Should I move my money market funds into bonds?
It depends how much risk you're prepared to accept. The short-term risk-free rate of return at present is something in the vicinity of 0.1% (three month US treasuries are currently yielding 0.08%), so anything paying a higher rate on money that's accessible quickly will involve some degree of risk -- the higher the rate then the higher the risk. One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market. If your money market funds are short-term savings or an emergency fund, you might consider  moving them into an online saving account.  You can get interest rates close to 1% (often above 1% in higher-rate climates) and your savings are completely safe and easily accessible.  Online banks also frequently offer perks such as direct deposit, linking with your checking account, and discounts on other services you might need occasionally (i.e. money orders or certified checks).   If your money market funds are the lowest-risk part of your diversified long-term portfolio, you should consider how low-risk it needs to be.  Money market accounts are now typically FDIC insured (they didn't used to be), but you can get the same security at a higher interest rate with laddered CD's or U.S. savings bonds (if your horizon is compatible). If you want liquidity, or greater return than a CD will give you, then a bond fund or ETF may be the right choice, and it will tend to move counter to your stock investments, balancing your portfolio.   It's true that interest rates will likely rise in the future, which will tend to decrease the value of bond investments.  If you buy and hold a single U.S. savings bond, its interest payments and final payoff are set at purchase, so you won't actually lose money, but you might make less than you would if you invested in a higher-rate climate.  Another way to deal with this, if you want to add a bond fund to your long-term investment portfolio, is to invest your money slowly over time (dollar-cost averaging) so that you don't pay a high price for a large number of shares that immediately drop in value. How much money do you have in your money market fund and what in your mind is the purpose of this money? If it is your six-months-of-living-expenses emergency fund, then you  might want to consider bank CDs in addition to bond funds as an alternative to  your money-market fund investment. Most (though not necessarily all, so be sure to check) bank CDs can be cashed in at any time with a penalty of three months of interest, and so unless you anticipate being laid off very soon, you might get a slightly better rate of interest, FDIC insurance (which mutual funds do not have), and with any luck you may never have to break a CD and lose the interest. Building a ladder of CDs with one maturing each month might be another way to reduce the risk of loss.  On the other hand, bond mutual funds are a risky bet now because your investment will lose value if interest rate go up, and as JohnFx points out, interest rates have nowhere to go but up.  Finally, the amount of the investment is something that you might want to consider before making changes. If you have $50K put away as your six-month fund, you are talking of $500 versus $350 per annum in changing to a riskier investment with a 1% yield from a safer investment with a 0.7% yield. Whether bragging rights at neighborhood parties are worth the trouble is something for you to decide. "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." There is a thing called the Sharpe Ratio. This Ratio takes return/risk with risk being defined as the standard deviation of prices over time. According to Financial theory the investment with the highest (best) Sharpe Ratio is a market portfolio. Technically accepting the lower risk of a treasury is accepting an amplified lower return(market sharpe would be 1 than tbill sharpe would be at most .9999999999999).  Because of this, unless there are liquidity restraints (don't buy ETFs with your payroll money DUH) you should ALWAYS be in market funds, otherwise you are leaving money on the table. Everything else is just speculation.  Now the real question is value or growth.......
"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account.  However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to ""time the market"", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about ""dollar-cost averaging"" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)" You can simply stick with some index funds that tracks the S&P 500 and Ex-US world market. That should provide some good diversification. And of course, you should always have a portion of your money in short/mid term bond fund, rebalancing your stock/bond ratio all the way as deemed necessary. If you want to follow the The Über–Tuber portfolio, you'd better make sure that there's minimum overlapping among the underlying shares that they hold. Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? I'm going to concentrate on this question, particularly the first half.   Net income $4500 per month (I'm taking this to be after taxes; correct me if wrong).  Rent is $1600 and other expenses are up to $800.  So let's call that $2500.  That leaves you $2000 a month, which is $24,000 a year.   You can contribute up to $18,000 a year to a 401k and if you want to maintain your income in retirement, you probably should.  The average social security payment now is under $1200.  You have an above average income but not a maximum income.  So let's set that at $1500.  You need an additional income stream of $900 a month in retirement plus enough to cover taxes.  Another $5500 for an IRA (probably a Roth).  That's $23,500.  That leaves you $500 a year of reliable savings for other purposes.  Another $5500 for an IRA (probably a Roth).  That's $23,500.  That leaves you $500 a year of reliable savings for other purposes.   You are basically even.  Your income is just about what you need to cover expenses and retirement.  You could cover a monthly mortgage payment of $1600 and have a $100,000 down payment.  That probably gets you around a $350,000 house, although check property taxes.  They have to come out of the $1600 a month.  That doesn't seem like a lot for a Bay area house even if it would buy a mansion in rural Mississippi.  Perhaps think condo instead.   Try to keep at least $15,000 to $27,000 as emergency savings.  If you lose your job or get stuck with a required expense (e.g. a major house repair), you'll need that money.   You don't have enough income to support a car unless it saves you money somewhere.  $500 a year is probably not going to cover insurance, parking, gas, and maintenance.   It's possible that you could tighten up your expenses, but in my experience, people are more likely to underestimate their expenses than overestimate.  That's why I'm saying $2500 (a little above the high end) rather than $2000 (your low end estimate).  If things are stable, wait a year and evaluate.  Track your actual spending.  Ask yourself if you made any large purchases.  Your budget should include an appliance (TV, refrigerator, washer/dryer, etc.) a year.  If you're not paying for that now (included in rent?), then you need to allow for it in your ownership budget.   I do not consider an ESPP to be a reliable investment vehicle.  Consider the Enron possibility.  You wake up one day and find out that there is no actual money.  Your stock is now worthless.  A diversified portfolio can survive this.  If you lose your job and your investment, you'll be stuck with just your savings.  Hopefully you didn't just tie them up in a house that you might have to sell to take your next job in a different location.  An ESPP might work as savings for the house.  If something goes wrong, don't buy the house.  But it's not retirement or emergency savings.   I would say that you are OK but could be better.  Get your retirement savings started.  That does two things.  One, it gives you money for retirement.  Two, it keeps you from having extra money now when it is easy to develop expensive habits.  An abrupt drop from $4500 in spending to $1200 will hurt.  A smooth transition from $2500 to $2500 is what you would like to see.  You are behind now, but you have the opportunity to catch up for a few years.   Work out how much you'll get from Social Security and how much you need to cover your typical expenses with the occasional emergency.  Expect high health care costs in retirement.  Medicare covers a lot but not everything, and health care is only getting more expensive.  Don't forget to assume higher taxes in the future to help cover that expense and the existing debt.  After a few years of catch up contributions, work out your long term plan assuming a reasonable real (after inflation) rate of return.  If you can reduce the $23,500 in retirement contributions then, that's OK.  But be pessimistic.  Most people overestimate good things and underestimate bad things.  It's much better to have extra than not enough.   A 401k comes with an administrator and your choice of mutual funds.  Try for diversification.  Some money in bonds (25% to 30%).  The remainder in stocks.  Look for index funds.  Try for a mix of value and growth, as they'll do better at different times.  As you approach retirement, you can convert some of that into shorter term, lower yield investments.  The rough rule of thumb is to have two to five years of withdrawals in short term investments like money market funds.  But that's more than twenty years off.   You have more choices with an IRA.  In particular, you can choose your own administrator.  But I'd keep the same stock/bond mix and stick to index funds if you're not interested in researching the more complex options.  You may want to invest your IRA in a growth fund and your 401k in value funds and bonds.  Then balance the stock/bond mix across both.   When you invest each year, look at the underrepresented funds and add the most to them.  So if bonds had a bad year and didn't keep pace, invest in bonds.  They're probably cheap.  You don't want to rebalance frequently, but once a year might be a good pace.  That's about how often you should invest in an IRA, so that can be a good time.   I'll let the others answer on the financial advisor part. "The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX).  And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff.  (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street.  If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them.  (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.)  So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a ""middle-class-sized"" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors.  To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so.  You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets.  So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax.  I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts.  This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations.  By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar." "Bonds still definitely have a place in many passive portfolios.  While it is true that interest rates have been unusually low, yields on reasonable passive bond exposures are still around 2-4%.  This is significantly better than both recent past inflation and expected inflation both of which are near zero.   This is reasonable if not great return, but Bonds continue to have other nice properties like relatively low risk and diversification of stock portfolios (the ""offset[ing] losses"" you mention in the OP).  So to say that bonds are ""no longer a good idea"" is certainly not correct.  One could say bonds may no longer be a good idea for some people that have a particularly high risk tolerance and very high return requirements. However, to some extent, that has always been true. It is worth remembering also that there is some compelling evidence that global growth is starting to broadly slow down and many people believe that future stock returns and, in general, returns on all investments will be lower.  This is much much harder to estimate than bond returns though.  Depending on who you believe, bond returns may actually look relatively better than the have in the past. Edit in response to comment:  Corporate bond correlation with stocks is positive but generally not very strong (except for high-yield junk bonds) so while they don't offset stock volatility (negative correlation) they do help diversify a stock portfolio.  Government bonds have essentially zero correlation so they don't really offset volatility as much as just not add any.  Negative correlation assets are generally called insurance and you tend to have to pay for them.  So there is no free lunch here.  Assets that reduce risk cost money, assets that add little risk give less return and assets that are more risky tend to give more return in the long run but you can feel the pain.  The mix that is right for you depends on a lot of things, but for many people that mix involves some corporate and government bonds." In theory, yes, it makes sense to sell your current bonds in pursuit of higher yields. In practice, there are a lot of smart people out there who own bonds, and the market is very efficient, so you won't see opportunities to trade new bonds for old bonds with better yields from the same issuer. If you do find someone willing to buy your old bond for a higher amount, it probably points to a change in the contract that the new bonds were issued under. (see Argentina for an example) Your biggest concern will be what happens during the transition period. In the past when my employer made a switch there has been a lockout period where you couldn't move money between funds. Then over a weekend the money moved from investment company A to investment Company B. All the moves were mapped so that you knew which funds your money would be invested in, then staring Monday morning you could switch them if you didn't like the mapping. No money is lost because the transfer is actually done in $'s. Imagine both investment companies had the same S&P 500 fund, and that the transfer takes a week. If when the first accounts are closed the S&P500 fund has a share value of $100 your 10 hares account has a value of $1000. If the dividend/capital gains are distributed during that week; the price per share when the money arrives in the second investment company will now be $99. So that instead of 10 shares @ $100 you now will buy 10.101 shares @ $99. No money was lost. You want that lookout period to be small, and you want the number of days you are not invested in the market to be zero. The lockout limits your ability to make investment changes, if for instance the central bank raises rates. The number of days out of the market is important if during that period of time there is a big price increase, you wouldn't want to miss it. Of course the market could also go lower during that time. ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.