Buy index mutual fund or build my own?
You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index).  Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index. "There are only three circumstances where building your own ""index"" portfolio make sense, in my opinion." One thing I would add to @littleadv (buy an ETF instead of doing your own) answer would be ensure that the dividend yield matches.  Expense ratios aren't the only thing that eat you with mutual funds: the managers can hold on to a large percentage of the dividends that the stocks normally pay (for instance, if by holding onto the same stocks, you would normally receive 3% a year in dividends, but by having a mutual fund, you only receive .75%, that's an additional cost to you).  If you tried to match the DJIA on your own, you would have an advantage of receiving the dividend yields on the stocks paying dividends.  The downsides: distributing your investments to match and the costs of actual purchases. "If you are a ""small"" investor (namely, not an accredited investor), then the transaction costs (commissions) for purchasing the stocks while attempting to duplicate DJIA will defeat any benefit. My personal preference is to purchase mutual funds rather than ETFs." Go with a Vanguard ETF.  I had a lengthy discussion with a successful broker who runs a firm in Chicago. He boiled all of finance down to Vanguard ETF and start saving with a roth IRA. 20 years of psychology research shows that there's a .01 correlation (that's 1/100 of 1%) of stock/mutual fund performance to prediction. That's effectively zero. You can read more about it in the book Thinking Fast and Slow. Investors have ignored this research for years. The truth is you'd be just as successful if you picked your mutual funds out of a hat. But I'll recommend you go with a broker's advice.
I don't know what you mean by 'major'. Do you mean the fund company is a Fidelity or Vanguard, or that the fund is broad, as in an s&P fund?  The problem starts with a question of what your goals are. If you already know the recommended mix for your age/risk, as you stated, you should consider minimizing the expenses, and staying DIY. I am further along, and with 12 year's income saved, a 1% hit would be 12% of a year's pay, I'd be working 1-1/2 months to pay the planner?  In effect, you are betting that a planner will beat whatever metric you consider valid by at least that 1% fee, else you can just do it yourself and be that far ahead of the game.  I've accepted the fact that I won't beat the average (as measured by the S&P) over time, but I'll beat the average investor. By staying in low cost funds (my 401(k) S&P fund charges .05% annual expense) I'll be ahead of the investors paying planner fees, and mutual fund fees on top of that. You don't need to be a CFP to manage your money, but it would help you understand the absurdity of the system. "I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors.  You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk.  For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company.  However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B.  Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock.  For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area.  In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the ""personal"" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing.  (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors.  For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors.  But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies).  This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison.  You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar.  Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those.  But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies.  Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in." "That's great that you have saved up money. You are ahead of your peers. I would advise against investing in an index fund. The attraction of the idea is that you will get the same return as the base item. For example, an index fund of gold would supposedly give you the same return as if you bought gold. In reality this is not true. The return of an index fund is always significantly below the return of the underlying commodity. Your best strategy is to invest in something you know and understand. There are two books that can help you learn how to do this: ""One Up on Wall Street"" by Peter Lynch and ""The Intelligent Investor"" by Benjamin Graham. Buying, reading and following the guidance in these two books is your best investment of time and money." You don't say what kinds of mutual funds, or what bonds. You don't say how old you are. You seem to have enough cushion to strike out on your own comfortably.  This is good. Compared with Vanguard's management fees, the fees you're paying are pretty high. The bottom line of what to invest in rests with you.  If you outsource it, it's still your money.  The managers get paid whether you make money or not. You have lots of other options: real estate from a distressed seller, commodities, currencies, websites, or other things where you have a knowledge advantage. For the time being, though, if you're concerned about your main income stream, I wouldn't get terribly risky with your money.  Cash is just peachy in that case. If you are looking to invest for 1-2 years I would suggest you not invest in mutual funds at all. Your time horizon is too short for it to be smart to invest in the stock market.  I'd suggest a high-yield savings account or CD. I know they both have crappy returns, but the stock market can swing wildly with no notice. If you are ready to buy your house and the market is down 50% (it has happened multiple times in history) are you going to have to put off buying your home for an indefinite amount of time waiting to them to recover? If you are absolutely committed to investing in a mutual fund anyway against my advise I'd suggest an indexed fund that contains mostly blue chip stocks (indexed against the DOW). "There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%.  The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement ""admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF""." Failing some answers to my comment, I am going to make some assumptions: Based upon a quick review of this article I'd probably be in the Russell 2000 Value Index Fund (IWN).  Quite simply it gives you broad market exposure so you can be diversified by purchasing one fund. One of the key success factors is starting, not if you pick the best fund at the onset.  I can recall, 20 years ago being amazed (and it was quite a feat) at someone who was able to invest $400 per month.  These days that won't get you to the ROTH maximum and smart 20 somethings are doing just that. My plan is that one day I can become free of the modern day monetary burdens that most adults carry with them and I can enjoy a short life without these troubles on my mind. If your objective is to achieve financial independence, and to be able to retire early from the workforce, that's a path that has been explored before. So there's plenty of sources that you might want to check.  The good news is that you don't need to be an expert on security analysis or go through dozens of text books to invest wisely and enjoy the market returns. This is the Bogleheads philosophy. It's widely accepted by people in academia, and thoroughly tested. Look into it further if you want to see the rationale behind, but, to sum it up: It doesn't matter how expert you are. The idea of beating the market, that an index fund tracks, is about 'outsmarting' the rest of investors. That would be difficult, even if it was a matter of skill, but when it comes to predicting random events we're all equally clueless.  *Total Expense Ratio: It gives an idea of how expensive is a given fund in terms of fees. Actively managed funds have higher TER than indexed ones. This doesn't mean there aren't index funds with, unexplainable, high TER out there. I like the way you framed this question.  There is no single right answer for what to do with your savings, but there are some choices that are wrong in the sense that they are dominated by other choices you could make.  Of the choices you listed, there are two that fall into that category.  The ones that seem like a bad idea to me are: Putting it into your Roth 401(k).  You can't do this directly anyhow, but you could do it indirectly by increasing your contributions and using the growth fund to cover the hole in your budget, but that's a lot of work for a relatively small gain.  You would essentially be exchanging one long-term investment for another long-term investment.  You would pay capital gains taxes on the investment when you sell it today, in order to not pay taxes on its earnings when you eventually withdraw it.  There is some benefit there, but it's a long way off, not that large, and probably not worth the effort.  Things that might change your mind:  If your 401(k) was a traditional 401(k) (paying tax at capital gains rate today to get a deduction at your normal income rate is likely to be a win).  You're not contributing enough to get the full company match (always try to get that match if you can). Putting it into your emergency fund.  Once again, you are likely to pay capital gains tax if you do this, and you will be putting it into an investment that is likely to get a lower return than your current one.  It isn't really necessary to incur these costs, since if you encounter an emergency that you can't cover with your existing emergency fund, you could always liquidate the growth fund then, when you know you need it.  Now, a growth fund is going to be more volatile than what you would normally want for an emergency fund, but the risk isn't that bad, if you think about it.  Say your emergency comes up and you find that the growth fund is down 20% (which would be a pretty horrible run).  That's $600 less that you have to deal with the situation.  Keep in mind that you already have $2000 (and building) in your current emergency fund.  Is that $600 going to make the difference between meeting the need and not?  It's not likely.  Better to leave the investment where it is and keep building your emergency fund week by week.  Things that might change your mind: Your level of risk aversion (if having that money in a more risky investment is keeping you up at night, move it).  You face significant job uncertainty (if you have reason to think your job is at risk, it might be a good idea to top off that emergency fund sooner rather than later.) Your other two choices both seem like solid options under the right circumstances.  If it were me, I'd leave the investment in place rather than use it to pay off the student loan.  The investment is likely (though of course not guaranteed) to earn more than the interest rate even on the highest-rate loan, especially when you consider that the interest on the student loan is probably tax deductible.  Moreover, the size of the investment isn't enough to fully repay the loan, so putting it toward the loan won't even improve your cash flow for some time to come.  However, there is always a chance that the investment will perform poorly and some people prefer the guaranteed return from paying off the loan.  It depends on your personal risk tolerance.  The one thing I would recommend is to think of putting the money toward the loan not as a debt repayment, but as a fixed-income investment with a yield equal to your loan's interest rate.  If you would still consider buying it then, then go ahead.  If not, then stick with what you've got.  In my experience people get way too emotional about debt; try to take that emotion out of your decision making if you can. It's a good question, I am amazed how few people ask this. To summarise: is it really worth paying substantial fees to arrange a generic investment though your high street bank? Almost certainly not. However, one caveat: You didn't mention what kind of fund(s) you want to invest in, or for how long. You also mention an “advice fee”. Are you actually getting financial advice – i.e. a personal recommendation relating to one or more specific investments, based on the investments' suitability for your circumstances – and are you content with the quality of that advice? If you are, it may be worth it. If they've advised you to choose this fund that has the potential to achieve your desired returns while matching the amount of risk you are willing to take, then the advice could be worth paying for. It entirely depends how much guidance you need. Or are you choosing your own fund anyway? It sounds to me like you have done some research on your own, you believe the building society adviser is “trying to sell” a fund and you aren't entirely convinced by their recommendation. If you are happy making your own investment decisions and are merely looking for a place to execute that trade, the deal you have described via your bank would almost certainly be poor value – and you're looking in the right places for an alternative. ~ ~ ~ On to the active-vs-passive fund debate: That AMC of 1.43% you mention would not be unreasonable for an actively managed fund that you strongly feel will outperform the market. However, you also mention ETFs (a passive type of fund) and believe that after charges they might offer at least as good net performance as many actively managed funds. Good point – although please note that many comparisons of this nature compare passives to all actively managed funds (the good and bad, including e.g. poorly managed life company funds). A better comparison would be to compare the fund managers you're considering vs. the benchmark – although obviously this is past performance and won't necessarily be repeated. At the crux of the matter is cost, of course. So if you're looking for low-cost funds, the cost of the platform is also significant. Therefore if you are comfortable going with a passive investment strategy, let's look at how much that might cost you on the platform you mentioned, Hargreaves Lansdown. Two of the most popular FTSE All-Share tracker funds among Hargreaves Lansdown clients are: (You'll notice they have slightly different performance btw. That's a funny thing with trackers. They all aim to track but have a slightly different way of trading to achieve it.) To hold either of these funds in a Hargreaves Lansdown account you'll also pay the 0.45% platform charge (this percentage tapers off for portolio values higher than £250,000 if you get that far). So in total to track the FTSE All Share with these funds through an HL account you would be paying: This gives you an indication of how much less you could pay to run a DIY portfolio based on passive funds. NB. Both the above are a 100% equities allocation with a large UK companies weighting, so won't suit a lower risk approach. You'll also end up invested indiscriminately in eg. mining, tobacco, oil companies, whoever's in the index – perhaps you'd prefer to be more selective. If you feel you need financial advice (with Nationwide) or portfolio management (with Nutmeg) you have to judge whether these services are worth the added charges. It sounds like you're not convinced! In which case, all the best with a low-cost passive funds strategy. Maxing out an IRA would probably be step 1, if you exceed that probably just aim for saving in a taxable brokerage account. Just try and stick to ETFs if you're gonna index since they're slightly more tax efficient than a mutual fund ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more.  sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this.  One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years.  And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff.  Last, welcome to SE.    Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you.  To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less. The volatility of an index fund should usually be a lot lower than that of an individual stock. However even with a broad index fund you should consider the fact that being down by 10% in the time frame you refer to is quite possible! So is being up by 10% of course. A corporate bond might be a better choice if you can find one you trust. For index funds to be a poor investment, they would have to perform worse than your alternative investments.  In this case, we'll assume the alternative to be the individual stocks.  Obviously, it must be possible to pick just the winning stocks and avoid the losing stocks, raising your rate of return... however, several studies have shown that individuals are horrible at picking winners.  We let our emotions, are biases, and are suppositions get in the way.  You could literally throw a dart, but then you either win big or lose big.  Picking the fund evens that out for you, so you don't win or lose big, but just get a consistently boring (yet consistently good) return. If you have a lot of time to put into the research, and are confident in your ability to pick winning stocks, then you can do better than the index funds.  Otherwise, sticking with the index fund is probably a smart choice. Since you seem to be interested in investing in individual stocks, this answer will address that.  As for the general question of investing, the answer that @johnfx gave is just about as good as it gets. Investing in individual stocks is extremely risky and takes a LOT of work to do right.  On top of the fairly obvious need to research a stock before you buy, there is the matter of keeping up with the stocks to know when you need to sell as well as myriad other facets of investing.  Paid professionals spend all day, every day, doing this and they have a hard time beating an index fund.  Unless you take the time to educate yourself and are willing to continually put in a good bit of effort, I would advise you to stay away from individual stocks and rely on mutual funds.