Where can I invest my retirement savings money, where it is safer than stocks?
Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k?  If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income).  It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA.  The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k.  You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it.  The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young.  This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile.  Bond funds are the usual choice.  They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds.  Rather, it is a gradual transition over time.  As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds.  Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds. This is a very open ended question with no concrete answer as it depends on your personal situation. However, for starters I would suggest picking up a copy of The Investment Answer. It's a very light read, less than 100 pages, but it has some amazingly simple yet very concrete advice on investing and answers a lot of common questions (like yours). "There are many questions and good answers here regarding investment choices. The first decision you need to make is how involved do you intend to be in investment activity. If you plan to be actively investing by yourself, you should look for questions here about making investment choices. If you intend to be a more passive investor, look for posts by ""Bogleheads"", who focus on broad-focused, low cost investments. This is the optimal choice for many people. If you are not comfortable managing investments at all, you need to figure out how to find a competent and reasonably priced financial advisor to meet with and guide your investment strategy. This advice generally costs about 1-2% of your total managed assets annually."
Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent:  If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people:  In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them. You are only 33, with plenty of time to generate long-term returns. A correction is an opportunity for you to buy more at a lower price. My advice: invest about half in an index fund (S&P 500, for example) and half in a target fund (pick your retirement age), keep saving regularly, and in 30 years you'll be very happy you did. 5-10K a month is fine until all of the money is invested. (You said this is a retirement account, so invest the entire amount. Keep a rainy day fund in your non-retirement savings.) You can fiddle around with how you invest the money and I'm sure you'll get variations on my answer. My above suggestions may not be the absolute best option, but they are certainly not the worst option. Given that you are very risk-averse, keep in mind that you are in this for the long term and should be investing in something where you can safely ignore short-term downswings. There's no formula for how much is the ideal amount to spend on entertainment and fun. As JoeTaxpayer says, it's all about balance. Maybe relative costs are different in France than in the US where I live, but here, housing and the things that go with it -- electricity, heat, insurance, maybe a few other miscellaneous items -- are usually a huge portion of a young person's expenses. If you don't mind living with your parents -- and they don't mind having you -- you can save a lot of money. There are lots of things you can do for fun that don't cost a lot of money. If your idea of fun is collecting fancy cars and making round-the-world trips, yes, that can get expensive fast. When I was in my 20s, my entertainment mostly consisted of going to movies, amusement parks, and occasional concerts; and playing computer games. Those aren't super expensive as long as you don't do them every day. And keeping my car running, which saved money over buying a new car. These days I'm in a situation analogous to yours: I'm getting older, and so I'm trying to build up a retirement account so I can retire comfortably. So I have to balance how much I put away for retirement with spending on fun things now. I have certain targets, and so I budget that I will put this amount away for retirement every month, and my spending money is what I have left. I think that's better than, spend whatever I want on fun, and then put what's left toward retirement. The latter plan is probably a fast route to debt. "You're talking about money in a savings account, and avoiding the risks posed by an ongoing crisis, and avoiding risk. If you are risk-averse, and likely to need your money in the short term, you should not put your money in the stock market, even in ""safe"" stocks like P&G/Coca-Cola/etc. Even these safe stocks are at risk of wild price swings in the short- to intermediate-term, especially in the event of international crises such as major European debt defaults and the like. These stocks are suitable for long-term growth objectives, but they are not as a replacement for a savings account. Coca-Cola lost a third of its value between 2007 and 2009. (It's recovered, and is currently doing better than ever.) P&G went from $74/share to $46/share. (It's partially recovered and back at $63). On the other hand, these stocks may indeed be suitable as long-term investments to protect you against local currency inflation. And yes, they even pay dividends. If you're after this investment, a good option is probably a sector-specific exchange-traded fund, such as a consumer-staples ETF. It will likely be more diversified and safer than anything you could come up with using a list of individual stocks. You can also investigate recommendations that show up when you search for a ""defensive ETF"". If you do not wish to buy the ETF directly, you can also look at listings of the ETF's holdings. Read the prospectus for an idea of the risks associated with these funds. You can buy these funds with any brokerage that gives you access to US stock exchanges." "Most people advocate a passively managed, low fee mutual fund that simply aims to track a given benchmark (say S&P 500). Few funds can beat the S&P consistently, so investors are often better served finding a no load passive fund. First thing I would do is ask your benefits rep why you don't have an option to invest in a Fidelity passive index fund like Spartan 500. Ideally young people would be heavy in equities and slowly divest for less risky stuff as retirement comes closer, and rebalance the portfolio regularly when market swings put you off risk targets. Few people know how to do this and actually do so. So there are mutual funds that do it for you, for a fee. These in are called ""lifecycle"" funds (The Freedom funds here).  I hesitate to recommend them because they're still fairly new. If you take a look at underlying assets, these things generally just reinvest in the broker's other funds, which themselves have expenses & fees. And there's all kinds personal situations that might lead to you place a portion with a different investment." "Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that.  Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion ""don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so"" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the ""don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all"" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds." "First, two preliminaries, to address good points people made in comments. As AbraCadaver noted, before you move your $30k to something that might lose money, make sure you have enough cash to serve as an emergency fund in case you lose your income. Especially remember that big stock market crashes often go hand-in-hand with widespread layoffs. Also, you mentioned that you're maxed out in a 401k. As JoeTaxpayer hinted, this could very well already be invested in stocks, and, if it isn't, probably a big part of it should be. Regarding your $30k, you don't need to pay anybody. In general, fees and expenses can form a big drag on your investments, and it's good to avoid them as much as possible. In particular, especially with ""only"" $30k, it's unlikely that advisers can save you more than they cost. Also, all financial advisers have a cost: the ""free"" ones usually push you into investing in expensive funds that make them money at your expense. In that regard, keep in mind that, unlike a lawyer or a doctor, a financial adviser is not required by law to give advice that's in your best interest. When investing, there is a pretty short list of important considerations that you should keep in mind: (If anyone has any other points they think are similarly important, feel free to suggest an edit.) Practically speaking, I'd suggest investing in index funds. These are mutual funds that invest very broadly, in a ""passive"" way that doesn't spend a lot of effort (and money) trying to pick individual high-performing stocks or anything like that. Index funds provide a lot of diversification and tend to have low expense ratios. (Other, ""actively managed"" funds tend to be more expensive and often don't outperform index funds anyway.) If you're saving for retirement, there are even target date funds that are themselves composed of a small number of index funds (often domestic and international stocks and bonds), and will increase the proportion invested in bonds (safer) as they get closer to a target retirement date. See, for example the Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 fund. A fund like that one might be all you need if you are saving for retirement. Finally, you can invest online without paying any advisers. Not all companies are created equal, however; do your research. I personally highly recommend Vanguard, since they have a wide variety of no-load index funds and tend to have very low expense ratios. (No-load means you don't have to pay a fee to buy and sell.) Part of why they are inexpensive is that, unlike most financial companies, they are actually a cooperative owned by those who invest in their funds, so they don't need to try and milk a profit out of you. (Don't let that suggest that they're some ""small-potatoes hippie firm"", though: they're actually one of the largest.) I hope I helped. Keep posting if you have more questions!" Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's.  Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.