Does this plan make any sense for early 20s investments?
The plan doesn't make sense.  Don't invest your money. Just keep it in your bank account. $5000 is not a lot, especially since you don't have a steady income stream. You only have $1000 to your name, you can't afford to gamble $4000. You will need it for things like food, books, rent, student loans, traveling, etc. If you don't get a job right after you graduate, you will be very happy to have some money in the bank. Or what if you get a dream job, but you need a car?  Or you get a job at a suit & tie business and need to get a new wardrobe? Or your computer dies and you need a new one? You find a great apartment but need $2500 first, last & security? That money can help you out much more NOW when you're starting out, then it will when you're ready to retire in your 60's. "I'm not following what's the meaning of ""open a mutual fund"". You don't open a mutual fund, you invest in it. There's a minimum required investment ($2000? Could be, some funds have lower limits, you don't have to go with the Fidelity one necessarily), but in general it has nothing to do with your Roth IRA account. You can invest in mutual funds with any trading account, not just Roth IRA (or any other specific kind). If you invest in ETF's  - you can invest in funds just as well (subject to the minimums set). As to the plan itself - buying and selling ETF's will cost you commission, ~2-3% of your investment. Over several months, you may get positive returns, and may get negative returns, but keep in mind that you start with the 2-3% loss on day 1. Within a short period of time, especially in the current economic climate (which is very unstable - just out of recession, election year, etc etc), I would think that keeping the cash in a savings account would be a better choice. While with ETF you don't have any guarantees other than -3%, then with savings accounts you can at least have a guaranteed return of ~1% APY (i.e.: won't earn much over the course of your internship, but you'll keep your money safe for your long term investment). For the long term - the fluctuations of month to month don't matter much, so investing now for the next 50 years - you shouldn't care about the stock market going 10% in April. So, keep your 1000 in savings account, and if you want to invest 5000 in your Roth IRA - invest it then. Assuming of course that you're completely positive about not needing this money in the next several decades." I would wait, and invest that money in a Roth IRA. Because taxes are paid on the contributions to a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time, tax and penalty-free. In addition, you can withdraw contributions and earning to purchase your first home. I think it's great idea.  Many large brokerages give customers access to a pretty sizable list of zero commission, zero load funds.  In this list of funds will certainly be an S&P 500 index.  So you can open your account for free, deposit your $1,000 for free and invest it in an S&P index for no cost.  You'll pay a very negligible amount in annual expense fees and you'll owe taxes on your gain if you have to use the money.  I don't follow the school of thought that all investment money should be in retirement account jail. But I think if you have your spending under control, you have your other finances in order and just want to place money somewhere, you're on the right track with this idea.
"Those advantages you've described (tax treatment and employee match) are what you receive in exchange for ""locking up"" the money. Ultimately it's a personal choice of whether that tradeoff makes sense for you situation (I'll echo the response that the real answer to your question is planning). Roth options (either 401K or IRA) may be good compromises for you, since you can withdraw those contributions (but not the earnings) without any penalty, since you've already paid taxes on them. Another avenue to explore may be a self-directed IRA or a Solo 401(k), depending on your circumstances and eligibility. In both cases, there are plan providers that structure the plan to allow you to use the money to invest in things besides traditional stocks, bonds, and mutual funds (often referred to as ""checkbook control"" accounts). They are very commonly used among Real Estate investors (this thread from BiggerPockets has quite a bit of info). You'd want to consult with an accountant or financial adviser before going down that path." "Your question is based on incorrect assumptions. Generally, there's no ""penalty"", per se, to make a withdrawal from your RRSP, even if you make a withdrawal earlier than retirement, however you define it. A precise meaning for ""retirement"" with respect to RRSPs is largely irrelevant.* Our U.S. neighbours have a 10% penalty on non-hardship early withdrawals (before age 59 &half;) from retirement accounts like the 401k and IRA. It's an additional measure designed to discourage early withdrawals, and raise more tax.  Yet, in Canada, there is no similar penalty. Individual investments inside your RRSP may have associated penalties, such as the dreaded ""deferred sales charge"" (DSC) of some back-end loaded mutual funds, or such as LSVCC funds that generated additional special tax credits that could get clawed back.  Yet, these early withdrawal penalties are distinct from the RRSP nature of your account.  Choose your investments carefully to avoid these kinds of surprises. Rather, an RRSP is a tax-deferred account, and it works like this:  The government allows you to claim a nice juicy tax deduction, which can reduce your income tax at your marginal rate in the year you make a contribution, or later if you should choose to defer the deduction. The resulting pre-tax money accumulated in your RRSP benefits from further tax deferral: assets can grow without attracting annual income tax on earned interest, dividends, or capital gains. You don't need to declare on your income tax return any of the income earned inside your RRSP, unlike a regular investment account. Here's the rub: Once you decide to withdraw money from your RRSP, the entire amount withdrawn is considered regular income in the year in which you make the withdrawal.  Thus, your withdrawals are subject to income tax, and yes, at your marginal rate.  This is always the case, whether before or after retirement. You mentioned two special programs: The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP), and the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP).  Neither the HBP nor the LLP permit tax-free withdrawals.  Rather, each of these programs are special kinds of loans that you can borrow from your own RRSP. HBP and LLP loan money isn't taxed when you get it because you are required to pay it back, and you pay it back into your own RRSP: You always pay income tax at your marginal rate on your RRSP withdrawals.** * Above, I said a precise meaning for ""retirement"" with respect to RRSPs is largely irrelevant.  Yet, there are ages that matter:  By the end of the year in which you turn 71, you are required to convert your RRSP to a RRIF. It's similar, but you can no longer contribute, and you must withdraw a minimum amount each year. Other circumstances related to age may qualify for minor tax relief intended for retirees, such as the Age Amount or the Pension Income Credit.  Generally, such measures don't significantly change the fact that you pay income tax on RRSP withdrawals at your marginal rate – these measures raise the minimum you can take out without attracting tax, but most do nothing at the margin.** ** Exception: One might split eligible pension income with a spouse or common-law partner, which may reduce tax at the margin." "E) Spend a small amount of that money on getting advice from a paid financial planner. (Not a broker or someone offering you ""free"" advice; their recommendations may be biased toward what makes them the most money).  A good financial planner will talk to you about your plans and expectations both short and long term, and about your risk tolerance (would a drop in value panic you even if you know it's likely to recover and average out in the long run, that sort of thing), and about how much time and effort you want to put into actively managing your portfolio. From those answers, they will generate an initial proposed plan, which will be tested against simulations of the stock market to make sure it holds up. Typically they'll do about 100 passes over the plan to get a sense of its probable risk versus growth-potential versus volatility, and tweak the plan until the normal volatility is within the range you've said you're comfortable with while trying to produce the best return with the least risk. This may not be a perfect plan for you -- but at the very least it will be an excellent starting point until you decide (if you ever do decide) that you've learned enough about investing that you want to do something different with the money. It's likely to be better advice than you'll get here simply because they can and will take the time to understand your specific needs rather than offering generalities because we're trying to write something that applies to many people, all of whom have different goals and time horizons and financial intestinal fortitude. As far as a house goes: Making the mistake of thinking of a house as an investment is a large part of the mindset that caused the Great Recession. Property can be an investment (or a business) or it can be something you're living in; never make the mistake of putting it in both categories at once. The time to buy a house is when you want a house, find a house you like in a neighborhood you like, expect not to move out of it for at least five years, can afford to put at least 20% down payment, and can afford the ongoing costs. Owning your home is not more grown-up, or necessarily financially advantageous even with the tax break, or in any other way required until and unless you will enjoy owning your home. (I bought at age 50ish, because I wanted a place around the corner from some of my best friends, because I wanted better noise isolation from my neighbors, because I wanted a garden, because I wanted to do some things that almost any landlord would object to, and because I'm handy enough that I can do a lot of the routine maintenance myself and enjoy doing it -- buy a house, get a free set of hobbies if you're into that. And part of the reason I could afford this house, and the changes that I've made to it, was that renting had allowed me to put more money into investments. My only regret is that I didn't realise how dumb it was not to max out my 401(k) match  until I'd been with the company for a decade ... that's free money I left on the table.)" The 20x number is drawn directly from the assumption that it should be easy to get more than 4% average return on investment. After lots of historical studies,  Monte Carlo simulations, and the like there was a consensus that saving more didn't significantly increase the odds of achieving at least the desired yearly income sustainably. (That's the same calculations the insurance firms use as the starting point for writing annuities.) There are also some assumptions about inflation and its interaction with the market built into this rule-of-thumb. Note that this is 20x what you want as post-retirement income, not necessarily 20x your current income. I have a moderately frugal lifestyle, And my budget confirms that my actual spending -- even in years when I allow myself a splurge -- is well below my current income, with the excess going into the investments. To sustain my lifestyle, I need that lower number plus any taxes that'll be due on it plus whatever I want to allocate as average emergency reserve... and theoretically I should be able to base the 20x on that lower number. When I run estimates (Quicken has a tool for this, so does my credit union, I  presume others are widely available), they tend to confirm this. I'm still using the higher number for planning, though. I don't feel any need to retire early (though I have issues with my current manager), and I have no objection at all to being able to afford better toys on occasion. Or to leaving a legacy to friends, relatives, and/or charity. But it's nice to know exactly when I could punt the day job if I wanted to. "Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at ""Fidelity Low-Priced Stock"" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, ""I'll stay the course,"" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, ""I don't need any drugs,"" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, ""I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,"" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the ""sure thing"" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do." Everything before long term plans seems fine. Vanguard and index funds is absolutely the smart, safe option. What most people should do. Not sure about the specific allocations or funds he chose (too lazy to look) but at worst this would be a 'solid' plan.  The long term plan looks more iffy but he seems to have a good head on his shoulders and I'm sure he'll figure that stuff out better with time.  &gt;Is this a safe plan?  Yes.  &gt;Is there anyway this could backfire and he loses all his money?  No way he loses it all. He could lose up to 30% or something in a bad year, but over the long term, if he follows this, it's highly unlikely he'll lose anything at all. "This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it.  By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions.  But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution.  I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things ""average out"" over time.  If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical.  Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return.  You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion.  When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks?  In many cases, less risks.  This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills).  When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk.  Buying risky securities adds to that risk.  When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky.  You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so.  But I can't be sure." Hmm, if your financially savvy enough to have saved up half a million dollars, I'd think you would be savvy enough to spend it wisely. :-) I think I'd spend the cash before running down stocks and bonds, as cash almost surely has a lower rate of return.  I'd look into what rate of return you're getting on the rental property versus what you're getting from other investments. If the rental property has a lower return, I'd sell that before selling off stocks. (I own a rental property on which I am losing money every month. I'm still paying a mortgage on it, but even without that, the ROI would be about 4% under current market conditions.) Besides that, your plan looks good to me. Might need to add, 8. Beg on the streets, and 9. Burglary.