What are the pros and cons of investing in a closed-end fund?
Pro:  - Faces less redemption pressure and hence the Fund Manager can focus more on long term gains rather than immediate gains.  - Works well in emerging markets.  - Less churn out in case the market falls sharply, there by making more money in long run. Cons:  - No additional money to invest/take advantage of market situation.  - Less liquid for investor as he is locked in for a period. "The pros and cons of investing in a closed end fund both stem from the fact that the price per share is likely to differ from the net asset value (NAV) of the underlying assets. That could work to your advantage if the fund is selling for LESS than NAV, or at a discount. Then you get the ""benefit of the bargain"" and hope to sell the shares in the future for ""par"" or even a premium (MORE than NAV). On the other hand, if you buy such a fund at a premium, you stand to have a RELATIVE loss if the value of the fund goes back to par (or a discount) compared to NAV. That's because a closed end fund has a FIXED number of shares, with the assets continually being reinvested. In essence, you are ""buying out"" an existing shareholder of the fund at a price determined by supply and demand. This differs from an OPEN end fund, in which your contribution creates NEW shares (all other things being equal). Then the fund, has to invest YOUR money (and charges you a fee for the service) on exactly a pro rata basis with other investors in the fund, meaning that you will enter and exit such a fund at ""par."" In either case, your return depends mainly on the performance of the underlying assets. But there are premium/discount issues for investing in a closed end fund." One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not.  This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me.  With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.
"It's a decision that only you can make. What are the chances that you'll want to take another loan (any loan - car, credit card, installment plan for new fridge, whatever else)? What are the chances that with the bad credit you'll find it hard to rent a place (and in Cali it's hard to rent a place right now, believe me, I bought a place just to save on the rent)? What are the chances that the prices will bounce and your ""on-paper"" loss will be recovered by the time you actually need/want to sell the house? You have to check all these and make a wise decision considering all the pros and cons in your personal case." "Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in     the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock     market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (""I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!""). It also can create a false sense of security (""look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...""). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately.  3. Is buying SPY a ""set it and forget it"" sort of deal, or would I need     to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle     like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to ""age"" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is ""retirement goal"" focused, which, according to     Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative     over time and switches to an ""income fund"" after the retirement     target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding     SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea     because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the     benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do     they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard" That is a decision you need to make, but some of the pros and cons you could consider to help your decision making include: Pros: If bought at the right time in the property cycle and in a good growth area, it can help you grow your net worth much quicker than having money in the bank earning near zero interest. You would be replacing rent payments with mortgage payments and if your mortage payments are less than your current rent you will have additional money to pay for any expenses on the property and have a similar cashflow as you do now. You will be able to deduct your interest payments on the mortgage against your income if you are in the USA, thus reducing the tax you pay. You will have the security of your own house and not have to worry about moving if the landlord wants you out after your lease expires. Cons: If bought in a bad area and at the top of the property cycle you may never make any capital gains on the property and in fact may lose money on it long term. If the mortgage payments are more than your current rent you may be paying more especially at the start of your mortgage. If you buy a house you are generally stuck in one spot, it will be harder to move to different areas or states as it can cost a lot of money and time to sell and buy elsewhere, if renting you can generally just give notice and find a new place to rent. Property maintenance costs and taxes could be a drain on your finances, especially if the mortgage repayments are more than your current rent. If your mortgage payments and property expenses are way more than your current rent, it may reduce what you could be investing in other areas to help increase your net worth. Mutual funds don't work like stocks in that way. The price of a mutual fund is set at the end of each day and doesn't fluctuate during the day. So no matter when you put in your order, it will be filled at the end of the day at whatever the closing price is for that day. Here is some good information on that There is no continuous pricing of fund shares throughout the trading   day. When an investor places an order to buy or sell a fund's shares,   the order is executed based on the NAV calculated at the end of that   trading day, regardless of what time during the day the order was   placed. On the other hand, if the investor were to check the price of   his or her fund shares halfway through the business day, the price   quoted would be the previous day's NAV because that was the last time   the fund calculated and reported the value. -http://www.finweb.com/investing/how-mutual-funds-are-priced.html One year is short term -- short enough that trying to predict returns is a crap shoot. Frankly, if you will need the money in one year I wouldn't touch anything riskier than a money market account. $5000 also isn't enough to give you much flexibility in achieving a balanced portfolio, since the minimal initial purchase for mutual funds is often around $2500. (I'm not sure whether ETFs would give you any more flexibility.) So on grounds of both size and time horizon, I have to recommend against this plan. The risk of losing money, with insufficient time for gains to balance that risk, is simply too high. Others may feel differently, of course. But that's the best advice I can offer. "The reason that UltraLong funds and the like are bad isn't because of the leverage ratio. It's because they're compounded daily, and the product of all the doubled daily returns is not mathematically equivalent to the double the long-term return. I'd consider providing big fancy equations using uppercase pi as the 'product of elements in a sequence' operator and other calculus fanciness, but that would be overkill, I don't think I can do TeX here, and I don't know the relevant TeX anyway. Anyway. From the economics theory perspective, the ideal leverage ratio is 1X - that is, unlevered, straight investment. Consider: Using leverage costs money. You know that, surely. If someone could borrow money at N% and invest at an expected N+X%, where X > 0, then they would. They would borrow all the money they could and buy all the S&P500 they could. But when they bought all that S&P500, they'd eventually run out of people who were willing to sell it for that cheap. That would mean the excess return would be smaller. Eventually you'd get to a point where the excess return is... zero? .... well, no, empirically, we can see that it's definitely not zero, and that in the real world that stocks do return more than bonds. Why?  Because stocks are riskier than bonds. The difference in expected return between an index like the S&P500 and a US Treasury bond is due to the relative riskiness of the S&P500, which isn't guaranteed by the US Government to return your principal. Any money that you make off of leverage comes from assuming some sort of a risk. Now, assuming risk can be a profitable thing to do, but there are also a lot of people out there with higher risk tolerance than you, like insurance companies and billionaires, so the market isn't exactly short of people willing to take risks, and you shouldn't expect the returns of ""assuming risk"" in the general case to be qualitatively awesome. Now, it's true that investing in an unlevered fashion is risky also. But that's not an excuse to go leveraged anyway; it's a reason to hold back. In fact, regular stocks are sufficiently risky that most people probably shouldn't be holding a 100% stock portfolio. They should be tempering that risk with bonds, instead, and increasing the size of their bond holdings over time. The appropriate time to use leverage is when you have information which limits your risk. You have done research, and have reason to believe that you understand the future of an individual stock/index better than the rest of the stock market does. You calculate that the potential for achieving returns with leverage outweighs the risks. Then you dump your money into the leveraged position. (In exchange for this, the market receives information about anticipated future returns of this instrument, because of the price movement which occurs as a result of someone putting his money where his mouth is.) If you're just looking to dump money into broad market indicies in a leveraged fashion, you're doing it wrong. There is no free money. (Ed. Which is not to say there's not money. There's lots of money. But if you go looking for the free kind, you won't find it, and may end up with money that you thought was free but was actually quite expensive.) Edit. Okay, so you don't like my answer. I'm not surprised. I'm giving you a real answer instead of a ""make free money"" answer. Okay. Here's your ""how to make free money"" answer. Assume you are using a constant leverage ratio over the length of time you've invested your money, and you don't get to just jump into and out of the market (that's market-timing, not leverage) so you have to stay invested. You're going to have a scenario which falls into one of these categories: The S&P500 historically rises over time. The average rate of return probably exceeds the average interest rate. So the ideal leverage ratio is infinite. Of course, this is a stupid answer in real life because you can't pull that off. Your risk tolerance is too low and you will have trouble finding a lender willing to lend you unsecured money, and you'll probably lose all your money in a crash sooner or later. Ultimately it's a stupid answer because you're asking the wrong question. You should probably ask a better question: ""when I use leverage to gain additional exposure to risk, am I being properly compensated for assuming that risk?""" Group RESPs are a bit like a true mutual insurance company. You all pay into the fund, and then, depending on the number of kids that are in school that particular year, you get paid a certain amount. Advantages could be that if you end up with one or two years of only your kid in school and nobody else's in that age bracket, you get more money. Disadvantage for the same-reverse reason also could be true. Another advantage of regular programs, unlike pooled, is that if you do not use all the money, then some/all of the remaining funds may be transferable to an RRSP. Personally I would not invest in one, unless it was more like a specific investment-club that I knew everybody. "If by saying you wish to invest ""for the long term 5-10 years"" I take it you mean to hold a stock for between 5-10 years. If this is the case, this is the fundamental flaw in your screening algorithm. No company stock price continues to go up without end for 5-10 years. The price of every company's stock goes down at some point. You have to decide on a company by company basis whether you want to ride out the downturn or sell and get out. This is a personal decision based on your own research. The list of screening criteria you list indicates you are looking for solid earnings companies. Try not to apply these rules rigidly because every company runs through a rough patch. At times past, GE (for example) met all of your criteria. However, in 2017, it would not and therefore would not meet your screening criteria. Would you sell GE if you owned it? Maybe, or maybe you would hold through the downturn. The same be said for MSFT in 2010 or AAPL pre-Jobs return. A rule you may want to add to your list: know the company business well; that is, don't invest in companies you have no understanding of their business model."