is important to note that if you take the largest 500 stocks together (S&P 500), the average value has consistently gone up over the long term.  In the last 35 years, this average value has gone up about 11%.  At this rate, your investment would double in less than 7 years. To avoid the risk of picking a losing stock, you can invest in a mutual fund, which is a collection of stocks, bonds, or other investments.  The idea is that you can, with one investment, invest in many stocks, essentially earning the average performance of all the stocks.  There is still risk, as the market can be down as a whole, but you are insulated from any one stock being bad because you are diversified. If you are investing for something in the long-term future, such as retirement, stock mutual funds provide a good rate of return at an acceptably-low level of risk, in my opinion. See my recent answer to a similar question on prepaying a mortgage versus investing in IRA. The issue here is similar: you want to compare the relative rates of funding your retirement account versus paying down your debt. If you can invest at a better rate than you are paying on your debt, with similar risk, then you should invest. Otherwise, pay down your debt. The big difference with your situation is that you have a variable rate loan, so there's a significant risk that the rate on it will go up. If I was in your shoes, I would do the following: But that's me. If you're more debt-averse, you may decide to prepay that fixed rate loan too. It doesn't matter which way you use.  As long as your comfortable with the overall level of risk/reward in your portfolio, that's what matters.  (Though I will say that there are more investment vehicles than stocks, bonds, and cash that are worth considering.) "A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at ""dry periods"" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan ""relies"" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?" Unless and until you are ready to do the ground work and get your hands dirty in the market, it is better to let the money where it is. But how to distribute money in which asset classes, industry etc is your choice to make. But remember that a big investment company doesn't guarantee that you will always earn a return higher than the market or it is safe with them. They are also bound to make mistakes and go bust, but it would be quite rare for companies, with billions of assets because they have strict checks in place and invest with extreme caution and proper research. One option is to try dabbling in the markets yourself, slowly, not everything at once. You will learn a lot and there are loads of information on the net and books in stores which could get you started. You will need to do a lot of groundwork to beat the market. That is difficult but not impossible. People have done it time and time again and they have put in hard work to do so. And I don't see with a little bit of work and time, why you shouldn't be able to do that, unless and until you are lazy and don't intend to do it. "Making these difficult portfolio decisions for you is the point of Target-Date Retirement Funds.  You pick a date at which you're going to start needing to withdraw the money, and the company managing the fund slowly turns down the aggressiveness of the fund as the target date approaches.  Typically you would pick the target date to be around, say, your 65th birthday.  Many mutual fund companies offer a variety of funds to suit your needs. Your desire to never ""have to recover"" indicates that you have not yet done quite enough reading on the subject of investing.  (Or possibly that your sources have been misleading you.)  A basic understanding of investing includes the knowledge that markets go up and down, and that no portfolio will always go up.  Some ""recovery"" will always be necessary; having a less aggressive portfolio will never shield you completely from losing money, it just makes loss less likely. The important thing is to only invest money that you can afford to lose in the short-term (with the understanding that you'll make it back in the long term).  Money that you'll need in the short-term should be kept in the absolute safest investment vehicles, such as a savings account, a money market account, short-term certificates of deposit, or short-term US government bonds." Long ago when I was applying for my first mortgage I had to list all my income and assets. At the time I had some US Savings Bonds from payroll deduction. I asked about them. The loan officer told me that unless I was willing/planning on selling them to make the down payment, they were immaterial to the loan application. So unless you have a habit of turning RSUs into cash, or are willing to do so for the down payment, it is no different from having money in a 401K or IRA: the restrictions on selling them make them illiquid. With out a doubt: commercial real estate.  Those that have significant amounts of money, and want to make lots more usually end up investing a chunk of their portfolio in commercial real estate.  Everyone finds a way to make money elsewhere, but there’s no comparison to the incentives and returns in real estate when you have tens or hundreds of millions of $ at your disposal.  Have money, make money. "If you're looking for a well-rounded view into what it's like to actually own/manage real-estate investments, plus how you can scale things up & keep the management workload relatively low, have a look at the Bigger Pockets community.  There are blogs, podcasts, & interviews there from both full-time & part-time real estate investors. It's been a great resource for me in my investments. More generally, your goal of ""retiring"" within 20 years is very attainable even without getting extravagant investment returns.  A very underrated determinant in how quickly you build wealth is how much of your income you are contributing to investments. Have a look at this article: The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement" "It is not an either/or decision.  If you ""want to retire decades early"", then you will need to have a taxable account anyway, as you won't be able to stuff enough money into the tax-advantaged accounts to meet that goal. And if you are ""making a huge sum"", then you will be in a high tax bracket and so the tax advantages of saving into a 401K or IRA will be substantial. So, max out your 401K/IRA, and then save the rest into the taxable brokerage account.  When you retire at 39, live off your taxable account until you are old enough to tap the other ones without penalty. Unless you plan to die decades early, as well as retire decades early.  In that case, you can bypass the 401K/IRA." "Your are mixing multiple questions with assertions which may or may not be true. So I'll take a stab at this, comment if it doesn't make sense to you. To answer the question in the title, you invest in an IRA because you want to save money to allow you to retire. The government provides you with tax incentives that make an IRA an excellent vehicle to do this. The rules regarding IRA tax treatment provide disincentives, through tax penalties, for withdrawing money before retirement. This topic is covered dozens of times, so search around for more detail. Regarding your desire to invest in items with high ""intrinsic"" value, I would argue that gold and silver are not good vehicles for doing this. Intrinsic value doesn't mean what you want it to mean in this context -- gold and silver are commodities, whose prices fluctuate dramatically.  If you want to grow money for retirement over a long period, of time, you should be invested in diversified collection of investments, and precious metals should be a relatively small part of your portfolio." "IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, ""the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)"" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions." "First of all, ""going risky"" doesn't mean driving to Las Vegas and playing roulette. The real meaning is that you can afford higher risk/return ratio compared to a person who will retire in the following ten years. Higher return is very important since time works for you and even several extra percent annually will make a big difference in the long run because of compound interest effect. The key is that this requires the investment to not be too risky - if you invest in a single venture and it fails you lose all the money and that's worse that some conservative investment that could yield minimum income. So you still need the investment to be relatively safe. Next, as user Chris W. Rea mentions in the comment funds and ETFs can be very risky - depending on the investment policy they can invest into some very risky ventures or into some specific industry and that poses more risk that investing into ""blue chips"" for example. So a fund or an ETF can be a good fit for you if you choose a right one." mhoran answered the headline question, but you asked - Could someone shed some light on and differentiate between a retirement account and alternative savings plans? Retirement accounts can contain nearly anything that one would consider an investment. (yes, there are exception, not the topic for today). So when one says they have an S&P fund or ETF, and some company issued Bonds, etc, these may or may not be held in a retirement account.  In the US, when we say 'retirement account,' it means a bit more than just an account earmarked for that goal. It's an account, 401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc, that has a special tax status. Money can go in pre-tax, and be withdrawn at retirement when you are in a lower tax bracket. The Roth flavor of 401(k) or IRA lets you deposit post-tax money, and 'never' pay tax on it again, if withdrawn under specific conditions.  In 2013, a single earner pays 25% federal tax on taxable earnings over $36K. But a retiree with exactly $46K in gross income (who then has $10K in standard deduction plus exemption) has a tax of $4950, less than 11% average rate on that withdrawal. This is the effect of the deductions, 10% and 15% brackets.  As with your other question, there's a lot to be said about this topic, no one can answer in one post. That said, the second benefit of the retirement account is the mental partitioning. I have retirement money, not to be touched, emergency money used for the broken down car or appliance replacement, and other funds it doesn't feel bad to tap for spending, vacations, etc. Nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle, but a good way to keep things physically separate as well.   (I answered as if you are in US, but the answer works if you rename the retirement accounts, eg, Canada has similar tax structure to the US.)