Pros & cons in Hungary of investing retirement savings exclusively in silver? What better alternatives, given my concerns?
"To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are. Not only is this a horrible idea, but I think you have some alarming misunderstandings about what it means to save for retirement. First off, precious metals are not an ""investment""; they are store of value. The old saying that a gold coin would buy a suit 300 years ago and will still buy a suit today is pretty accurate. Buying precious metals and expecting them to ""appreciate"" in the future because they are ""undervalued"" is just flat-out speculation and really doesn't belong in a well-planned retirement account, unless it's a very small part for the purposes of diversification. So the upshot to all of this is the most likely outcome is you get zero return after inflation (maybe you'll get lucky or maybe you'll be very unlucky). Next you would say that sure, you're giving up some expected return for a reduction in risk. But, you've done away with diversification which is the most effective way to minimize risk... And I'm not sure what scenario you're imagining that the stock market or any other reasonable investment doesn't make any returns. If you invest in a market wide index fund, then the expected return is going to be roughly in proportion with productivity gains. To say that there will be no appreciation of the stock market over the next 40 years is to say that technological progress will stop and/or we will have large-scale economic disruptions that will wipe out 40 years of progress. If that happens, I would say it's highly questionable whether silver will actually be worth anything at all. I'd rather have food, property, and firearms. So, to answer your question, practically any other retirement savings plan would be better than the one that you currently outlined, but the best plan is just to put your money in a very low-cost index fund at Vanguard and let it sit until you retire. The expense ratios are so stupidly small, that it's not going to meaningfully affect your return." "This sound like a very bad idea. If you invest exclusively in silver, your investment is not diversified in any way. This is what I would call risky. Have a look at index funds and ETFs and build a diversified portfolio. It does not take much time, and you don't need to let it do by someone else. They are risky too, but I see ""silver only"" as much riskier. You reduce the risk by holding on to the funds for a long time." I think precious metals as an investment might set one up for disappointment.  Why does it seem to continually decline despite the variance?  As many have noted, there isn't much productive use for precious metals, and no major wars are taking place, so they aren't being used as currency substitutes, not to mention that more is being pulled out of the ground every day. The real reason why this graph shows silver to decline in real value over time is because its using a suboptimal price index.  An optimal one would most likely show a stable price over the long run. Silver is a great speculation if one can determine with high confidence the direction. First is storage which is a big and a detrimental headache. Security is another big headache. Investing in precious metal has always been an investment opportunity in the countries in the east i.e. India and China because of cultural reason and due to absence of investment opportunities for the less fortunate ones. It isn't the case so in the West. Secondly what is the right an opportune moment is open to question. When the worlwide economy is up and running, that is probably the time to buy i.e. people would like to put money in use rather than store. The saying goes the other way when the economy is stagnating. Then there is also the case of waiting out the bad periods to sell your gold and silver. If you do want to buy precious metals then use a service like BullionVault, rather than doing those yourself. It takes care of the 2 big headaches, I mentioned earlier. The points given by DumbCoder are very valid. Diversifying portfolio is always a good idea. Including Metals is also a good idea. Investing in single metal though may not be a good idea.   •Silver is pretty cheap now, hopefully it will be for a while. •Silver is undervalued compared to gold. World reserve ratio is around 1 to 11, while price is around 1 to 60. Both the above are iffy statements. Cheap is relative term ... there are quite a few metals more cheaper than Silver [Copper for example]. Undervalued doesn't make sense. Its a quesiton of demand and supply. Today Industrial use of Silver is more widespread, and its predecting future what would happen. If you are saying Silver will appreciate more than other metals, it again depends on country and time period. There are times when even metals like Copper have given more returns than Silver and Gold. There is also Platinum to consider. In my opinion quite a bit of stuff is put in undervalued ... i.e. comparing reserve ratio to price in absolute isn't right comparing it over relative years is right. What the ratio says is for every 11 gms of silver, there is 1 gm of Gold and the price of this 1 gm is 60 times more than silver. True. And nobody tell is the demand of Silver 60 times more than Gold or 11 times more than Gold. i.e. the consumption. What is also not told is the cost to extract the 11 gms of silver is less than cost of 1 gm of Gold. So the cheapness you are thinking is  not 100% true. "Because most of the posters have disparaged the pursuit of silver without a reflection upon what you wrote in the question - your concern about Hungary and its government, I'll weigh in it.  In a stable and solid political and economic environment, this advice against silver would be generally correct.  As you commented, though, this has not been the case and thus it is difficult for some to understand this. Given your concerns, here's a question to reflect upon - what can the government of Hungary not confiscate?  Or what have they not confiscated in the past?  If silver is on that list, then very few people here will understand because statements like, To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are, are completely predicated on an environment that has been relatively stable over the years.  I know my fellow Americans (and some Europeans) don't get this, but some countries have seen disasters - for instance, Brazil has been hyperinflation even when interest rates with insane interest rates (over 1000%). So this answer won't be popular, but depending on your environment, silver may be an excellent choice.  If the government of Hungary has confiscated silver in the past (or you suspect they might), though, I'd stay far away from it.  In reading and listening to people in these environments, citizens typically want something the government does want to take inventory of that tend to hold their value or rise during times of crisis.  Most Americans (if they were honest) really can't relate to this and the few that can would agree.  Another popular item to have, which doesn't physically exist, is a rare, but valuable skill that will be needed in a crisis.  For instance, being highly skilled at negotiation and knowing the right people both come in handy at difficult times.  Can you pay for learning or increasing those skill sets now?  Never forget that self-investment can go far. And as a financial note and word of advice from someone who's been a financial adviser for over half a decade, a good financial adviser always seeks to get the person's information before providing advice and almost never says that a particular choice is always bad or always good; I would seldom say that a person should do one thing and it will always be good advice because that may not work in their country/state/environment/situation/etc.  As they say in the SQL Server community - ""it depends"" and that holds true for finance.  In the long run, those items which we may not think of as good investments or stores of value may end up having their day.  To paraphrase Solomon, ""There's a time and place for everything under the sun.""  Even in my short life, I've witnessed a period of gold and silver routing the stock market and the stock market routing gold and silver.  I suspect I'll see both again if I live a few more decades. tl;dr" "Like Jeremy T said above, silver is a value store and is to be used as a hedge against sovereign currency revaluations.  Since every single currency in the world right now is a free-floating fiat currency, you need silver (or some other firm, easily store-able, protect-able, transportable asset class; e.g. gold, platinum, ... whatever...) in order to protect yourself against government currency devaluations, since the metal will hold its value regardless of the valuation of the currency which you are denominating it in (Euro, in your case).  Since the ECB has been hesitant to ""print"" large amounts of currency (which causes other problems unrelated to precious metals), the necessity of hedging against a plummeting currency exchange rate is less important and should accordingly take a lower percentage in your diversification strategy.  However, if you were in.. say... Argentina, for example, you would want to have a much larger percentage of your assets in precious metals. The EU has a lot of issues, and depreciation of hard assets courtesy of a lack of fluid currency/capital (and overspending on a lot of EU governments' parts in the past), in my opinion, lessens the preservative value of holding precious metals.  You want to diversify more heavily into precious metals just prior to government sovereign currency devaluations, whether by ""printing"" (by the ECB in your case) or by hot capital flows into/out of your country.  Since Eurozone is not an emerging market, and the current trend seems to be capital flowing back into the developed economies, I think that diversifying away from silver (at least in overall % of your portfolio) is the order of the day. That said, do I have silver/gold in my retirement portfolio?  Absolutely.  Is it a huge percentage of my portfolio?  Not right now.  However, if the U.S. government fails to resolve the next budget crisis and forces the Federal Reserve to ""print"" money to creatively fund their expenses, then I will be trading out of soft assets classes and into precious metals in order to preserve the ""real value"" of my portfolio in the face of a depreciating USD. As for what to diversify into?  Like the folks above say: ETFs(NOT precious metal ETFs and read all of the fine print, since a number of ETFs cheat), Indexes, Dividend-paying stocks (a favorite of mine, assuming they maintain the dividend), or bonds (after they raise the interest rates).  Once you have your diversification percentages decided, then you just adjust that based on macro-economic trends, in order to avoid pitfalls. If you want to know more, look through: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ < Austrian-type economist/investor http://pragcap.com/ < Neo-Keynsian economist/investor with huge focus on fiat currency effects"
"The major pros tend to be: The major cons tend to be: Being in California, you've got state income tax to worry about as well.  It might be worth using some of that extra cash to hire someone who knows what they're doing to handle your taxes the first year, at least.  I've always maxed mine out, because it's always seemed like a solid way to make a few extra dollars.  If you can live without the money in your regular paycheck, it's always seemed that the rewards outweighed the risks.   I've also always immediately sold the stock, since I usually feel like being employed at the company is enough ""eggs in that basket"" without holding investments in the same company. (NB: I've participated in several of these ESPP programs at large international US-based software companies, so this is from my personal experience.  You should carefully review the terms of your ESPP before signing up, and I'm a software engineer and not a financial advisor.)" I think you need to understand the options better before you go around calling anything worthless...  $11k in a 1% savings account gets you just over $100 each year.  Obviously you're not buying Ferraris with your returns but it's $100 more than your checking account will pay you.  And, you're guaranteed to get your money back. I think a CD ladder is a great way to store your emergency fund.  The interest rate on a CD is typically a bit better than a regular savings account, though the money is locked away and while we seem to be on the cusp of a rate increase it might not be the best time to put the money in jail.  Generally there is some sort of fee or lost interest from cashing a CD early.  You're still guaranteed to get your money back. Stock trading is probably a terrible idea.  If you want some market exposure I'd take half of the money and buy a low expense S&P ETF, I wouldn't put my whole savings if I were you (or if I were me).  Many large brokers have an S&P ETF option that you can generally buy with no commission and no loads.  Vanguard is a great option VOO, Schwab has an S&P mutual fund SWPPX, and there are others.  Actively trading individual stocks is a great way to let commissions and fees erode your account.  There are some startup alternatives with lower fees, but personally I would stay away from individual stock picking unless you are in school for Finance and have some interest in paying attention and you're ready to possibly never see the money again.  You're not guaranteed to get your money back. There are also money market accounts.  These will typically pay some interest based on exposing your funds to some risk.  It can be a bit better return than a savings account, but I probably wouldn't bother. An IRA (ROTH and Traditional) is just an account wrapper that offers certain tax benefits while placing certain restrictions on the use of some or all of the money until you reach retirement age.  As a college student you should probably be more concerned about an emergency fund or traveling than retirement savings, though some here may disagree with me.  With your IRA you can buy CDs or annuities, or stocks and ETFs or any other kind of security.  Depending on what you buy inside the IRA, you might not be guaranteed to get your money back. First you need to figure out what you'd like to use the money for.  Then, you need to determine when you'd need the money for that use.  Then, you need to determine if you can sleep at night while your stock account fluctuates a few percent each day.  If you can't, or you don't have answers for these questions, a savings account is a really low friction/low risk place store money and combat inflation while you come up with answers for those questions. CrimsonX did a great job highlighting the primary pros and cons of HSAs, so I won't go into detail there. However, I did want to point out another pro - HSAs are (or can be) easy to manage. You said: Is this a better way to approach health care costs instead of itemizing health care expenses on yearly federal taxes? I'm not sure which company you are looking at establishing your HSA with, but with mine I have a debit card that I use when paying for medical care and then at the end of the year I get a 1099-SA that provides the amount of money spent on qualified purchases that calendar year. Yes, there are a few extra boxes I need to fill in for my 1040 come tax time, but I don't need to itemize my healthcare costs over the year. It really is pretty simple and straightforward. Also, one con that is worth noting is that you become much more sensitive to healthcare costs due to the high deductible healthcare plan an HSA requires. For example, in all the years we've had an HSA we've not yet met our deductible, which means we pay out of pocket for any non-routine doctor visits. (The health insurer pays 100% of routine visits, like my wife's annual, well-baby check ups for the little one, and so on.) So, when you're feeling really sick and think a doctor's visit would be warranted, you have to make a decision: After being faced with this decision a time or two you will start to envy those who have just a $20 copay! Of course, that's just an emotional con. Each year I run the numbers on how much we spent per year on out of pocket plus premiums and compare it to what it would cost in premiums for an HMO-type plan, and the HSA plan always comes ahead. (In part because we are a pretty healthy family and I work for myself so do not get to enjoy group discount rates.) But I thought it worth mentioning because there are certainly times when I know I need to see a doctor or specialist and I cringe because I know I am going to be slapped with a big bill in the not too distant future! Tax concerns aside, there are managerial pros and cons for internal billing.  For cost control purposes it's common to break individual business activities into divisions/sections which have a P&amp;L or are cost centers. At that point, if you know (for example) that your quality control inspections cost on average 1% of your product cost then one might bill internally for use of this cost center.  One argument for doing this is it makes those who are billed more cautious about using internal resources as there's a direct cost allocation. It also benchmarks that resource against outsourcing- for example it may be significantly cheaper to use an external resource. There can therefore be a 'healthy tension' between the cost center and user which in theory results in pressure for the cost center to improve efficiency.   In practice I've found there are some significant cons. First issue is with cost allocation. The cost center in an attempt to make their service appear more efficient will battle to get minimal overhead costs allocated to them, creating friction between departments. Second and I think a major issue is a blanket cost for use of a service invariably winds up with a lot of exceptions. In the previous example there may be some very large programs where a 1% inspection fee winds up with a huge sum of money, one that the product team may argue unfairly reduces their net income and therefore compensation. Then there's the administrative cost of what essentially is passing money from the left hand to the right even if just on paper. Third issue is with some activities you might not want to provide a disincentive for people to use the service- for example charging a product team for quality assurance may result in skipped QA processes for the benefit of cost savings.  What I've found works better is creation of cost centers with management of those centers. This is common in companies that have a matrix organizational structure. Using the same example again, QA costs are broken out and completely separated from other areas and QA management is benchmarked independently. As sdg said, the consensus is that the CPP is pretty solid.  An actuarial report is submitted to Parliament every three years, and it's worth getting the numbers from that report so you know where your CPP contributions are invested.  You may think there's more risk in CPP's portfolio than they let on.  Either way, your own savings and investments are the best defense against inadequacy of the CPP.  But you should be careful, as the CPP mostly invests in the same stuff the retail investor does - equity and fixed income.  So the typical investor will be exposed to the risks as the CPP fund. However, CPP is not the only source of retirement income for Canadians.  There is also the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Old Age Security, and they are funded differently from CPP.  CPP benefits are funded by returns from the investment fund, as well as contributions.  GIS and OAS are paid out of the Government of Canada's revenue each year.  In my opinion, those programs are more vulnerable than CPP as they could just be legislated out of existence in tough economic times.  (However, I also see that as unlikely because the elderly are a pretty powerful block of voters.) We don't have a good answer for how to start investing in poland.  We do have good answers for the more general case, which should also work in Poland.  E.g. Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? This answer provides a checklist of things to do.  Let's see how you're doing:   Match on work pension plan. You don't mention this.  May not apply in Poland, but ask around in case it does.  Given your income, you should be doing this if it's available.   Emergency savings. You have plenty.  Either six months of spending or six months of income.  Make sure that you maintain this.  Don't let us talk you into putting all your money in better long term investments.   High interest debt. You don't have any.  Keep up the good work.   Avoid PMI on mortgage. As I understand it, you don't have a mortgage.  If you did, you should probably pay it off.  Not sure if PMI is an issue in Poland.   Roth IRA. Not sure if this is an issue in Poland.  A personal retirement account in the US.   Additional 401k. A reminder to max out whatever your work pension plan allows.  The name here is specific to the United States.  You should be doing this in whatever form is available.   After that, I disagree with the options.  I also disagree with the order a bit, but the basic idea is sound:  one time opportunities; emergency savings; eliminate debt; maximize retirement savings.  Check with a tax accountant so as not to make easily avoidable tax mistakes.   You can use some of the additional money for things like real estate or a business.  Try to keep under 20% for each.  But if you don't want to worry about that kind of stuff, it's not that important.  There's a certain amount of effort to maintain either of those options.  If you don't want to put in the effort to do that, it makes sense not to do this.   If you have additional money split the bulk of it between stock and bond index funds.  You want to maintain a mix between about 70/30 and 75/25 stocks to bonds.  The index funds should be based on broad indexes.  They probably should be European wide for the most part, although for stocks you might put 10% or so in a Polish fund and another 15% in a true international fund.   Think over your retirement plans.  Where do you want to live?  In your current apartment?  In a different apartment in the same city?  In one of the places where you inherited property?  Somewhere else entirely?  Also, do you like to vacation in that same place?   Consider buying a place in the appropriate location now (or keeping the one you have if it's one of the inherited properties).  You can always rent it out until then.  Many realtors are willing to handle the details for you.   If the place that you want to retire also works for vacations, consider short term rentals of a place that you buy.  Then you can reserve your vacation times while having rentals pay for maintenance the rest of the year.   As to the stuff that you have now:   Look that over and see if you want any of it.  You also might check if there are any other family members that might be interested.  E.g. cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.  If not, you can probably sell it to a professional company that handles estate sales.  Make sure that they clear out any junk along with the valuable stuff.   Consider keeping furniture for now.  Sometimes it can help sell a property.   You might check if you want to drive either of them.  If not, the same applies, check family first.  Otherwise, someone will buy them, perhaps on consignment (they sell for a commission rather than buying and reselling).   There's no hurry to sell these.  Think over whether you might want them.   Consider if they hold any sentimental value to you or someone else.  If not, sell them.  If there's any difficulty finding a buyer, consider renting them out.  You can also rent them out if you want time to make a decision.  Don't leave them empty too long.  There's maintenance that may need done, e.g. heat to keep water from freezing in the pipes.   That's easy, just invest that.   I wouldn't get in too much of a hurry to donate to charity.  You can always do that later.  And try to donate anonymously if you can.  Donating often leads to spam, where they try to get you to donate more. Hmm, looking at the macro economy, hoarding money will decrease the monetary supply, so the Fed will offset that with increases to the monetary supply to achieve target interest rates.  Which will lead to higher inflation, hurting your savings minus debt.  Exactly what's going on in the rest of the economy.  For investment sake, can't you find something with at least some sort of return, rather than getting nothing with physical currency? Bad question.  Even people choosing a 401k strategy have to choose risk over reward.  But looking at this simply, if you take a 10 year chart of Gold, you will not find any other stock or commodity that could have been invested in that would have provided you with the same results with as little volatility over this time period.  http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au3650nys.gif