Given current market conditions, how / when should I invest a $200k inheritance?
"E) Spend a small amount of that money on getting advice from a paid financial planner. (Not a broker or someone offering you ""free"" advice; their recommendations may be biased toward what makes them the most money).  A good financial planner will talk to you about your plans and expectations both short and long term, and about your risk tolerance (would a drop in value panic you even if you know it's likely to recover and average out in the long run, that sort of thing), and about how much time and effort you want to put into actively managing your portfolio. From those answers, they will generate an initial proposed plan, which will be tested against simulations of the stock market to make sure it holds up. Typically they'll do about 100 passes over the plan to get a sense of its probable risk versus growth-potential versus volatility, and tweak the plan until the normal volatility is within the range you've said you're comfortable with while trying to produce the best return with the least risk. This may not be a perfect plan for you -- but at the very least it will be an excellent starting point until you decide (if you ever do decide) that you've learned enough about investing that you want to do something different with the money. It's likely to be better advice than you'll get here simply because they can and will take the time to understand your specific needs rather than offering generalities because we're trying to write something that applies to many people, all of whom have different goals and time horizons and financial intestinal fortitude. As far as a house goes: Making the mistake of thinking of a house as an investment is a large part of the mindset that caused the Great Recession. Property can be an investment (or a business) or it can be something you're living in; never make the mistake of putting it in both categories at once. The time to buy a house is when you want a house, find a house you like in a neighborhood you like, expect not to move out of it for at least five years, can afford to put at least 20% down payment, and can afford the ongoing costs. Owning your home is not more grown-up, or necessarily financially advantageous even with the tax break, or in any other way required until and unless you will enjoy owning your home. (I bought at age 50ish, because I wanted a place around the corner from some of my best friends, because I wanted better noise isolation from my neighbors, because I wanted a garden, because I wanted to do some things that almost any landlord would object to, and because I'm handy enough that I can do a lot of the routine maintenance myself and enjoy doing it -- buy a house, get a free set of hobbies if you're into that. And part of the reason I could afford this house, and the changes that I've made to it, was that renting had allowed me to put more money into investments. My only regret is that I didn't realise how dumb it was not to max out my 401(k) match  until I'd been with the company for a decade ... that's free money I left on the table.)"
"The standard interpretation of ""can I afford to retire"" is ""can I live on just the income from my savings, never touching the principal."" To estimate that, you need to make reasonable guesses about the return you expect, the rate of inflation, your real costs -- remember to allow for medical emergencies, major house repairs, and the like when determining you average needs, not to mention taxes if this isn't all tax-sheltered! -- and then build in a safety factor. You said liquid assets, and that's correct; you don't want to be forced into a reverse mortgage by anything short of a disaster. An old rule of thumb was that -- properly invested -- you could expect about 4% real return after subtracting inflation. That may or may not still be correct, but it makes an easy starting point. If we take your number of $50k/year (today's dollars) and assume you've included all the tax and contingency amounts, that means your nest egg needs to be 50k/.04, or $1,250,000. (I'm figuring I need at least $1.8M liquid assets to retire.) The $1.5M you gave would, under this set of assumptions, allow drawing up to $60k/year, which gives you some hope that your holdings would mot just maintain themselves but grow, giving you additional buffer against emergencies later. Having said that: some folks have suggested that, given what the market is currently doing, it might be wiser to assume smaller average returns. Or you may make different assumptions about inflation, or want a larger emergency buffer. That's all judgement calls, based on your best guesses about the economy in general and your investments in particular.  A good financial advisor (not a broker) will have access to better tools for exploring this, using techniques like monte-carlo simulation to try to estimate both best and worst cases, and can thus give you a somewhat more reliable answer than this rule-of-thumb approach. But that's still probabilities, not promises. Another way to test it: Find out how much an insurance company would want as the price of an open-ended inflation-adjusted $50k-a-year annuity. Making these estimates is their business; if they can't make a good guess, nobody can. Admittedly they're also factoring the odds of your dying early into the mix, but on the other hand they're also planning on making a profit from the deal, so their number might be a reasonable one for ""self-insuring"" too. Or might not. Or you might decide that it's worth buying an annuity for part or all of this, paying them to absorb the risk. In the end, ""ya pays yer money and takes yer cherce.""" My understanding is that when you die, the stocks are sold and then   the money is given to the beneficiary or the stock is repurchased in   the beneficiaries name. This is wrong, and the conclusion you draw from michael's otherwise correct answer follows your false assumption.  You seem to understand the Estate Tax federal threshold. Jersey would have its own, and I have no idea how it works there. If the decedent happened to trade in the tax year prior to passing, normal tax rules apply.  Now, if the executor chooses to sell off and liquidate the estate to cash, there's no further taxable gain, a $5M portfolio can have millions in long term gain, but the step up basis pretty much negates all of it.  If that's the case, the beneficiaries aren't likely to repurchase those shares, in fact, they might not even know what the list of stocks was, unless they sifted through the asset list. But, that sale was unnecessary, assets can be divvied up and distributed in-kind, each beneficiary getting their fraction of the number of shares of each stock. And then your share of the $5M has a stepped up basis, meaning if you sell that day, your gains are near zero. You might owe a few dollars for whatever the share move in the time passing between the step up date and date you sell.  I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding.  By the way, the IRS is just an intermediary. It's congress that writes the laws, including the tangled web of tax code. The IRS is the moral equivalent of a great customer service team working for a company we don't care for. I would definitely recommend putting some of this in an IRA. You can't put all $30K in an IRA immediately though, as the contribution limit is $5500/year for 2014, but until April 15 you can still contribute $5500 for 2013 as well. At your income level I would absolutely recommend a Roth IRA, as your income will very likely be higher in retirement, given that your income will almost certainly rise after you get your Ph.D. Your suggested asset allocation (70% stocks, 30% bonds) sounds appropriate; if anything you might want to go even higher on stocks assuming you won't mind seeing the value drop significantly. If you don't want to put a lot of energy into investment choices, I suggest a target retirement date fund. As far as I am aware, Vanguard offers the lowest expenses for these types of funds, e.g. this 2050 fund. I like this option, rather than exposing all 600k to market risk, I'd think of paying off the mortgage as a way to diversify my portfolio. Expose 400k to market risk, and get a guaranteed 3.75% return on that 200k (in essence). Then you can invest the money you were putting towards your mortgage each month.  The potential disadvantage, is that the extra 200k investment could earn significantly more than 3.75%, and you'd lose out on some money. Historically, the market beats 3.75%, and you'd come out ahead investing everything. There's no guarantee. You also don't have to keep your money invested, you can change your position down the road and pay off the house. I feel best about a paid off house, but I know that my sense of security carries opportunity cost. Up to you to decide how much risk you're willing to accept. Also, if you don't have an emergency fund, I'd set up that first and then go from there with investing/paying off house. "This is a common and good game-plan to learn valuable life skills and build a supplemental income. Eventually, it could become a primary income, and your strategic risk is overall relatively low. If you are diligent and patient, you are likely to succeed, but at a rate that is so slow that the primary beneficiaries of your efforts may be your children and their children. Which is good! It is a bad gameplan for building an ""empire."" Why? Because you are not the first person in your town with this idea. Probably not even the first person on the block. And among those people, some will be willing to take far more extravagant risks. Some will be better capitalized to begin with. Some will have institutional history with the market along with all the access and insider information that comes with it.  As far as we know, you have none of that. Any market condition that yields a profit for you in this space, will yield a larger one for them. In a downturn, they will be able to absorb larger losses than you. So, if your approach is to build an empire, you need to take on a considerably riskier approach, engage with the market in a more direct and time-consuming way, and be prepared to deal with the consequences if those risks play out the wrong way." The standard advice is that stocks are all over the place, and bonds are stable. Not necessarily true. Magazines have to write for the lowest common denominator reader, so sometimes the advice given is fortune-cookie like. And like mbhunter pointed out, the advertisers influence the advice. When you read about the wonders of Index funds, and see a full page ad for Vanguard or the Nasdaq SPDR fund, you need to consider the motivation behind the advice. If I were you, I would take advantage of current market conditions and take some profits. Put as much as 20% in cash.  If you're going to buy bonds, look for US Government or Municipal security bond funds for about 10% of your portfolio. You're not at an age where investment income matters, you're just looking for some safety, so look for bond funds or ETFs with low durations. Low duration protects your principal value against rate swings. The Vanguard GNMA fund is a good example. $100k is a great pot of money for building wealth, but it's a job that requires you to be active, informed and engaged. Plan on spending 4-8 hours a week researching your investments and looking for new opportunities. If you can't spend that time, think about getting a professional, fee-based advisor. Always keep cash so that you can take advantage of opportunities without creating a taxable event or make a rash decision to sell something because you're excited about a new opportunity. "Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions   I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be   delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee   could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government   bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest   Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy   will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10   percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds   and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat   specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: ""I believe   the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to   those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions   or individuals.""" The best advice I've heard regarding market conditions is:  Buy into fear, and sell into greed. That is, get in when everyone is a bear and predicting economic collapse. Start selling when you hear stock picks at parties and family functions. That said. You are better off in the long term not letting emotion (of you or the market) control your investing decisions). Use dollar cost averaging to put a fixed amount in at fixed intervals and you will most likely end up better off for it. I like precious metals and real estate. For the OP's stated timeframe and the effects QE is having on precious metals, physical silver is not a recommended short term play. If you believe that silver prices will fall as QE is reduced, you may want to consider an ETF that shorts silver.  As for real estate, there are a number of ways to generate profit within your time frame. These include: Purchase a rental property. If you can find something in the $120,000 range you can take a 20% mortgage, then refinance in 3 - 7 years and pull out the equity.  If you truly do not need the cash to purchase your dream home, look for a rental property that pays all the bills plus a little bit for you and arrange a mortgage of 80%. Let your money earn money. When you are ready you can either keep the property as-is and let it generate income for you, or sell and put more than $100,000 into your dream home. Visit your local mortgage broker and ask if he does third-party or private lending. Ask about the process and if you feel comfortable with him, let him know you'd like to be a lender. He will then find deals and present them to you. You decide if you want to participate or not. Private lenders are sometimes used for bridge financing and the loan amortizations can be short (6 months - 5 years) and the rates can be significantly higher than regular bank mortgages. The caveat is that as a second-position mortgage, if the borrower goes bankrupt, you're not likely to get your principal back. "TL;DR - go with something like Barry Ritholtz's All Century Portfolio: 20 percent total U.S stock market 5 percent U.S. REITs 5 percent U.S. small cap value 15 percent Pacific equities 15 percent European equities 10 percent U.S. TIPs 10 percent U.S. high yield corp bonds 20 percent U.S. total bond UK property market are absurdly high and will be crashing a lot very soon The price to rent ratio is certainly very high in the UK.    According to this article, it takes 48 years of rent to pay for the same apartment in London.  That sounds like a terrible deal to me.  I have no idea about where prices will go in the future, but I wouldn't voluntarily buy in that market. I'm hesitant to invest in stocks for the fear of losing everything A stock index fund is a collection of stocks.  For example the S&P 500 index fund is a collection of the largest 500 US public companies (Apple, Google, Shell, Ford, etc.).  If you buy the S&P 500 index, the 500 largest US companies would have to go bankrupt for you to ""lose everything"" - there would have to be a zombie apocalypse. He's trying to get me to invest in Gold and Silver (but mostly silver), but I neither know anything about gold or silver, nor know anyone who takes this approach. This is what Jeremy Siegel said about gold in late 2013: ""I’m not enthusiastic about gold because I think gold is priced for either hyperinflation or the end of the world.""  Barry Ritholtz also speaks much wisdom about gold.  In short, don't buy it and stop listening to your friend.   Is buying a property now with the intention of selling it in a couple of years for profit (and repeat until I have substantial amount to invest in something big) a bad idea? If the home price does not appreciate, will this approach save you or lose you money?  In other words, would it be profitable to substitute your rent payment for a mortgage payment?  If not, you will be speculating, not investing.  Here's an articles that discusses the difference between speculating and investing.  I don't recommend speculating." No one knows if the market is high right now.  To know that you would need to compare it to the future, not the past. If you put all your money in right now, you run the risk of putting it in at what turns out to be a bad time.  If you spread it out, you will for sure put some of it in at a bad time (either the stuff you put in now, or the stuff you put in later).  The strategy that, on average, will make you the most money is to put everything in now.  If your risk tolerance allows that (it sounds like it does) then I think going all in makes sense. There really aren't significant downsides to buying a ton at once.  You aren't going to move the needle on a big Vanguard fund with that amount and there isn't a tax consequence or anything to buying.  Of course, when you sell, you will need to pay capital gains tax on any gains, but that's a later chapter. The bigger consideration is to be smart right now about avoiding taxes.  If your income is low, max out your Roth IRAs.  If you need to you can later use that money for a house or you can pull the contribution part out at any time if you want without a penalty. Is a $50K buffer too much?  Normally I would say yes, it's excessive.  I have 5 rather expensive kids and I keep $20K in cash, which seems high, if anything.  However, if you are unemployed or your income isn't covering your expenses, then keeping a larger pot in cash makes good sense until your cash flow firms up.  Setting $50K or something close to that aside sounds a lot like something I would do in your shoes. BTW where are you finding a savings account that pays 2%? "When I was in a similar situation (due to my stocks going up), I quit my job and decided that if I live somewhat frugally, I wouldn't have to work again (I haven't).  But I fell victim to some scams, didn't invest wisely, and tried to play as a (minor) philantropist.  Bad move.  I still have enough money to live on, and want to buy a home of my own, but with the rise in real estate costs in ALL the ""good"" major cities my options are very limited.  There is a LOT of good advice being given here; I wish someone had given me that kind of advice years ago. $1,200,000 sounds like a lot but it's not infinity. Side comment: I've seen lots of articles that claim to help you figure out how much money you need in retirement but why do they all start out by asking you ""how much money do you need in retirement?""" Here's a little different perspective. I'm not going to talk about the quality of the investment, the expected return, or any of the other things you normally talk about when evaluating investments. This is about family, and the most important thing here is the relationships.  What you need to do here is look at the different possible scenarios and figure out how each of these would make you feel. Only you can evaluate this. For example, here are some questions to ask yourself: I know how I would answer these questions, but that wouldn't help you any. But the advice I would give you is, assuming you have this money to lose, and are also investing elsewhere, evaluate this solely on the basis of the effect on your family relationships.  The only other piece of advice I would give you is to knock out that student loan and car loan debt as fast as you possibly can. Minimize your investments until that debt is gone, so you can get rid of it even faster. Your reaction to bad news is the greatest risk. Are you going to panic and pull all your money out when the market falls 20%? It will. Someday it will. The question is, will you have the stomach to stay the course and keep your money invested when the sky is falling and everyone is screaming that things are definitely going to get worse? If not, the timing of when you invest will matter not at all. My advice: Go all in ASAP. Remember that you don't care where the market is in 2 years. You're in your mid 40's, you care where the market is in 20 years. And 20 years from now, when you're in your mid 60's, you'll be caring about where the market is even further into the future. To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance.  The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market.  Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep?  And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties.   Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.