Which mutual funds is Dave Ramsey talking about in The Total Money Makeover? [duplicate]
See the Moneychimp site. From 1934 to 2006, the S&P returned an 'average' 12.81%. But the CAGR was 11.26%.  I wrote an article Average Return vs Compound Annual Growth to address this issue.  Interesting that over time only a few funds have managed to get anywhere near this return, but the low cost indexer can get the long term CAGR minus .05% or so, if they wish.
"Opinions vary but I've always thought that an ""emergency fund"" is just that... for emergencies... NOT investment. While it ""hurts"" not to have your emergency money making more money... its MORE IMPORTANT to have quick access to it. As long as the interest rate keeps up with the rate of inflation leave it alone.  Fill up your emergency fund with 3-6 mos salary and then INVEST your money beyond that however you see fit. Dave Ramsey's ""Financial Peace University"" is a very good audiobook and I would recommend it to anyone asking questions such as this one." Other than the two answers (both of which recommend waiting until marriage to actually combine finances, and which I agree with), there's the general question:  how does a couple choose to manage finances? In our marriage, it's me.  I'm more numbers-minded than my spousal-unit.  I'm also more a sticker for time.  I work and spousal-unit does not. We had some good friends -- upon marriage, spouse1 felt like he should take on the role.  He went on a several-week trip (leaving spouse2 at home), and upon returning home asked spouse2 about the late fees.  Spouse2 was appalled.  Spouse2 ended up keeping the job of managing household finances. There's enough pieces to the puzzle that it can be divided any way you choose -- any way that works for you and your spouse/virtual-spouse. One other point:  talk about how to manage your money, before you marry.  Dave Ramsey recommends a strict monthly budget.  I like listening to Dave Ramsey, but we've never had a budget.  Instead, we agreed during marriage counseling two things: First, I must say I am a Ramsey fan. Here's the thing, the borrower is slave to the lender, so if you eat Thanksgiving dinner with your generous relative next week, the food will taste different.  Before I was a Dave fan, I borrowed money from my cousin once, and that debt was always hanging over my head.  At times, it made hanging out awkward since I had money to 'go out' but not money to 'pay back.'  It felt great once I paid him off, but the awkwardness was never cool. I'm sure some will disagree (Dave wouldn't), but if you TEMPORARILY stop your 8% contribution, and combine that with your current margin, you could pay off the debt from your cash flow and complete your emergency fund.  Since you said that $11k is 1.5 month's expenses, you would essentially need to double that for a three-month fund or quadruple it for a six month fund.  I know $300 may not seem like a lot, but since I value family over money, I would pay that off today out of the $11k and then replenish and fill the emergency fund.   Also, your expenses will have dropped by $300/mo., so it will take less money to get to three or six month's expenses.  Once that's complete, get your full 8% contribution. FYI: I consider margin to be the difference between your income and your outgo. "If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think ""emerging markets"". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so.  (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly.  And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead." Have you read is letter? He's saying thanks to the government for basically saving the economy. Warren Buffet was from day 1 a strong supporter of the bailout program.   I'm sorry for my ignorance but what ''output'' are you talking about? As I understand you don't just want to establish a basic income but want to change the whole monetary system? And you can't even explain it? The big websites, Yahoo and the like, only give the 10 biggest positions of any fund. Download the annual report of the fund, go to page 18, you will find the positions on the 31st of December.  However the actual positions could be different. The same applies to all funds. You need the annual report. Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective.  For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds.  Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day.  The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds.   Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund.  And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing.  Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader.  It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders.  However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term.  If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders.  If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders.   Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing.  They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing.   It seems the author is confused. Mutual funds are a collection of other assets, such as stocks, bonds and property. Unless the fund is a type that is traded on an exchange, you will only be able to buy into the fund by applying for units with the fund manager and sell out by contacting the fund manager. These type of non-traded funds are usually updated at the end of the day once the closing prices of all the assets in it are known.