Free brokerage vs paid - pros and cons
"Emotion aside, you can calculate the cost of the funds you have tied up at the bank.  If I can earn 5% in a CD, my ""free"" checking with minimum $5000 balance really costs me $250/yr. You have money tied up, I understand, but where would you place it otherwise, and at what return?  The subject of frequent trading even at zero cost is worth addressing, but not the real subject of your question. So, I'll leave it for elsewhere." Unless you're an active trader, 30 trades per month is a number you'll probably never hit, so you might as well take advantage of the offer while you have it. But don't trade more than you normally would. Discount brokerages make money on the arbitrage between the bid and ask prices on the exchanges (legal as long as you get a price that was available on the open market - they disclose this in the fine print in your account paperwork). So they want you to trade as often as they can get you to. As you say, it's really just a mind game. There is always a cost to doing business with a bank or brokerage. They charge you fees for services and they make money on your deposits while you're not using them. So while it looks like they're paying you interest, which they are, they're not paying you all the interest they've earned using your money. So there's the cost. It was only when interest rates dropped so low that they were starting to feel it, that they started rolling out more overt fees for services. If you'll notice, the conditions that cause the fees to be waived in your account all lead to increased deposits or transactions, either directly or indirectly. If your main concern is the efficiency of your investments, which by your description appear to be rather modest, you should consider dollar-cost averaging (DCA) into a mutual fund (of which there are plenty of high quality no-load/no-fee options around), or into a stock if your brokerage offers a lower-fee DCA program for stocks (where you can often buy partial shares). "The first consideration for the banking part of your portfolio is safety. In the United States that is FDIC protection, or the equivalent for a Credit Union. The second consideration is does it have the level of service you need. For this I mean the location of branches, ATMs, or its online services meet your needs for speed, accuracy, and ability to access or move the money as you need. The rest are then balanced on the extras. For your situation those extras include the ability to make free trades. For other it might be a discount on their mortgage. For others it is free checking.  In your current situation if the first two things are met, and you are using those extra benefits then don't change. For me the free trades wouldn't be a benefit, so any major degradation in the safety and service would cause me to leave. Keep in mind that free services exist to entice you to make a deposit: which they can then make money by lending it out; or they offer a free service to entice you to use a service they can charge you to use. All Free services come with a cost. I earned a completely paltry $3.33 YTD over the last 9 months on my   savings at my bank presumably in exchange for these ""free"" trades. Without knowing how much you had deposited in your savings account there is no way to know how much you could have made at the bank across the street. But with the low rates of the last decade there is not big money to be made off the emergency savings of a typical american family."
"You ask about the difference between credit and debit, but that may be because you're missing something important. Regardless of credit/debit, there is value in carrying two different cards associated with two different accounts. The reason is simply that because of loss, fraud, or your own mismanagement, or even the bank's technical error, any card can become unusable for some period of time. Exactly how long depends what happened, but just sending you a new card can easily take more than one business day, which might well be longer than you'd like to go without access to any funds. In that situation you would be glad of a credit card, and you would equally be glad of a second debit card on a separate account. So if your question is ""I have one bank account with one debit card, and the only options I'm willing to contemplate are (a) do nothing or (b) take a credit card as well"", then the answer is yes, take a credit card as well, regardless of the pros or cons of credit vs debit. Even if you only use the credit card in the event that you drop your debit card down a drain. So what you can now consider is the pros and cons of a credit card vs managing an additional bank account -- unless you seriously hate one or more of the cons of credit cards, the credit card is likely to win. My bank has given me a debit card on a cash savings account, which is a little scary, but would cover most emergencies if I didn't have a credit card too. Of course the interest rate is rubbish and I sometimes empty my savings account into a better investment, so I don't use it as backup, but I could. Your final question ""can a merchant know if I give him number of debit or credit card"" is already asked: Can merchants tell the difference between a credit card and embossed debit card? Yes they can, and yes there are a few things you can't (or might prefer not to) do with debit. The same could even be said of Visa vs. Mastercard, leading to the conclusion that if you have a Visa debit you should look for a Mastercard credit. But that seems to be less of an issue as time goes on and almost everywhere in Europe apparently takes both or neither. If you travel a lot outside the EU then you might want to be loaded down with every card under the sun, and three different kinds of cash, but you'd already know that without asking ;-)" "Consider that there are some low-probability, high-impact risk factors involved with property management. For example, an old house has lead paint and may have illegal modifications, unknown to you, that pose some hazard. All of your ""pros"" are logical, and the cons are relatively minor. Just consult an attorney to look for potential landmines." I'm currently using Halifax. Pros: Cons: I'm might start using TD Waterhouse in future, as they claim to have no admin charge. You need a blog, or a thread of your own. I want to learn about this, and you appear to be quite knowledgeable and thorough in your explanations. Would it be possible for you to make a thread, or reply, or pm explaining some of the pro's and cons of fiat money? that's just it, though - they are splitting up the 1%! and in most cases, especially vanguard, they are splitting up far less.  ETFs don't have 12b-1 fees. explaining why you're experiencing different returns for ETFs will almost certainly involve something other than their expense. again, this is especially true for vanguard. they have the cheapest ETFs around (though i think schwab beats them on a few now).  i can only guess at the full compensation structure. betterment likely earns money on cash reserves and  securities hypothecation (i guess?). they also charge a small fee from what i understand. finance is very slim these days.  i guess i'm wondering what your ultimate question is. if it's the inter corporate compensation structure, above is my best guess. if it's about performance, then we need to compare the ETFs you are looking at. if it's about the fees on funds, i think we covered that!  as an advisor, it's my experience that very specific inquiries about fees have a deeper concern. people hear a lot about being overcharged so cost is a very standard place for clients to initially look when trying to compare performance of portfolios or securities. This image is an advertisement from this week's Barron's. The broker would want to put himself in the best light, correct?  This shows you that of their current accounts, 53.5% are not profitable. And these guys have the best track record of the list. Also keep in mind that their client base isn't random. The winners tend to stay, so even if it were 50/50, the 50% of losers might represent many times that number of people who came to the table, lost their money and left. As one of the answers described, its going to depend on many factors and the environment at the time. But there is no sure way to know which strategy is better, if any are at all. I would say over several hundred years the strategies would be equally as profitable. In a free market the longer dated bonds would be priced lower (higher yield) because they are higher risk. And over a long enough time period that higher risk may end up resulting in that bond being worth less, or maybe nothing at all. In a free market, price discovery would factor all this in, and the two strategies would become equal. The same is true for the price during inversion events Having said that, we dont live in a free market. With central bankers monetizing debt in so many countries, sometimes investing in short term bonds, including US treasuries, is a guaranteed way to lose purchasing power, as these yields are below inflation and sometimes even negative. "Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up ""Failure To Deliver"" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system."