Need something more basic than a financial advisor or planner
Yes, there is a profession that does exactly what you're looking for.  It's called a fee-only financial advisor. These are professionals who (in the United States) enter into a fiduciary relationship with a client, meaning they are legally required to put your financial interests above all other considerations (such as any behind-the-scenes incentives to promote certain products).  Between that requirement and the fact that they are paid for their time (and not on commission), they have zero incentive to try to sell you anything that you do not need.  Their only job is to help you with your financial situation.  (Of course, some of them may be better than others.) See the profession's website here to find such an advisor near you. (Credit to Marketplace Money, the old name for Marketplace Weekend, for mentioning fee-only advisors at least 87 times per show.) "You know how when people called in on the Car Talk radio show (Click and Clack, I miss those guys), and while the caller asked a question about his car, really he needed marital advice? And the hosts would pounce on the part about the disagreement with family member and provide an unexpected answer (""Yeah, the trick to a using a clutch is [...], but really, if you want to learn to drive a stick shift, get your dad out of the car!"") So I'm pouncing on the part about the spouse. It sounds like you and your spouse don't always agree on saving and spending, and you want to find a way to agree on saving and spending. If you can find a coach or planner or counselor that you both like and both trust, then go for it. You're looking more for the right personality than a precise job description. Start with exploring what you do agree on: we agree we need to save money, we agree we need to have a spending plan and budget, etc. The right coach will help you get to more agreement -- the job title is less important." "What you are looking for is a Money Coach or a Personal Finance Coach. From mymoneycoach.com: ""Money Coach: Everyone uses money, but few people fully understand how to use it wisely. To be debt free and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle takes special skills. Money coaches provide solutions for household budgeting, investing, using credit wisely, and saving for retirement. With the principles offered by a money coach, you can live the life you want to live."" Usually money coaches or personal finance coaches will not tell you ""you should put your money here or there"" but instead they will work with you to identify and correct bad money behaviours that affect more than just your investments, and they will not sell you anything. Maybe you could take a look at some coaches in your area, but a lot of them work via the internet too. Good luck!" "If you are living near a land-grant university, you might be able to find help from the university's Extension Service.  In many land-grant universities (the land grants were given to universities formed for the purpose of improving ""agricultural and mechanical arts""),  the Extension Services have expanded beyond farm-related services to include horticulture, food and nutrition counseling, consumer finance, money management and budgeting advice etc.  See, for example this site." In addition to a fee-only advisor, brought up by dg99, you could consider asking your questions on message boards such as Bogleheads.org. I have found the advice amazing, obviously conflict-free, and free.
Firstly, I'm going to do what you said and analyze your question taking your entire family's finances into account. That means giving you an answer that maximizes your family's total wealth rather then just your own. If instead of that your question really was, should I let my parents buy me a house and live rent free, then obviously you should do that (assuming your parents can afford it and you aren't taking advantage people who need to be saving for retirement and not wasting it on a 25 y/o who should be able to support him / herself). This is really an easy question assuming you are willing to listen to math. Goto the new york times rent vs buy calculator and plug in the numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html Firstly, if you do what you say you want to do buy the house all cash and live there for 4 years, it would be the equivalent of paying 1151 / month in rent once you factor in transaction costs, taxes, opportunity costs, etc. Take a look at the calculator, it's very detailed. This is why you should never buy houses all cash (unless its a negotiating tactic in a hot market, and even then you should refi after). Mortgage rates are super low right now, all that money sitting in the house is appreciating at maybe the rate of inflation (assuming the house value isn't going down which it can very easily do if you don't maintain it, another cost you need to factor in). Instead, you could be invested in the stock market getting 8%, the lost opportunity cost there is huge. I'm not even considering your suggestion that you hang onto the house after you move out in 4 years. That's a terrible idea. Investment properties should be at a maximum value of 10x the yearly rent. I wouldn't pay more then 72K for a house / apartment that rents for only 600 / month (and even then I would look for a better deal, which you can find if you time things right). Don't believe me? Just do the numbers. Renting your 200K house for 600 / month is 7200 / year. Figure you'll need to spend 1% / year (I'm being optimistic here) on maintanence / vacancy (and I'm not even considering your time dealing with tenants). Plus another 1% or so on property tax. That's 4K / year, so your total profit is 3200 which is a return of only 1.6% on your 200K. You can get 1% in an ally savings account for comparison. Really you are much better off investing in a diversified portfolio. You only need 6 months living expenses in cash, so unless your family is ridicuouly wealthy (In which case you should be asking your financial planner what to do and not stack exchange), I have no idea why your parents have 200K sitting around in a savings account earning 0. Open a vanguard account for them and put that money in VTI and your family will be much better off 5 years from now then if you buy that money pit (err house). If risk is a concern, diversify more. I have some money invested with a robo advisor. They do charge a small fee, but it's set it and forget it with auto diversification and tax loss harvesting.  Bottom line is, get that money invested in something, having it sitting in a bank account earning 0 is probably the second worst thing you could do with next to buying this house. "I'm another programmer, I guess we all just like complicated things, or got here via stackoverflow. Obligatory tedious but accurate point: Investing is not personal finance, in fact it's maybe one of the less important parts of it. See this answer: Where to start with personal finance?  Obligatory warning for software developer type minds: getting into investing because it's complicated and therefore fun is a really awful idea from a financial perspective.  Or see behavioral finance research on how analytical/professional/creative type people are often terrible at investing, while even-tempered practical people are better. The thing with investing is that inaction is better than action, tried and true is better than creative, and simple is better than complicated. So if you're like me and many programmers and like creative, complicated action - not good for the wallet. You've been warned. That said. :-) Stuff I read In general I hate reading too much financial information because I think it makes me take ill-advised actions. The actions I most need to take have to do with my career and my spending patterns. So I try to focus on reading about software development, for example. Or I answer questions on this site, which at least might help someone out, and I enjoy writing. For basic financial news and research, I prefer Morningstar.com, especially if you get the premium version. The writing has more depth, it's often from qualified financial analysts, and with the paid version you get data and analysis on thousands of funds and stocks, instead of a small number as with Motley Fool newsletters. I don't follow Morningstar regularly anymore, instead I use it for research when I need to pick funds in a 401k or whatever. Another caveat on Morningstar is that the ""star ratings"" on funds are dumb. Look at the Analyst Picks and the analyst writeups instead. I just flipped through my RSS reader and I have 20-30 finance-related blogs in there collecting unread posts. It looks like the only one I regularly read is http://alephblog.com/ which is sort of random. But I find David Merkel very thoughtful and interesting. He's also a conservative without being a partisan hack, and posts frequently. I read the weekly market comment at http://hussmanfunds.com/ as well. Most weeks it says the market is overvalued, so that's predictable, but the interesting part is the rationale and the other ideas he talks about. I read a lot of software-related blogs and there's some bleed into finance, especially from the VC world; blogs like http://www.avc.com/ or http://bhorowitz.com/ or whatever. Anyway I spend most of my reading time on career-related stuff and I think this is also the correct decision from a financial perspective. If you were a doctor, you'd be better off reading about doctoring, too. I read finance-related books fairly often, I guess there are other threads listing ideas on that front. I prefer books about principles rather than a barrage of daily financial news and questionable ideas. Other than that, I keep up with headlines, just reading the paper every day including business-related topics is good enough. If there's some big event in the financial markets, it'll show up in the regular paper. Take a class I initially learned about finance by reading a pile of books and alongside that taking the CFP course and the first CFA course. Both are probably equivalent to about a college semester worth of work, but you can plow through them in a couple months each if you focus. You can just do the class (and take the exam if you like), without having to go on and actually get the work experience and the certifications. I didn't go on to do that. This sounds like a crazy thing to do, and it kind of is, but I think it's also sort of crazy to expect to be competent on a topic without taking some courses or otherwise getting pretty deep into the material. If you're a normal person and don't have time to take finance courses, you're likely better off either keeping it super-simple, or else outsourcing if you can find the right advisor: What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money?  When it's inevitably complex (e.g. as you approach retirement) then an advisor is best. My mom is retiring soon and I found her a professional, for example. I like having a lot of knowledge myself, because it's just the only way I could feel comfortable. So for sure I understand other people wanting to have it too. But what I'd share from the other side is that once you have it, the conclusion is that you don't have enough knowledge (or time) to do anything fancy anyway, and that the simple answers are fine. Check out http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 Investing for fun isn't investing for profit Many people recommend Motley Fool (I see two on this question already!). The site isn't evil, but the problem (in my opinion) is that it promotes an attitude toward and a style of investing that isn't objectively justifiable for practical reasons. Essentially I don't think optimizing for making money and optimizing for having fun coexist very well. If investing is your chosen hobby rather than fishing or knitting, then Motley Fool can be fun with their tone and discussion forums, but other people in forums are just going to make you go wrong money-wise; see behavioral finance research again. Talking to others isn't compatible with ice in your decision-making veins. Also, Motley Fool tends to pervasively make it sound like active investing is easier than it is. There's a reason the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum is a few reams of paper plus 4 years of work experience, rather than reading blogs. Practical investing (""just buy the target date fund"") can be super easy, but once you go beyond that, it's not. I don't really agree with the ""anyone can do it and it's not work!"" premise, any more than I think that about lawyering or doctoring or computer programming. After 15 years I'm a programming expert; after some courses and a lot of reading, I'm not someone who could professionally run an actively-managed portfolio. I think most of us need to have the fun part separate from the serious cash part. Maybe literally distinct accounts that you keep at separate brokerages. Or just do something else for fun, besides investing. Morningstar has this problem too, and finance.yahoo.com, and Bloomberg, I mean, they are all interested in making you think about investing a lot more than you ought to. They all have an incentive to convince you that the latest headlines make a difference, when they don't. Bottom line, I don't think personal finance changes very quickly; the details of specific mutual funds change, and there's always some new twist in the tax code, but the big picture is pretty stable. I think going in-depth (say, read the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum materials) would teach you a lot more than reading blogs frequently. The most important things to work on are income (career) and spending (to maximize income minus spending). That's where time investment will pay off. I know it's annoying to argue the premise of the question rather than answering, but I did try to mention a couple things to read somewhere in there ;-)" My answer is with respect to the United States. I have no idea about India's regulatory environment. You are opening yourself up to massive liabilities and problems if you deposit their money in your account. I managed investment accounts as a private investment advisor for years (those with less than 15 clients were not required to register) until Dodd-Frank changed the rules. Thus you would have to register as an advisor, probably needing to take the series 65 exam (or qualifying some other way, e.g. getting your CFP/CFA/etc...). I used a discount broker/dealer (Scottrade) as the custodian. Here's how it works: Each client's account was their own account, and I had a master account that allowed me to bill their accounts and manage them.  They signed paperwork making me the advisor on their account.  I had very little accounting to handle (aside from tracking basis for taxed accounts). If you take custody of the money, you'll have regulatory obligations. There are always lots of stories in the financial advisor trade publications about advisors who go to jail for screwing their clients. The most common factor: they took custody of the assets. I understand why you want a single account - you want to ensure that each client gets the same results, right? Does each client want the same results?  Certainly the tax situation for each is different, yes?  Perhaps one has gains and wants to take losses in one year, and the other doesn't. If their accounts are managed separately, one can take losses while the other realizes gains to offset other losses. Financial advisors offer these kinds of accounts as Separately Managed Accounts (SMAs). The advisors on these kinds of accounts are mutual funds managers, and they try to match a target portfolio, but they can do things like realize gains or losses for clients if their tax situation would prefer it. You certainly can't let them put retirement accounts into your single account unless the IRS has you on their list of acceptable custodians. I suggest that you familiarize yourself thoroughly with the regulatory environment that you want to operate under. Then, after examining the pros and cons, you should decide which route you want to take.  I think the most direct and feasible route is to pass the Series 65, register as an investment advisor, and find a custodian who will let you manage the assets as the advisor on the account. Real estate is another matter, you should talk to an attorney, not some random guy on the internet (even if he has an MBA and a BS in Real Estate, which I do). This is very much a state law thing. "The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) has a page specifically about working with a financial planner or advisor. It's a good starting point if you are thinking about getting a financial professional to help you plan and manage your investments. In the ""Where To Look"" section on that page, FCAC refers to a handful of industry associations. I'll specifically highlight the Financial Planning Standards Council's ""Find a planner"" page, which can help you locate a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). Choose financial advice carefully.  Prefer certified professionals who charge a set fee for service over advisors who work on commission to push investment products.  Commission-based advice is seldom unbiased. MoneySense magazine published a listing last year for where to find a fee-only financial planner, calling it ""The most comprehensive listing of Canadian fee-only financial planners on the web"" — but do note the caveat (near the bottom of the page) that the individuals & firms have not been screened.  Do your own due diligence and check references." In my experience financial advisors do not normally assist with budgeting and personal everyday finance. There certainly are people who do that, but you would normally only consult them when you have financial difficulties, especially debt. The more common find of financial advisor is mostly focussed on advising you about savings and investments. A lot work for banks and investment companies. They will usually advise you for free, the downside being that they will only recommend their company's products. This may or may not be a bad thing, depending on the company. Others will charge you a commission on purchases, and their advice will be more neutral. This question will also be interesting: Are all financial advisors compensated in the same way? "Whether you use a professional financial planner or not, the basic steps are the same. It seems like you have done some detailed work on step 1, perhaps less detail (but not necessarily insufficient detail) on step 2, and concluded that you don't need to change anything in step 3. That's fine - if you concluded that you don't need to change anything, then you don't need to change anything! What you need to do from now on is There is nothing complicated or difficult about any of this. To paraphrase Charles Dickens, ""Income greater than expenditure - result, happiness. Income less than expenditure - result misery.""  Talking to a financial planner might encourage you to spend less (though of course you just acquired a new expense, ""buying financial planning advice""), just like joining to Weight Watchers might encourage you to eat less or exercise more. But in the end, it's you who have to take the action - other people can't do it for you." I'd advise you to look for an advisor who is a NAPFA-Registered Financial Advisor.  If you visit the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA) website (http://www.napfa.org) and understand why they are different, I think you'll agree that the NAPFA-Registered Financial Advisor is the highest standard of excellence you will find in a financial planner. "First thing I'd say is don't start with investing. The foundation of solid finances is cash flow. Making more than you spend, reliably; knowing where your money goes; having a system that works for you to make sure you make more than you spend. Until you have that, your focus may as well be on getting there, because you can't fix much else about your finances until you fix this. A number you want to know is your percentage of income saved, and a good goal for that is about 15%, with 10-12% going to retirement savings and the rest to shorter-term goals and emergency fund and so forth. (Of course the right percentage here depends on your goals and situation, but for most people this is a kind of minimum savings rate to be in good shape.) Focus on your savings rate. This is your profitability, if you view yourself as a business. If it's crappy or negative, your finances will be a mess. Two ways to improve it are to spend less or to improve your earnings power. Doing both is even better. The book Your Money or Your Life by Dominguez and Robin is good for showing how to obsessively focus on cash flow, even though you may not share their zeal for early retirement. A simpler exercise than what they recommend: take 3 months of your checking and credit card statements, go through each expenditure and put them in a spreadsheet column, SUM() that column. Then add up 3 months of after-tax paychecks. Divide both numbers by three and compare. (The 3 months is to average out your spending, which probably varies a lot by month.) After positive cash flow and savings rate, the next thing I'd go through is insurance. Risk management for what you have. This can include checking you have all the important insurance coverages (homeowner's/renter's, auto, potentially umbrella, term life, disability, and of course health insurance, are some highlights); and also adjusting all your policies to be most cost-effective, which usually means raising the deductible if you have a good emergency fund. Often you can raise the deductible on policies you have, and use the savings to add more catastrophe coverage (such as term life if you didn't have it, or boosting the liability protection on your homeowner's, or whatever). Remember, cover catastrophes as cheaply and comprehensively as possible, but don't worry about reimbursement for non-catastrophic expenses. I like this book, Smart and Simple Financial Strategies for Busy People by Jane Bryant Quinn, because it covers all the main personal finance topics, not just investing; and because it is smart and simple. All the main stuff to think about is in the one book and the advice is solid and uncomplicated. Investing can truly be dead easy; most people would be fine with this advice: Honestly, I do micro-optimize and undermine my investing, and I'm guessing most people on this forum do. But it's not something I could defend objectively as a good use of time. It probably is necessary to do some reading to feel financially literate and confident in an investment plan, but the reading isn't really because a good plan is complicated, it's more to understand all the complicated things that you don't need to do, since that's how you'll know not to do them. ;-) Especially when salespeople and publications and TV are telling you over and over and over that you need to know a bunch of crap and do a bunch of things. People who have a profitable ""business of me"" are the ones who end up with a lot of money. Not people who spend a lot of time screwing with investments. (People who get rich investing invest professionally - as their ""business of me"" - they don't goof around with their 401k after work.) Financial security is all about your savings rate, i.e. your personal profitability. No shortcuts, other than lotteries and rich uncles."