Are mutual funds safe from defaults?
The only way for a mutual fund to default is if it inflated the NAV. I.e.: it reports that its investments worth more than they really are. Then, in case of a run on the fund, it may end up defaulting since it won't have the money to redeem shares at the NAV it published. When does it happen? When the fund is mismanaged or is a scam. This happened, for example, to the fund Madoff was managing. This is generally a sign of a Ponzi scheme or embezzlement. How can you ensure the funds you invest in are not affected by this? You'll have to read the fund reports, check the independent auditors' reports and check for clues. Generally, this is the job of the SEC - that's what they do as regulators. But for smaller funds, and private (i.e.: not public) investment companies, SEC may not be posing too much regulations. There are very strict regulations that requires the assets which a fund buys on behalf of its investors to be kept completely separate from the fund's own assets (which it uses to pay its expenses), except for the published fees. Funds are typically audited regularly to ensure this is the case. So the only way in which a default of the fund could cause a loss of invstor money would be if the fund managers broke the regulations and committed various crimes. I've never heard of this actually happening to a normal mutual fund. There is of course also a default risk when a fund buys bonds or other non-equity securities, and this may sometimes be non-obvious. For example, some ETFs which are nominally based on a stock index don't actually buy stocks; instead they buy or sell options on those stocks, which involves a counterparty risk. The ETF may or may not have rules that limit the exposure to any one counterparty. There is a measure of protection for investors. It is not the level of protection provided by FDIC or NCUA but it does exist: Securities Investor Protection Corporation What SIPC Protects SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks   and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member   brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which   includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage   firms when assets are missing from customer accounts are protected.   There is no requirement that a customer reside in or be a citizen of   the United States. A non-U.S. citizen with an account at a brokerage   firm that is a member of SIPC is treated the same as a resident or   citizen of the United States with an account at a brokerage firm that   is a member of SIPC. SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of   the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers   their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the   brokerage firm liquidation begins. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities.   SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and   other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for   bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments. It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as   protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation   (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the   value of any security. Investments in the stock market are subject to fluctuations in market   value. SIPC was not created to protect these risks. That is why SIPC   does not bail out investors when the value of their stocks, bonds and   other investment falls for any reason. Instead, in a liquidation, SIPC   replaces the missing stocks and other securities when it is possible   to do so.
Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses.  As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level   of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since   the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to   consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other   Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing,   higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not   be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund   may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal   and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks. "I experimented with Lending Club, lending a small amount of money in early 2008. (Nice timing right - the recession was December 2007 to June 2009.) I have a few loans still outstanding, but most have prepaid or defaulted by now. I did not reinvest as payments came in. Based on my experience, one ""catch"" is lack of liquidity. It's like buying individual bonds rather than a mutual fund. Your money is NOT just tied up for the 3-year loan term, because to get good returns you have to keep reinvesting as people pay off their loans. So you always have some just-reinvested money with the full 3 year term left, and that's how long it would take to get all your money back out. You can't just cash out when you feel like it. They have a trading platform (which I did not try out) if you want your money sooner, but I would guess the spreads are wide and you have to take a hit when you sell loans. Again though I did not try the trading platform. On the upside, the yields did seem fine. I got 19 eventual defaults from 81 loans, but many of the borrowers made a number of payments before defaulting so only part of the money was lost. The lower credit ratings default more often obviously, only one of 19 defaults had the top credit score. (I tried investing across a range of credit ratings.) The interest rates appear to cover the risk of default, at least on average. You can of course have varying luck.  I made only a slight profit over the 3 years, but I did not reinvest after the first couple months, and it was during a recession. So the claimed yields look plausible to me if you reinvest. They do get people's credit scores, report nonpayment on people's credit reports, and even send people to collections. Seems like borrowers have a reason to pay the bill. In 2008 I think this was a difference compared to the other peer lending sites, but I don't know if that's still true. Anyway, for what it's worth the site seemed to work fine and ""as advertised"" for me. I probably will not invest more money there for a couple reasons: However as best I could tell from my experiment, it is a perfectly reasonable place to put a portion of your portfolio you might otherwise invest in something like high-yield bonds or some other sub-investment-grade fixed income. Update: here's a useful NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/your-money/05money.html" Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think.  The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are  not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps  keeping the principal  amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual  funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment?  Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you  less-than-average gains over long periods of time.  The  unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that  X% of actively managed mutual funds  in a specific category failed  to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the  corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and  100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc.  Indeed, one of the arguments in  favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds.  Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can  get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns?  The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results.  As someone (John Bogle?) said,  when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going.  In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy? "Your question is one of semantics.  ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences.  It's reasonably correct to say ""An ETF is a mutual fund that..."" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund.  You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund.  ""A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors."" As a matter of practice, when people say ""mutual fund"" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs.  So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used?  No." "Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value.  Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds.  You can find ""high yield"" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up.  Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured.  Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be." The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered  a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there. When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that. "Mutual funds can be relatively low risk and a good starting point. Really it depends on you.  What are your goals? This is a pretty open ended question. These can all be low risk and provide some return.  Note ""Less Knowledge"" is never a good qualifier for an investment. Your money is your business and you are entitled to know what your business is up to." Risk. Volatility. Liquidity. Etc.  All exist on a spectrum, these are all comparative measures.  To the general question, is a mutual fund a good alternative to a savings account? No, but that doesn't mean it is a bad idea for your to allocate some of your assets in to one right now. Mutual funds, even low volatility stock/bond blended mutual funds with low fees still experience some volatility which is infinitely more volatility than a savings account.  The point of a savings account is knowing for certain that your money will be there.  Certainty lets you plan. Very simplistically, you want to set yourself up with a checking account, a savings account, then investments.  This is really about near term planning.  You need to buy lunch today, you need to pay your electricity bill today etc, that's checking account activity.  You want to sock away money for a vacation, you have an unexpected car repair, these are savings account activities.  This is your foundation.  How much of a foundation you need will scale with your income and spending.   Beyond your basic financial foundation you invest.  What you invest in will depend on your willingness to pay attention and learn, and your general risk tolerance. Sure, in this day and age, it is easy to get money back out of an investment account, but you don't want to get in the habit of taping investments for every little thing. Checking: No volatility, completely liquid, no risk Savings: No volatility, very liquid, no principal risk  Investments: (Pick your poison) The point is you carefully arrange your near term foundation so you can push up the risk and volatility in your investment endeavors.  Your savings account might be spread between a vanilla savings account and some CDs or a money market fund, but never stock (including ETF/Mutual Funds and blended Stock/Bond funds). Should you move your savings account to this mutual fund, no.  Should you maybe look at your finances and allocate some of your assets to this mutual fund, sure.  Just look at where you stand once a year and adjust your checking and savings to your existing spending.  Savings accounts aren't sexy and the yields are awful at the moment but that doesn't mean you go chasing yield.  The idea is you want to insulate your investing from your day to day life so you can make unemotional deliberate investment decisions. Without providing direct investment advice, I can tell you that bond most assuredly are not recession-proof.  All investments have risk, and each recession will impact asset-classes slightly differently. Before getting started, BONDS are LOANS.  You are loaning money.  Don't ever think of them as anything but that. Bonds/Loans have two chief risks: default risk and inflation risk.   Default risk is the most obvious risk. This is when the person to whom you are loaning, does not pay back.  In a recession, this can easily happen if the debtor is a company, and the company goes bankrupt in the recessionary environment. Inflation risk is a more subtle risk, and occurs when the (fixed) interest rate on your loan yields less than the inflation rate.  This causes the 'real' value of your investment to depreciate over time.   The second risk is most pronounced when the bonds that you own are government bonds, and the recession causes the government to be unable to pay back its debts.  In these circumstances, the government may print more money to pay back its creditors, generating inflation. There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site.  In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover.  I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts. "I don't know whether you'd consider buying a single bond instead of a fund. Strips are Treasuries where the coupons have been ""stripped"" to produce debt instruments with a fixed maturity date. They pay zero interest. Their value comes from the fact that you buy them at a price less than 100 and they are worth exactly 100 at some point in the future. You can buy them with any year/month that you wish. They are backed by the federal government and are considered to have no default risk. Like most bonds the price is actually a percentage and they mature at a 100. The one that expires 9/30/2018 costs 91.60 and returns 100 on the expiration date. The price list is here There's more information about them here First of all, they are still T-bonds (in all but the most legalistic   sense) which means they are the safest, most risk-free investment   possible. The U.S. federal government has stellar credit and a record   of never defaulting. These bonds have no call features, so the timing and distribution of   bond payments cannot be altered by any foreseeable occurrence. They are sold at a known - and generally deep - discount off a known   face value that can be redeemed at a known date, so buyers know   exactly how much they will earn from an investment in STRIPS." "For instance he is recommending moving money into HYD which seems to have a higher risk at an average return ( for this asset class )ABHFX seems to have a higher return at a lower risk. Often [his recommendations] are on the lower end of best performing funds in the class. Historical Mutual Fund performance has little to no predictive power for future performance so this shouldn't be an immediate disqualification.  Some good starting questions for you to evaluate a manager:  Does this mean it's a mistake to use UBS (or any bank limited in its fund offerings from other institutions) as the ""wealth management"" institution? All wealth management institutions have restrictions on possible investments.  Obviously, if your relative can't invest in the funds she wants that is an issue. Do these [Morningstar] ratings mean anything at all? This has been studied pretty carefully and the academic consensus appears to be that they have no consistant predictive power.  Kräussl and Sandelowsky wrote a particularly comprehensive paper on the subject." "The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding.  If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term.  Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis.  See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression.  The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:""To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.""  FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress.  This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations.  This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices).  The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more.  The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks?  Yes, you could exchange into another currency.  Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive.  This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession.  This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go.  The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting.  Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase.  This may not be possible." "Give me your money. I will invest it as I see fit. A year later I will return the capital to you, plus half of any profits or losses. This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. Think about incentives. If you wanted an investment where your losses were only half as bad, but your gains were only half as good, then you could just invest half your assets in a risk-free investment. So if you want this hypothetical instrument because you want a different risk profile, you don't actually need anything new to get it. And what does the fund manager get out of this arrangement? She doesn't get anything you don't: she just gets half your gains, most of which she needs to set aside to be able to pay half your losses. The discrepancy between the gains and losses she gets to keep, which is exactly equal to your gain or loss. She could just invest her own money to get the same thing. But wait -- the fund manager didn't need to provide any capital. She got to play with your money (for free!) and keep half the profits. Not a bad deal, for her, perhaps... Here's the problem: No one cares about your thousands of dollars. The costs of dealing with you: accounting for your share, talking to you on the phone, legal expenses when you get angry, the paperwork when you need to make a withdrawal for some dental work, mailing statements and so on will exceed the returns that could be earned with your thousands of dollars. And then the SEC would probably get involved with all kinds of regulations so you, with your humble means and limited experience, isn't constantly getting screwed over by the big fund. Complying with the SEC is going to cost the fund manager something. The fund manager would have to charge a small ""administrative fee"" to make it worthwhile.  And that's called a mutual fund. But if you have millions of free capital willing to give out, people take notice. Is there an instrument where a bunch of people give a manager capital for free, and then the investors and the manager share in the gains and losses? Yes, hedge funds! And this is why only the rich and powerful can participate in them: only they have enough capital to make this arrangement beneficial for the fund manager."