Are money market instrument and short-term debt same?
The Money Market is a place where one trades Instruments. The market is similar to that of the Stock Market. The instruments traded in Money Markets include Short Term Debt Instruments as well as FX Swap Instruments and Mortgage & Asset Backed Securities. The FX & Mortgage Securities are not Debt instruments per se. They also include other custom created instruments that are traded. The definition of Short Term debt is any guaranteed instrument with a maturity of less than a year. These instruments are used in various transactions, including retail and the Money Market is not the only place these are traded.
The catch is in the Premium amount you pay. In a pure term insurance, there is no survival benefit. You get paid only for the event, i.e. when you die during the policy term, the sum assured is paid to your nominee. The money back on the other hand, charges a huge premium, typically 5X more than the pure term, part of it is for the risk cover. The balance is then invested in safe instruments and at the end if you survive you would get that money. Typical calculations would show that if you had yourself invested the difference in premium even in CD's you would get much more money back. The reason this product is available in the market is more of people cannot part with money when they don't get anything back. To these vast majority, it looks like insurance company is taking all their money and doesn't give them back if they survive. Hence to make it seem better to these vast majority, there is money back. Hence people all over the world buy these policy much more than a pure term policy. "There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the ""high-frequency trading"" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it.  The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)" Your edit indicates that you may not yet be ready to get heavily involved in investing. I say this because it seems you are not very familiar with foundational finance/investing concepts.  The returns that you are seeing as 'yearly' are just the reported earnings every 12 months, which all public companies must publish. Those 'returns' are not the same as the earnings of individual investors (which will be on the basis of dividends paid by the company [which are often annual, sometimes semi-annual, and sometimes quarterly], and by selling shares purchased previously. Note that over 3 months time, investing in interest-earning investments [like bank deposits] will earn you something like 0.5%. Investing in the stock market will earn you something like 2% (but with generally higher risk than investing in something earning interest). If you expect to earn significant amounts of money in only 3 months, you will not be able to without taking on extreme levels of risk [risk as high as going to a casino].  Safe investing takes time - years. In the short term, the best thing you can do to earn money is by earning more [through a better job, or a second part-time job], or spending less [budget, pay down high interest debt, and spend less than you earn]. I highly recommend you look through this site for more budgeting questions on how to get control of your finances. If you feel that doesn't apply to you, I encourage you to do a lot more research on investing before you send your money somewhere - you could be taking on more risk than you realize, if you are not properly informed. "So ""Operation Twist"" is actually a pretty simple concept. Here's the break down: The Fed sells short-term treasury bonds that it already holds on its books. Short-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in less than three years. Then: Uses that money to buy long term treasury bonds. Long-term treasury bonds refer to -  bonds that mature in six to 30 years The reason: The fed buys these longer-term treasuries to lower longer-term interest rates and encourage more borrowing and spending. Diving deeper into how it works: So the Fed can easily determine short-term rates by using the Federal funds rate this rate has a direct effect on the following: However this does not play a direct role in influencing the rate of long-term loans (what you might pay on a 30-year fixed mortgage). Instead, long-term rates are determined by investors who buy and sell bonds in the bond market, which changes daily. These bond yields fluctuate depending on the health of the economy and inflation. However, the Fed funds rate does play an indirect role in these rates. So now that we know a little more about what effects what rate, why does lower long-term rates in treasuries influence my 30yr fixed mortgage? Well when you are looking for a loan you are entering a market and competing against other people, by people I mean anyone looking for money (e.g: my grandmother, companies, or the US government). The bank that lends you money has to decide weather the deal you are offering them is better then another deal on the market. If the risk of lending to one person is the same as the risk of lending to another, the bank will make whichever loan yields the higher interest rate. The U.S. government is considered a very safe borrower, so much so that government bonds are considered almost “risk free”, but because of the lower risk the rate of return is lower. So now the bank has to factor in this risk and make its decision weather to lend you money, or the government. So, if the government were to go to the market and buy its own long-term bonds it is adding demand in the market causing the price of the bond to rise in effect lowering the interest rate (when price goes up, yield goes down). So when you go back and ask for a loan it has to re-evaluate and decide ""Is it worth giving this money to Joe McFreeBeer instead and collecting a higher yield?"" (After all, Joe McFreeBeer is a nice guy). Here's an example: Lets say the US has a rating of 10 out of 10 and its bonds pay a 2% yield. Now lets say for each lower mark in rating the bank will lend at a minimum of 1% higher and your rating is 8 of 10. So if you go to market, the lowest rate you can get will be 4%. Now lets say price rises on the US treasury and causes the rate to go down by 1%. In this scenario you will now be able to get a loan for 3% and someone with a rating of 7 of 10 would be able to get that 4% loan. Here's some more info and explinations: Why is the Government Buying Long-Term Bonds? What Is 'Operation Twist'? A Q&A on US Fed Program Federal Reserve for Beginners Federal Open Market Committee" Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings.  The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies.  Pension funds have large stakes as well.  Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity.  While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity.  Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world.  While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse?  The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse.  If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply. "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." "When ""people say"", each person is referring to whatever he/she is looking at.  Interest rates tend to move roughly the same, but often there is a bias regarding long vs. short term.  In the US right now, short term interest rates are very low but there is a lot of chatter saying they will rise in the future.  The differential between long term rates and short term rates is high compared to historical norms, suggesting that the market believes this chatter.  You can also look at the differences in rates between different quality levels.  If the economy is improving, the difference in rate for lower rated debt vs. higher rated debt decreases as people think the chance of businesses failing is decreasing. Right now, any interest rate you look at is well below long term historical averages, so asserting that interest rates are low is quite safe." "Your only real alternative is something like T-Bills via your broker or TreasuryDirect or short-term bond funds like the Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Fund.  The problem with this strategy is that these options are different animals than a money market. You're either going to subject yourself to principal risk or lose the flexibility of withdrawing the money. A better strategy IMO is to look at your overall portfolio and what you actually want. If you have $100k in a money market, and you are not going to need $100k in cash for the forseeable future -- you are ""paying"" (via the low yield) for flexibility that you don't need. If get your money into an appropriately diversified portfolio, you'll end up with a more optimal return. If the money involved is relatively small, doing nothing is a real option as well. $5,000 at 0.5% yields $25, and a 5% return yields only $250. If you need that money soon to pay tuition, use for living expenses, etc, it's not worth the trouble."