What funds were closed during or after the recent recessions?
"Yes, many hedge funds (for example) did not survive 2008-2009.  But hedge funds were failing both before and after that period, and other hedge funds thrived.  Those types of funds are particularly risky because they depend so much on leverage (i.e. on money that isn't actually theirs). More publically-visible funds (like those of the big-name index fund companies) tended not to close because they are not leveraged.  You say that ""a great many companies"" failed during the recession, but that's not actually true.  I can't think of more than a handful of publically-traded companies that went bankrupt.  So, since the vast majority of publically-traded companies stayed in business, their stocks kept some/most of their value, and the funds that owned those stocks stayed afloat. I personally did not see a single index fund that went out of business due to the recession."
The solution is spending restraint during the growth periods and prudent application of counter-cyclical fiscal policy, especially during the slow periods. The USA embarked on a strange experiment lead be Greenspan of excessively low interest rates for a prolonged period of time. Periods of strong economic growth should feature high interest rates, periods of reduced economic growth can then be countered somewhat through monetary policy. The government should also endeavour to run surplus budgets during the good times and not be afraid of turning those into deficit budgets in the downturns. If you run a deficit budget during a period of strong economic growth, together with low cash rates you have nowhere to move when the cycle reverses.  The solution now? That is difficult. I would say that the solution now would be to raise revenues through corporate taxes and similarly increase government spending on investments aimed at stimulating the economy. Use this time to invest in the much needed infrastructure maintenance and upgrades that the USA needs. These need to be fast-tracked into action and I would therefore consider fixing infrastructure as more important than installing new infrastructure.   There are probably long-term structural adjustments that need to be looked at too, but I am not intimately familiar with the USA as I am Australian. It is clear however that Austerity during economic downturns does not help end the recession (or benign growth). It is clear to me as an observer however that employment appears to be the big issue in the USA right now, so cutting jobs is not a smart move.  Edit: I'll point out that my opinion comes from the Australian experience, our government ran surplus budgets during our period of recent growth and our reserve bank kept interest rates high. When the GFC hit us in 2008 the government almost instantly reversed its fiscal policy, going so far as mailing $900 cheques to every Australian just to get cash flowing in the economy, they then embarked upon infrastructure spending programs. Similarly the reserve bank were able to quickly and dramatically reduce interest rates. The result was that we saw 1 quarter of mildly negative growth, and positive growth ever since (hence no recession). We ran a textbook example of counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy which is today lauded by economists over. We now have 5% unemployment, low government debt (relative to the OECD) and high economic growth (relative to the OECD). What typically happens to brokerage accounts during similar situations? This depends on country, time and situation. Nothing is predictable in such situations. In Greece during the said period the stock exchanges were closed for 5 weeks. There was no trading.  Edits: Every situation is different and it would be unfair to compare one against another or use it to predict something else. Right now in India due to demonitization, cash withdrawal is limited. One can trade in stocks, unlimited bank transfers, transfer money out of India ...etc. Everything same except for cash withdrawal. In 1990, the ASEAN countries survived a financial collapse, everything was allowed except moving money out of country. "Emergency funds have a very specific and obvious benefit; you'll have money sitting around in case you need it.  A lot of people think a big car repair or some unexpected home repair is an emergency, and that's fine.  Emergency also expands up to ""I lost my job four months ago and we're a year in to a recession, the stock market is down 30% and I need to pay my rent or mortgage.""  Sure, you could just sell some of your stocks that have lost 30% and pay your rent. I know nobody likes to think about it, but the stock market can go down.  I know nobody likes to think about it, but the economy can slink in to a recession.  In fact, here's a small list of recent U.S. recessions: No competent investment adviser would advise that your emergency funds should be subject to market volatility because that completely defeats the purpose of an emergency fund. It's possible that this manager wants you to indicate a separate emergency fund to allocate a portion of your account to a low volatility US Treasury fund or something of the like, this would be materially different than investing in a broad market/large cap fund like VOO or VTI.  The effects of inflation are not so bad that you should put your emergency money in the market.  Who cares what inflation was if you have to sell an asset at a loss to pay rent?  One last point.  Index fund ETFs are not ""safe.""  Investing in diversified funds is safER than buying individual company stocks." What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value).  Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss.  These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction).  As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though. This thread just depressed the hell out of me.  I'm a junior year finance major in college.  And I was barely able answer half these questions.  Can someone enlighten me to some resources I can study so I don't embarrass myself during my upcoming summer internship interview.  Maybe with a little bit of preference to venture capital? In my experiences most hedge funds won't have a benchmark in their mandate and are evaluated based upon absolute returns.  Their benchmarks are generally cash + x basis points.  So, no attribution and no IR.  No experience at all with CTA's though, so not sure how things are there. you can try CME DataSuite. Your broker gives you real time options quotes. If you do not have one you can open a scottrade account with just $500 deposit. When I moved my money from scottrade to ameritrade they did not close my account even till this day I can access my scottrade account and see real time quotes and the same research they offered me before. You can try withdrawing your deposit and see if it stays open like mine did. I just looked through 40+ random funds on barclayhedge.com's database, and it's about evenly split between 2/20, 1.5/20 and 1/20, with a slight majority at 1.5/20, and 2/20 slightly ahead of 1/20.  Others are at various rates like 0/10 and 2.5/20. I was very surprised to see Renaissance funds at just .35/10.  I believe his Medallion Fund was at 5/36.  James Simons is quite the quant.  Nothing is too expensive if it's actually worth the price, but most hedge funds are no better than mutual funds.  The only real advantage to hedge funds is the wider risk profile.