What is the pitfall of using the Smith maneuver
The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk.  The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!
The short answer is to invest it since the rate of return is higher than your mortgage. (Assuming that you can withstand interest rate hikes, meet short term liquidity needs and don't need your $10K in the short or near term). The long answer is if you're comfortable leveraging your house and can put that $10K away for the long term you can reduce your taxes via the Smith Manoeuvre: Alternatively, if you have kids or grandkids and will help them through school, take the government's money by putting it away in an RESP. Can't tell you where to go for a good policy, but I can tell you that most brokers make a hefty commission out of your payments for at least a year before you even start funding the tax sheltered investment account that you're trying to buy under the umbrella of life insurance. You'll have to do a lot of homework to hunt down a reputable discount broker or a direct policy purchase from the insurance company. Life insurance requires insurable need. The description is vague enough, that you can probably still get the account despite being a single male with no apparent heirs to benefit, but it raises the question of why you are buying the insurance. Whole life policies require you to maintain a certain ratio of investment to premium payment and you will likely never be able access all of the money in the account for your own personal usage. Compare several policies from several brokers and companies. Read all the critical sources you can about the pitfalls and dangers of commissions, fees and taxes eating the benefits of your account. Verify that the insurance company you buy the policy from is financially stable after the market crash. You are paying a commission to pool your money into their investment fund, and if your insurer goes under, you'll have to get a portion of your money (possibly only the principle) back from the state insurance commissioner. Some companies sold pretty generous policies during the bubble and have cut their offerings way down without fixing their marketing literature and rosy promises.  Finally, let us know what you find. It never hurts to see hard numbers and to run multiple eyes over the legalese in these contracts. "&gt; cost of living for ""basic living""(whatever that means)  ""By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but what ever the customs of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-laborer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into, without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.""  - Adam Smith on relative poverty, The Wealth of Nations  &gt; Because without central authority, you cannot actually change the price of a good permanently.   Who said I wanted to do that?" &gt; At our place, we have visual management things on TV screens so everyone knows what's going on, metrics etc. People are constantly trying to improve the performance of system without management pushing for it.   While I agree, that kind of system is not without pitfalls as it lends itself to metrics gaming unless you really know what you're doing and consider every aspect of your business in your metrics. Late to the party, but it's just improving your cost basis in a defined risk trade even further. If you want to put up less risk capital but want to test the waters, this can be one way to do it. Another could be buying cheap OTM butterflies or financing a further otm option with the basis reduction from the debit spread if you want to gamble a bit further and venture into 15-20 delta positions. Usually, I am doing debit spreads with a buying atm and selling a couple strikes further otm or at least at the most liquid strikes, but if it's a high flier, it can be disappointing, but a good trade. If you're more of a contrarian in where you buy your calls/puts, it's absolutely a good way to lessen your risk on a calculated bet. "I think it's apt to remind that there's no shortcuts, if someone thinks about doing FX  fx: - negative sum game (big spread or commissions) - chaos theory description is apt - hard to understand costs (options are insurance and for every trade there is equivalent option position - so unless you understand how those are priced, there's a good chance you're getting a ""sh1tty deal"" as that Goldman guy famously said) - averaging can help if timing is bad but you could be just getting deeper into the ""deal"" I just mentioned and giving a smarter counterparty your money could backfire as it's the ""ammo"" they can use to defend their position.  This doesn't apply to your small hedge/trade? Well that's what I thought not long ago too! That's why I mentioned chaos theory. If you can find a party to hedge with that is not hedging with someone who eventually ends up hedging with JPM/Goldman/name any ""0 losing days a year"" ""bank"".. Then you may have a point. And contrary to what many may still think, all of the above applies to everything you can think of that has to do with money. All the billions with 0-losing days need to come from somewhere and it's definitely not coming just from couple FX punters." This should be posted in /r/Personalfinance.  Also, do not do what /u/BlitheCalamity is suggesting.    1. If it is an IRA, simply do an ACAT transfer.  No taxes will be incurred if the paperwork is filed correctly.  Additionally, there is a 60 rollover provision for IRA accounts... another way to get out of a tax penalty for an IRA account.  2. Check the internal fees for your mutual funds.  You may have purchased A shares, which I am guessing is the case since your advisor was an Ed Jones advisor.  The ongoing internal expense ratio should be rather low so you might want to consider keeping these funds.  An ACAT will allow you to transfer your investments to your new account if you want to keep them.  (A shares have a onetime high upfront charge, but low ongoing fee.  If you've already paid for the fund, why ditch it for another fund that charges a higher ongoing fee but not an upfront fee? Evaluate your costs.)  3. If this is a non-IRA account, still file an ACAT.  It is the easiest way to transfer your account.    Edit:  Silly me, this is clearly a question regarding an IRA.  In that case, there is no tax penalty for selling anything and buying within your IRA as long as you do not take the money out.  Like I said, please file an ACAT with the new company otherwise you will have to prove to the IRS that you completed the rollover in 60 days.  If not, you will pay income tax and a 10% penalty. There was a really good discussion with Arthur Levitt (former SEC Chairman) about this on Bloomberg Surveillance this morning. I'd post a link, but it's not up on [their podcast page](http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/surveillance/).  Basically, the argument was that it's pretty much impossible for the living wills to act as they should - trading books are far too large and complex for easily unwind in an emergency.