Will progressively investing with moderate-to-high risk help secure a future?
There are a few flaws in your reasoning: I know my portfolio will always keep going up, No, it won't.  You'll have periods of losses.  You are starting your investing in a bull market.  Do NOT be fooled into believing that your successes now will continue indefinitely. The more risky your portfolio, the bigger the losses.  The upside of a risky portfolio is that the gains generally outweigh the losses, but there will be periods of losses. I honestly don't believe that it's possible for me to end up losing in the long term, regardless of risk. I think you vastly underestimate the risk of your strategy and/or the consequences of that risk.   There's nothing wrong with investing in risky assets, since over time you'll get higher-than-average returns, but unless you diversify you are exposing yourself to catastrophic losses as well. I always thought high-risk investing is hit or miss, but this is working out very well with the stocks I've chosen  High risk investing IS hit and miss.  We are in an historic bull market.  Do not pat yourself on the back too hard, the bear can be around any corner and your high risk strategy will then be put to the test.
"Place your savings into safe interest-bearing accounts. Take out the loans.  Keep constant track of your net worth. Having 100,000$ and 80,000$ in interest free debt is better than having 20,000$.  You can always convert money + debt into less money and less debt, but you cannot always convert less money and less debt into more money and more debt. Now, there are risks; that is why you want an interest-bearing account to place your savings in to offset the debt.  This minimizes the risk.  It also reduces the return. It is arguable that you should be at your most financially risky at a young age.  I'd argue that your future earnings are your by far largest asset at this point, and as a high school student going into college those future earnings have extremely high variability. Your financial situation is extremely unpredictable; being conservative about your high-leverage student-loan + education investments is probably justified.  The fact you can manage arbitrage here means you should; and if you are careful, you can eliminate risk and get almost risk-free profit from the maneuver. If your money is in less than perfectly safe accounts, you are now doing leveraged investing and magnifying the risk and return of said investments. If your money must be spent on college or you'll be financially punished, then you may want to consider pulling it out before the last possible legal point just in case something goes wrong. Apparently 529 plans may not treat ""paying off student loans"" as a valid way to spend the money.  You may need to talk to a lawyer or accountant about the legality of using these plans to pay off student loans, and the tax/penalties involved." I'll mirror what the others have said in that your expectations for returns are wildly out of line with reality. If you could achieve that with only moderate risk hopefully you can see that you could ladder those returns by re-investing them and become a billionaire in short order. You may have noticed that there are a lot of really financially savvy people who are not billionaires. So the math for your plan falls apart somewhere, obviously. However, in the spirit of being helpful, and with the caveat that super high returns involve super high risk I'll try and point you in the direction where this is theoretically possible, even if the odds would be better buying lottery tickets. One way to get more leverage from your money than just buying stocks is to buy options. With an options strategy your return/loss will be magnified greatly compared to buying stocks. That is, you can lose or gain a much higher multiplier of your original investment. That said, I don't advise doing that with any money that you can't afford to lose every penny of, because you likely will. 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. "Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to ""clumping"" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes.  Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices  * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are   the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They    provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the   housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment,    available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see  far right, partially cut off in image below.  * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices.  I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts." The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph.  While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it?  In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash.  Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to).   Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment.  They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest.  Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population.  It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio.  This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification. I thought the Finance Buff made a pretty solid argument for a financial advisor the other day: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html But 1.5% is too expensive. The blog post at Finance Buff suggests several alternatives. He also has the great suggestion to use Vanguard's cheap financial planning service if you go with Vanguard. A lot of investing advice fails to consider the human factor. Sure it'd be great to rebalance exactly every 6 months and take precisely the amount of risk to theoretically maximize returns. But, yeah right. It's well-known that in the aggregate individual investors go to cash near market bottoms and then buy near market tops. It's not that they don't know the right thing to do necessarily, it's just that the emotional aspect is stronger than any of us expect. You shouldn't rely on sticking to your investments any more than you rely on sticking to your diet and exercise program ;-) the theoretically optimal solution is not the real-world-people-are-involved optimal solution. My own blog post on this suggests a balanced fund rather than a financial advisor, but I think the right financial advisor could well be a better approach: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Anyway, I think people are too quick to think of the main risk as volatility, and to think of investing as simple. Sure in theory it is simple. But the main risk is yourself. Fear at market bottoms, greed at market tops, laziness the rest of the time... so there's potential value in taking yourself out of the picture. The human part is the part that isn't simple. On whether to get a financial advisor in general (not just for investments), see also: What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? Well, you probably already know this, but no-one can guarantee you results...in any economic climate.  Even traditionally low risk investments now seem higher risk to people when the economic forecasts are grim.  That being said, 0.5% is pretty low.  So, where does that leave you? Why not start with a risk tolerance analysis for yourself.  There's a bunch on them on the internet if you google it.  Here's one:  Rutgers Financial Risk Tolerance Quiz Based on the result you get back, and whether you agree with it or not, this may give you a starting point for determining if entering the stock market is right for you.  I'm guessing you can get better than 0.5% return over 10 years pretty easily though. An ideal investment for a highly risk tolerant college grad with a background in software and programming, is a software company. That's because it's the kind of investment that you will be able to judge better than most other people, including yours truly. Hopefully, one day the software company for a highly risk tolerant investor will be your own.(Ask Bill Gates or even Michael Dell, although the latter was more involved in hardware.)