How much does taking a Microeconomics course help you understand the field of investing?
Not much at all, especially an introductory level Microeconomics class. There are a few reasons for this: That's not to say that Economics isn't worth studying. I loved both my Micro and Macro class. But I probably got more useful investing knowledge from a class on linear regression.
"I hope people don’t see this as being facetious but invest some time in learning to do that with Excel. Most financial information websites (Yahoo, MSN, etc.) will allow you to extract all the data you need into excel. This way you can learn to do analysis with something that isn’t a ""black box"" (as to mean you don’t know the exact equations behind the outputs) whereas with excel you can delve into and really understand the equations behind the numbers you are looking at. If you use Bloomberg it does all that for you but if you are just starting out you may not truly understand what it means and how everything is connected. If you create the same with excel you have no choice but to deeply understand because you built it from scratch! I'm certian there are plenty of tutorials to help you out there as every analyst who has worked in finance since the advent of excel has had to create these at one time or another. Good luck!" One of the best things you can do for this purpose, while getting a modest ROI on a passive investment, is invest in a company that profitably does whatever you want to see more of. For example, you could invest in a for-profit company that sells needed goods to low-income people at lower prices.  Something like Wal-Mart, which is one of the most effective anti-poverty engines in the US.  You might also say the same of something like Aldi (owner of Aldi stores and Trader Joe's), which is a discount store chain.  This is true even though a company like Wal-Mart is seeking to make money first.  Its customer base tends to skew heavily towards low-income consumers, and historically to rural and elderly consumers.  When Wal-Mart is able to provide food, clothing, appliances and the like to poor people at a lower cost, it is making it marginally less painful to have a low income. Peter Suderman can explain why Wal-Mart is a humanitarian enterprise: Walmart’s customer base is heavily concentrated in the bottom income quintile, which spends heavily on food. The bottom income quintile spends about 25 percent of income on food compared to just 3.5 percent for the top quintile. So the benefits of Walmart’s substantially lower prices to the lowest earning cohort are huge, especially on food. As Suderman points out, this view of Wal-Mart dramatically lowering prices that low-income people pay for food was corroborated by an Obama adviser. That's just one company.  You can pick the industry and company that best suits your personal preferences. Alternatively, you could invest in something like Whole Foods, a company with multiple missions to improve the planet and the community, in addition to the more typical mission of being a prosperous retail chain. Of course, as a general proposition, a less than entirely altruistic, charity-inclined investment doesn't need to be targeted at those with low incomes or at saving the planet.  You could invest in almost anything you think is good (yachts, yo-yos, violins, energy production, industrial inputs, music performances) and the company will take care of making more of that good thing.  You didn't say whether your goal was to help the poor, the planet, arts, sciences, knowledge, community, or whatever. What I understand you to be saying is you are willing to accept a lower ROI in exchange for some warm-fuzzies from your investment.  That seems perfectly valid and reasonable to me, but it makes it much more subjective and particular to your tastes.  So you'll need to pick something that's meaningful to you.  If you're going to trade ROI for positive feelings, then you should pick whatever gives you your optimal blend of emotions and returns. Alternatively, you could invest in something stable and predictable to beat inflation (some sort of index or fund) and then annually use some portion of those profits to simply give to the charity of your choice.  Your investment and your charity do not necessarily need to be the same vehicle. It is true that this is possible, however, it's very remote in the case of the large and reputable fund companies such as Vanguard. FDIC insurance protects against precisely this for bank accounts, but mutual funds and ETFs do not have an equivalent to FDIC insurance. One thing that does help you in the case of a mutual fund or ETF is that you indirectly (through the fund) own actual assets. In a cash account at a bank, you have a promise from the bank to pay, and then the bank can go off and use your money to make loans. You don't in any sense own the bank's loans. With a fund, the fund company cannot (legally) take your money out of the fund, except to pay the expense ratio. They have to use your money to buy stocks, bonds, or whatever the fund invests in. Those assets are then owned by the fund. Legally, a mutual fund is a special kind of company defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, and is a separate company from the investment advisor (such as Vanguard): http://www.sec.gov/answers/mfinvco.htm Funds have their own boards, and in principle a fund board can even fire the company advising the fund, though this is not likely since boards aren't usually independent. (a quick google found this article for more, maybe someone can find a better one: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mutual-fund-independent-board-rule-all-but-dead) If Vanguard goes under, the funds could continue to exist and get a new adviser, or could be liquidated with investors receiving whatever the assets are worth. Of course, all this legal stuff doesn't help you with outright fraud. If a fund's adviser says it bought the S&P 500, but really some guy bought himself a yacht, Madoff-style, then you have a problem. But a huge well-known ETF has auditors, tons of different employees, lots of brokerage and exchange traffic, etc. so to me at least it's tough to imagine a risk here. With a small fund company with just a few people - and there are lots of these! - then there's more risk, and you'd want to carefully look at what independent agent holds their assets, who their auditors are, and so forth. With regular mutual funds (not ETFs) there are more issues with diversifying across fund companies: With ETFs, there probably isn't much downside to diversifying since you could buy them all from one brokerage account. Maybe it even happens naturally if you pick the best ETFs you can find. Personally, I would just pick the best ETFs and not worry about advisor diversity. Update: maybe also deserving a mention are exchange-traded notes (ETNs). An ETN's legal structure is more like the bank account, minus the FDIC insurance of course. It's an IOU from the company that runs the ETN, where they promise to pay back the value of some index. There's no investment company as with a fund, and therefore you don't own a share of any actual assets. If the ETN's sponsor went bankrupt, you would indeed have a problem, much more so than if an ETF's sponsor went bankrupt. We have a lot of debt - at this point I don't even know how much This is your problem. Find out, and while you're at it find out how much income you have and also what your total expenditures are. You seem to be facing up to the problem, but not looking it in the eyes. You just need to take some time, and a little bravery, to get all your financial documentation together and lay it all out so you know what your situation actually is. Its not hard to do this, get a box and put all (old) bills and statements in that you can find, and at the end of a month, pick them out and write down the totals. Then work out your income and all that you've spent that month. This is known as a Statement of Affairs and there are calculators to help you. Then you can work out how much you need to pay off, and how much spare money you have to do this with. You can also start to cut down on all the really unnecessary stuff to increase your spare money that you can use to pay off the debts. Hopefully this won't take too long, and you can easily (if boringly) work the debt off over time. If it really is unsurmountable there are things you can do to help - firstly contacting your creditors and seeing what they can do to either part write off the debt, or freeze it as you pay it off (most creditors understand that if you're desperate enough to talk to them (!) then they may not see any of their debt back and are at least willing to help you pay them back). Generally though, it sounds like you are not in a total mess as you can pay it off. There are people in far worse states than you! But you really do need to be fully aware of your financial situation. Sit down and 'count your money' one lazy Sunday. There are links to help. Try the Motley Fool's guide, and its dealing with debt forum, both of which are very practical (if UK based, the Fool has a US site too, see for yourself if there's the same stuff on it, but this kind of thing tends to be fundamental to people of all nations). &gt; A CFA is getting common but it might help - it probably won't hurt at least.  MS and MBA's are dime a dozen compared to CFA's.  If you want to move into trading/research/port mgmt, a CFA is as desired (and allows better networking opportunities via CFA societies) than a MS.  Other than that, I will second the majority of what you said. "(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...) I don't know about a very convincing ""tl;dr"" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish.  They are: The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein, and A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time Tested-Strategy for Successful Investing by Burton G. Malkiel Berstein's book really drives home the fact that adding some amount of a risky asset class to a portfolio can actually reduce overall portfolio risk. Some folks won a Nobel Prize for coming up with this modern portfolio theory stuff. If your friend is truly risk-averse, he can't afford not to diversify.  The single asset class he's focusing on certainly has risks, most likely inflation / purchasing power risk ... and that risk that could be reduced by including some percentage of other assets to compensate, even small amounts. Perhaps the issue is one of psychology? Many people can't stomach the ups-and-downs of the stock market.  Bernstein's also-excellent follow-up book, The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio, specifically addresses psychology as one of the pillars." Some economist please ELI5 what I’m missing here. In the equities market, it is considered an economic benefit when exchanges settle trades in smaller increments. When we went from eighths to decimal, for example. How is that direction into smaller divisible units different from facilitating trade with pennies for economic goods? try over in /r/personalfinance  Economics is about understanding the economy and how it works. Investing is about taking your money and putting it somewhere useful. They're related; but what you want probably isn't economy-wide advice, but specific individual options.  FYI, they'll recommend you get into some index fund to start; one that just tracks a big index like the Dow Jones, Nasdaq, or S&amp;P 500. These help diversify your risk and tend to offer good returns. But, a lot depends on what your personal situation entails, so head on over there and read their FAQ.