What are the pros and cons of investing in a closed-end fund?
Pro:  - Faces less redemption pressure and hence the Fund Manager can focus more on long term gains rather than immediate gains.  - Works well in emerging markets.  - Less churn out in case the market falls sharply, there by making more money in long run. Cons:  - No additional money to invest/take advantage of market situation.  - Less liquid for investor as he is locked in for a period. "The pros and cons of investing in a closed end fund both stem from the fact that the price per share is likely to differ from the net asset value (NAV) of the underlying assets. That could work to your advantage if the fund is selling for LESS than NAV, or at a discount. Then you get the ""benefit of the bargain"" and hope to sell the shares in the future for ""par"" or even a premium (MORE than NAV). On the other hand, if you buy such a fund at a premium, you stand to have a RELATIVE loss if the value of the fund goes back to par (or a discount) compared to NAV. That's because a closed end fund has a FIXED number of shares, with the assets continually being reinvested. In essence, you are ""buying out"" an existing shareholder of the fund at a price determined by supply and demand. This differs from an OPEN end fund, in which your contribution creates NEW shares (all other things being equal). Then the fund, has to invest YOUR money (and charges you a fee for the service) on exactly a pro rata basis with other investors in the fund, meaning that you will enter and exit such a fund at ""par."" In either case, your return depends mainly on the performance of the underlying assets. But there are premium/discount issues for investing in a closed end fund." One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not.  This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me.  With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.
@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you. The main advantage of commodities to a largely stock and bond portfolio is diversification and the main disadvantages are investment complexity and low long-term returns. Let's start with the advantage.  Major commodities indices and the single commodities tend to be uncorrelated to stocks and bonds and will in general be diversifying especially over short periods.  This relationship can be complex though as Supply can be even more complicated (think weather) so diversification may or may not work in your favor over long periods. However, trading in commodities can be very complex and expensive.  Futures need to be rolled forward to keep an investment going.  You really, really don't want to accidentally take delivery of 40000 pounds of cattle.  Also, you need to properly take into account roll premiums (carry) when choosing the closing date for a future.  This can be made easier by using commodities index ETFs but they can also have issues with rolling and generally have higher fees than stock index ETFs. Most importantly, it is worth understanding that the long-term return from commodities should be by definition (roughly) the inflation rate.  With stocks and bonds you expect to make more than inflation over the long term.  This is why many large institutions talk about commodities in their portfolio they often actually mean either short term tactical/algorithmic trading or long term investments in stocks closely tied to commodities production or processing. The two disadvantages above are why commodities are not recommended for most individual investors. "If you're talking about a single stock, you greatly underestimate the chances of it dropping, even long-term. Check out the 12 companies that made up the first Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1896. There is probably only one you've heard of: GE. Many of the others are long gone or have since been bought up by larger companies. And remember these were 12 companies that were deemed to be the most representative of the stock market around the turn of the 20th century. Now, if you're talking about funds that hold many stocks (up to thousands), then your question is a little different. Over the long-term (25+ years), we have never experienced a period where the overall market lost value. Of course, as you recognize, the psychology of investors is a very important factor. If the stock market loses half of its value in a year (as it has done a few times), people will be inundated with bad news and proclamations of ""this time it's different!"" and explanations of why the stock market will never recover. Perhaps this may be true some day, but it never has been thus far. So based on all the evidence we have, if you hold a well-diversified fund, the chances of it going down long-term (again, meaning 25+ years) are basically zero." (After seeing your most recent comment on the original question, it looks like others have answered the question you intended, and described the extreme difficulty of getting the timing right the way you're trying to. Since I've already typed it up, what follows answers what I originally thought your question was, which was asking if there were drawbacks to investing entirely in money market funds to avoid stock volatility altogether.) Money market funds have the significant drawback that they offer low returns. One of the fundamental principles in finance is that there is a trade-off between low risk and high returns. While money market funds are extremely stable, their returns are paltry; under current market conditions, you can consider them roughly equivalent to cash. On the other hand, though investing in stocks puts your money on a roller coaster, returns will be, on average, substantially higher. Since people often invest in order to achieve personal financial stability, many feel naturally attracted to very stable investments like money market funds. However, this tendency can be a big mistake. The higher returns of the stock market don't merely serve to stoke an investor's greed, they are necessary for achieving most people's financial goals. For example, consider two hypothetical investors, saving for retirement over the course of a 40-year career. The first investor, apprehensive Adam, invests $10k per year in a money market fund. The second investor, brave Barbara, invests $10k per year in an S&P 500 index fund (reinvesting dividends). Let's be generous and say that Adam's money market fund keeps pace with inflation (in reality, they typically don't even do that). At the end of 40 years, in today's money, Adam will have $10,000*40 = $400,000, not nearly enough to retire comfortably on. On the other hand, let's assume that Barbara gets returns of 7% per year after inflation, which is typical (though not guaranteed). Barbara will then have, using the formula for the future value of an annuity, $10,000 * [(1.07)^40 - 1] / 0.07, or about $2,000,000, which is much more comfortable. While Adam's strategy produces nearly guaranteed results, those results are actually guaranteed failure. Barbara's strategy is not a guarantee, but it has a good chance of producing a comfortable retirement. Even if her timing isn't great, over these time scales, the chances that she will have more money than Adam in the end are very high. (I won't produce a technical analysis of this claim, as it's a bit complicated. Do more research if you're interested.) "Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a ""hot"" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers.  However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this." "First, congratulations on choosing to invest in low cost passively managed plans. If you choose any one of these options and stick with it, you will already be well ahead of most individual investors. Almost all plans will allow you to re-balance between asset classes. With some companies, sales agents will encourage you to sell your overweighted assets and buy underweighted assets as this generates brokerage commissions for them, but when you only need to make minor adjustments, you can simply change the allocation of the new money going into your account until you are back to your target weights. Most plans will let you do this for free, and in general, you will only need to do this every few years at most. I don't see much reason for you to be in the Target funds. The main feature of these plans is that they gradually shift you to a more conservative asset allocation over time, and are designed to prevent people who are close to retirement from being too aggressive and risking a major loss just before retirement. It's very likely that at your age, most plans will have very similar recommendations for your allocation, with equities at 80% or more, and this is unlikely to change for the next few decades. The main benefits of betterment seems to be simplicity and ease of use, but there is one concern I would have for you with betterment. Precisely because it is so easy to tweak your allocation, I'm concerned that you might hurt your long-term results by reacting to short-term market conditions: I know I said I wanted a hands off account, but what if the stock market crashes and I want to allocate more to bonds??? One of the biggest reasons that stock returns are better than bond returns on average is that you are being paid to accept additional risk, and living with significant ups and downs is part of what it means to be in the stock market. If you are tempted to take money out of an asset class when it has been ""losing/feels dangerous"" and put more in when it is ""winning/feels safe"", my concerns is that you will end up buying high and selling low. I'd recommend taking a look at this article on the emotional cycle of investing. My point is simply that it's very likely that if you are moving money in and out of stocks based on volatility, you're much less likely to get the full market return over the long term, and might be better off putting more weight in asset classes with lower volatility. Either way, I'd recommend taking one or more risk tolerance assessments online and making sure you're committed to sticking with a long-term plan that doesn't involve more risk than you can really live with. I tend to lean toward Vanguard Life Strategy simply because Vanguard as a company has been around longer, but betterment does seem very accessible to a new investor. Best of luck with your decision!" Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings.  Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough. Note that many funds just track indexes. In that case, you essentially don't have to worry about the fund manager making bad decisions. In general, the statistics are very clear that you want to avoid any actively managed fund. There are many funds that are good all-in-one investments. If you are in Canada, for example, Canadian Couch Potato recommends the Tangerine Investment Funds. The fees are a little high, but if you don't have a huge investment, one of these funds would be a good choice and appropriate for 100% of your investment. If you have a larger investment, to the point that Tangerine's MER scares you a little, you still may well look at a three or four fund (or ETF) portfolio. You may choose to use an actively-managed fund even though you know there's virtually no chance it'll beat a fund that just tracks an index, long-term. In that case, I'd recommend devoting only a small portion of your portfolio to this fund. Many people suggest speculating with no more than 10% of your combined investment. Note that other people are more positive on actively-managed funds. 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. "TBF - Proshares short 20+ Year Treasury  The TBF fund is designed to track (hopefully) 100 percent of the inverse daily returns of the Barclays Capital 20+ Year U.S. Treasury Index.  there's some risk of tracking error, and also a compounding effect if it's down several days in a row.  (invest with care)   There's also a TBT fund, but the risks are even greater since it is leveraged,  potentially you could make the right long term call, but lose a lot in the short term due to tracking error and effect of compounding) (that would tend to make this one more appropriate for short term 'bets' on interest rates, and less so for a long term investor) There are also quite a few floating rate closed-end funds (Click here, then click on ""loan participation funds"") that should do well in a rising rate environment. Just beware that these funds seem to incorporate a substantial amount of credit risk as well as floating interest rate exposure. Closed end funds trade a lot like securities, since the fund is closed, you have to buy shares from another owner that is selling (just like with stocks), that means the shares can sometimes trade above or below the underlying value of the actual assets held by the fund depending on buying/selling pressure and the relative liquidity of a given fund." This is probably the best, most concise and yet detailed answer to this oft-posed question I've seen on this sub. Have an upvote. Only thing I'd add is that HFs' comparatively more active approach creates a moat vs. mutual funds, which are seen as more long-term, passive investments. This means they can charge fees and have higher expense ratios (though obviously anyone in finance who has been conscious in the last five years knows that this is changing) Stock index funds are likely, but not certainly, to be a good long-term investment.  In countries other than the USA, there have been 30+ year periods where stocks either underperformed compared to bonds, or even lost value in absolute terms.  This suggests that it may be an overgeneralization to assume that they always do well in the long term.  Furthermore, it may suggest that they are persistently overvalued for the risk, and perhaps due for a long-term correction.  (If everybody assumes they're safe, the equity risk premium is likely to be eaten up.) Putting all of your money into them would, for most people, be taking an unnecessary risk.  You should cover some other asset classes too.  If stocks do very well, a portfolio with some allocation to more stable assets will still do fairly well.  If they crash, a portfolio with less risky assets will have a better chance of being at least adequate. "My original plan was to wait for the next economic downturn and invest   in index funds. These funds have historically yielded 6-7% annually   when entered at any given time, but maybe around 8-9% annually when   entered during a recession. These numbers have been adjusted for   inflation. Questions or comments on this strategy? Educate yourself as index funds are merely a strategy that could be applied to various asset classes such as US Large-cap value stocks, Emerging Market stocks, Real Estate Investment Trusts, US Health Care stocks, Short-term bonds, and many other possibilities. Could you be more specific about which funds you meant as there is some great work by Fama and French on the returns of various asset classes over time. What about a Roth IRA? Mutual fund? Roth IRA is a type of account and not an investment in itself, so while I think it is a good idea to have Roth IRA, I would highly advise researching the ins and outs of this before assuming you can invest in one. You do realize that index funds are just a special type of mutual fund, right? It is also worth noting that there are a few kinds of mutual funds: Open-end, exchange-traded and closed-end. Which kind did you mean? What should I do with my money until the market hits another   recession? Economies have recessions, markets have ups and downs. I'd highly consider forming a real strategy rather than think, ""Oh let's toss it into an index fund until I need the money,"" as that seems like a recipe for disaster. Figure out what long-term financial goals do you have in mind, how OK are you with risk as if the market goes down for more than a few years straight, are you OK with seeing those savings be cut in half or worse?" Investopedia has a nice article on this here The Key benefit looks like better returns with lower capital. The disadvantage is few brokers offering that can be trusted. Potentially lower return due to margins / spreads. Higher leverage and can become an issue. Our company does a lot of research on the self-directed IRA industry. We also provide financial advice in this area. In short, we have seen a lot in this industry. You mentioned custodian fees. This can be a sore spot for many investors. However, not all custodians are expensive, you should do your research before choosing the best one. Here is a list of custodians to help with your research Here are some of the more common pros and cons that we see. Pros:  1) You can invest in virtually anything that is considered an investment. This is great if your expertise is in an area that cannot be easily invested in with traditional securities, such as horses, private company stock, tax liens and more. 2) Control- you have greater control over your investments. If you invest in GE, it is likely that you will not have much say in the running of their business. However, if you invest in a rental property, you will have a lot of control over how the investment should operate. 3) Invest in what you know. Peter lynch was fond of saying this phrase. Not everyone wants to invest in the stock market. Many people won't touch it because they are not familiar with it. Self-directed IRAs allow you to invest in assets like real estate that you know well. Cons: 1) many alternative investments are illiquid. This can present a problem if you need to access your capital for withdrawals. 2) Prohibited transactions- This is a new area for many investors who are unfamiliar with how self-directed IRAs work 3) Higher fees- in many cases, the fees associated with self-directed IRA custodians and administrators can be higher. 4) questionable investment sponsors tend to target self-directed IRA owners for fraudulent investments. The SEC put out a good PDF about the risks of fraud with self-directed IRAs. Self Directed IRAs are not the right solution for everyone, but they can help certain investors focus on the areas they know well.