I am trying to start a “hedge fund,” and by that, I really just mean I have a very specific and somewhat simple investment thesis that I want to
"Kudos for wanting to start your own business.  Now let's talk reality. Unless you already have some kind of substantial track record of successful investing to show potential investors, what you want to do will never happen, and that's just giving you the honest truth. There are extensive regulatory requirements for starting any kind of public investment vehicle, and meeting them costs money.  You can be your own hedge fund with your own money and avoid all of this if you like.  Keep in mind that a ""hedge fund"" is little more than someone who is contrarian to the market and puts their money where their mouth is.  (I know, some of you will argue this is simplistic, and you'd be right, but I'm deliberately avoiding complexity for the moment) The simple truth is that nobody is going to just give you their money to invest unless, for starters, you can show that you're any good at it (and for the sake of it we'll assume you've had success in the markets), and (perhaps most importantly) you have ""skin in the game"", meaning you have a substantial investment of your own in the fund too.   You might have a chance at creating something if you can show that whatever your hedge fund proposes to invest in isn't already overrun by other hedge funds.  At the moment, there are more mutual and hedge funds out there than there are securities for them to invest in, so they're basically all fighting over the same pie.  You must have some fairly unique opportunity or approach that nobody else has or has even considered in order to begin attracting money to a new fund these days.  And that's not easy, trust me. There is no short or easy path to what you want to do, and perhaps if you want to toy around with it a bit, find some friends who are willing to invest based on your advice and/or picks.  If you develop a track record of success then perhaps you could more seriously consider doing what you propose, and in the meanwhile you can look into the requirements for laying the foundations toward your goal. I hope you don't find my answer cruel, because it isn't meant to be.  I am all about encouraging people to succeed, but it has to start with a realistic expectation.  You have a great thought, but there's a wide gulf from concept to market and no quick or simple way to bridge it. Here's a link to a web video on how to start your own hedge fund, if you want to look into it more deeply: How To Legally Start A Hedge Fund (From the Investopedia website) Good luck!"
"So you are off to a really good start.  Congratulations on being debt free and having a nice income. Being an IT contractor can be financially rewarding, but also have some risks to it much like investing.  With your disposable income I would not shy away from investing in further training through sites like PluralSite or CodeSchool to improve weak skills.  They are not terribly expensive for a person in your situation.  If you were loaded down with debt and payments, the story would be different. Having an emergency fund will help you be a good IT contractor as it adds stability to your life.  I would keep  £10K or so in a boring savings account.  Think of it not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes.  Having such a fund allows you to go after a high paying job you might fail at, or invest with impunity.   I would encourage you to take an intermediary step:  Moving out on your own.  I would encourage renting before buying even if it is just a room in someone else's home.  I would try to be out of the house in less than 3 months.  Being on your own helps you mature in ways that can only be accomplished by being on your own.  It will also reduce the culture shock of buying your own home or entering into an adult relationship. I would put a minimum of £300/month in growth stock mutual funds.  Keeping this around 15% of your income is a good metric.  If available you may want to put this in tax favored retirement accounts.  (Sorry but I am woefully ignorant of UK retirement savings).  This becomes your retire at 60 fund.  (Starting now, you can retire well before 68.)  For now stick to an index fund, and once it gets to 25K, you may want to look to diversify. For the rest of your disposable income I'd invest in something safe and secure.  The amount of your disposable income will change, presumably, as you will have additional expenses for rent and food.  This will become your buy a house fund.  This is something that should be safe and secure.  Something like a bond fund, money market, dividend producing stocks, or preferred stocks.   I am currently doing something like this and have 50% in a savings account, 25% in a ""Blue chip index fund"", and 25% in a preferred stock fund.  This way you have some decent stability of principle while also having some ability to grow.   Once you have that built up to about 12K and you feel comfortable you can start shopping for a house.  You may want to be at the high end of your area, so you should try and save at least 10%; or, you may want to be really weird and save the whole thing and buy your house for cash.  If you are still single you may want to rent a room or two so your home can generate income.   Here in the US there can be other ways to generate income from your property.  One example is a home that has a separate area (and room) to park a boat.  A boat owner will pay some decent money to have a place to park their boat and there is very little impact to the owner.  Be creative and perhaps find a way where a potential property could also produce income. Good luck, check back in with progress and further questions! Edit:  After some reading, ISA seem like a really good deal." I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do.  There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier.  Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail.  So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague.  Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares).  Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other  wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose.  US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead.  Some links for further reference:  Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful.  Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds.  I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs. "Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return.  3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by ""medium"" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different.  6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about ""Buy low, sell high"". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, ""don't be a tourist, be a traveler""). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the ""best"" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have" A somewhat provocative (but not unserious) proposal: Rent, don't buy a house to live in. In 2007/8, the thing that got many people in deep trouble is their mortgage. It's not a productive investment but a speculative bet on what was in fact a bubble and a class of assets that is notoriously slow to recover after a slump. Before thinking about your savings or buying into silly ideas about gold, you should realise that as a middle class worker, the biggest risk after a crisis is losing your job. Renting your accommodation means being able to downgrade or move very quickly and not being forced to sell a house at the worse possible time. If you really do need to liquidate some of your investments at a bad time, having a more diversified portfolio means that you are not losing everything to meet some short-term obligations. Assuming you're in the US, this means forgoing some nice tax advantages that might be too tempting to resist (I'm not so I am basing this on what I read on this site) but, bubbles aside, there is nothing that makes real estate a particularly good investment as such, especially if you also live in the house you're buying. You might very well come out on top but you expose yourself to several risks and are less prepared to face a crisis. The problem is aggregating information from so many sources, countries, and economies.  You are probably more aware of local laws, local tax changes, local economic performance, etc, so it makes sense that you'd be more in tune with your own country.  If your intent is to be fully diversified, then buy a total world fund. A lot of hedge funds do what you are suggesting, but I think it requires either some serious math or some serious research. Note: I'm invested in emerging markets (EEM) for exactly the reason you suggest... diversification. I think your best strategy is to learn more about the behavior of what you're investing in.  Learn everything you can about it.  Specialize in it.  The more you study, the more the proper strategy will present itself. Answer the questions you ask in paragraph 3 through your own study. "The raw question is as follows:  ""You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.""   The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation.  Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks." So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of   compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock   market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!