What is this type of risk-free investment called?
This sounds a lot like an Equity-indexed Annuity.  They date from about 1996 (there is a bit of skepticism about them, as they are tricky to understand for the typical investor).  For instance, an equity indexed annuity pays a portion of the gain in an index (like S&P 500) when the stock market rises, and guarantees you won't lose if it falls.  In an arbitrage sense, it is roughly equivalent to buying a mixture of bonds and index (call) options. There are a lot of complicated 'tweaks' on these, such as annual ratchet/annual reset, interest caps, etc. There is quite a bit of debate about whether they are too good to be true, so I'd read a few articles with pros and cons before buying one. These are also commonly called FIA (Fixed indexed annuities). My Credit Union offers a market-linked CD where the investment has FDIC protection if it is held to maturity, but otherwise they are linked with the S&P 500. it comes with this warning: Market-Link CDs are not appropriate for all depositors including   clients needing a guaranteed interest payment or seeking full   participation in the stock market.  If redeemed prior to maturity, the   amount received will be subject to market risk including interest rate   fluctuations an issuer credit quality. So they still do exist. Another credit union I belong to has a similar product. The risk is that if you need the money early, there may be losses. There would also not be a way to switch to a more conservative posture as the CD approached maturity, if you were interested in protecting your gains. These products are real, but they aren't risk free: 1) The bank could go under in that time.  (Are the investments FDIC insured?) 2) Your money is locked up for 5 years, probably with either no way to get it back out or a stiff penalty for early withdrawal, so you risk having a better investment opportunity come along and not having the liquidity to take advantage of it. 3) If the market does go down and you get 100% of your principal back, the endless ratchet of inflation practically guarantees that $10K will be worth less 5 years from now than it is today, so you risk losing purchasing power even if you're not losing any nominal quantity of money. It's still a fairly low-risk investment option, particularly if it's tied to something that you have reason to believe will increase in value significantly faster than inflation in the next 5 years. This is what is called a Structured Product.  The linked page gives an overview of the relative pros and cons.  They tend to hold the bulk of funds in bonds and then used equity index futures and other derivatives to match returns on the S&P, or other indices tracked.  All combine to provide the downside protection. Note that your mother did not receive the dividends paid by the constituent companies.  She only received the capital return. Here is a link to Citigroup (Europe) current structured product offerings. Here is a link to Fidelity's current offerings of structured products. Here is Investopedia's article detailing the pitfalls. The popularity of these products appears to be on the wane, having been heavily promoted and sold by the providers at the time your mother invested.  Most of these products only provide 100% protection of capital if the market does not fall by a specified amount, either in successive reporting periods or over the life of the product.  There are almost as many terms and conditions imposed on the protection as there are structured products available.  I have no personal experience buying this type of product, preferring to have the option to trade and receive dividend income. The name of this type of investment is Capital Guaranteed Investment, and yes they do exist, some financial institutions do offer them from time to time and they can be better than putting money in the bank. Unlike what someone else said, your money is not is not locked for the five years. You can take out your investment at any time, but if you do take your money out before the term (5 years in your mother's case) the capital gurantee is void. So you would only withdrawal your money if the investment is currently in proffit, because if it is at a loss when you go to withdrawal, you get hit with the loss. In many cases you will get a third party, usually a large bank, being guarantor for the capital guarantee, and they in turn get paid for this obligation.
It's an artifact of risk-neutral pricing, but the intuition is this:  A call option can be viewed as a levered equity position - meaning, you can get the same exposure by borrowing money and buying the stock.    Say you can buy some call options for $150 with a position delta of 1 (so it looks just like the stock).  You could also buy the stock outright for $1000 (by borrowing $850 at the risk-free rate and using your $150 cash).  If the risk-free rate rises, your cost of carry on the stock position increases.  In the case of the call option, the change in price can be viewed as the cost of *leverage* increasing. This is similar to your TFSA question. While the S in RRSP or TFSA stands for savings, it does not stipulate exactly what instruments you use to build up those savings. With few exceptions, you can hold any type of investment in either an RRSP or TFSA. Thus, do not think of them as savings accounts per se, but more like umbrella accounts, or plans. It's actually the financial industry that creates these misnomers of so-called RRSPs, which are usually GICs or balanced mutual funds held inside an RRSP plan, or TFSAs, which are literally savings accounts held inside a TFSA plan. The most versatile accounts are the self-directed RRSP or TFSA accounts, usually through a discount broker, where you can purchase many different types of investments inside your registered accounts, including stocks, bonds, mutual funds, GICs, gold, etc. Thus a share purchase plan held inside an RRSP is completely eligible and may be a sensible investment for retirement savings. Everyone would like a savings/checking account that has the same liquidity as others but pays multiple times as much, but such a thing would break the laws of finance.  The thing keeping savings and checking accounts cheap isn't particularly the FDIC insurance but the high liquidity and near certainty that you will not lose money.  In all of finance you are compensated for the risk (and perhaps illiquidity) you bear.  If you insist on a risk-free and highly liquid investment, you will get the risk-free and highly liquid rate, which is currently around 1%. Doesn't matter what type of investment it is (savings, money market, treasuries, etc.).  Money market funds, in particular, were designed to be a replacement for savings accounts.  They have decent liquidity and almost no risk (and no FDIC insurance).  But they earn about what good savings accounts do, because that's what risk-free investments earn. If you wish to earn more you must decide what you will give up: Decide on one (or both) of those to sacrifice and you will find yourself with options. "https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/30/2-types-of-risk-2-types-of-bubbles.aspx (mirror): The Wall Street Journal reviews: What Mr. Bernstein calls ""shallow risk"" is a temporary drop in an asset's market price; decades ago, the great investment analyst Benjamin Graham referred to such an interim decline as ""quotational loss."" ""Deep risk,"" on the other hand, is an irretrievable real loss of capital, meaning that after inflation you won't recover for decades -- if ever. So quotational loss = loss not explained by change of actual value of a firm." No free lunch You cannot receive risk-free interest on more money than you actually put down. The construct you are proposing is called 'Carry Trade', and will yield you the interest-difference in exchange for assuming currency risk. Negative expectation In the long run one would expect the higher-yielding currency to devalue faster, at a rate that exactly negates the difference in interest. Net profit is therefore zero in the long run. Now factor in the premium that a (forex) broker charges, and now you may expect losses the size of which depends on the leverage chosen. If there was any way that this could reliably produce a profit even without friction (i.e. roll-over, transaction costs, spread), quants would have already arbitraged it away. Intransparancy Additionaly, in my experience true long-term roll-over costs in relation to interest are a lot harder to compute than, for example, the cost of a stock transaction. This makes the whole deal very intransparant. As to the idea of artificially constructing a USD/USD pair: I regret to tell you that such a construct is not possible. For further info, see this question on Carry Trade: Why does Currency Carry Trade work? "I think you're on the right track with that strategy. If you want to learn more about this strategy, I'd recommend ""The Intelligent Asset Allocator"" by William Bernstein. As for the Über–Tuber portfolio you linked to, my only concern would be that it is diversified in everything except for the short-term bond component, which is 40%. It might be worth looking at some portfolios that have more than one bond allocation -- possibly diversifying more across corporate vs government, and intermediate vs short term. Even the Cheapskate's portfolio located immediately above the Über–Tuber has 20% Corporate and 20% Government. Also note that they mention: Because it includes so many funds, it would be expensive and unwieldy for an account less than $100,000. Regarding your question about the disadvantages of an index-fund-based asset allocation strategy:" "You want to ""begin building a nice portfolio"" comprised of ""real estate"" and ""solar and wind"".  There are ways to do that without starting your own solar power farm or buying giant wind turbines, or whole apartment complexes. They're called ETFs. They're diversified and it's unlikely that you'll use the entirety of your initial investment." "Leverage here is referring to ""financial leverage"". This is the practice of ""levering"" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt.  For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. ""Beta riders"" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore ""leveraged beta riders"" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered ""blindly"" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A ""quant process driven discipline"" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether ""beta riding"" or ""quant processes"" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented."