Which kind of investment seems feasible to have more cashflow every week or month?
Over the long run, you can expect to do about as well as the market itself. Depending on what time period you view, the stock market has typically provided returns of approximately 10%. Some years it is up, some years it is down. You may think you can get better returns, but you are mistaken. You may be able to do better over a short time period if you take on vastly more risk, but you won't be able to do so long term. In order to make $2000/month, then, you will need approximately $240,000 to invest. And even then, you won't make that kind of return reliably. Some months, some years, you'll make more. Other times, you'll lose money. If anyone tells you they can double your money in a month (which is what you are hoping for), walk away. Because it is either illegal or a scam. The only way your plan can work is if you are reliably able to predict stocks which will go up by 10% in the next two days. You cannot do this. You can't even predict which stocks will go up by 10% in the next year. Ignoring the wildly unreasonable goal, I'll answer just the Headline question asked. It's possible to choose dividend paying stocks so that you receive a dividend check each month. Dividends are typically paid quarterly, so 3 stocks chosen by quality first, but also for their dividend date will do this. To get $2000/mo or $24,000/yr would only take an investment of $600,000 in stocks that are yielding a 4% dividend. I'll mirror what the others have said in that your expectations for returns are wildly out of line with reality. If you could achieve that with only moderate risk hopefully you can see that you could ladder those returns by re-investing them and become a billionaire in short order. You may have noticed that there are a lot of really financially savvy people who are not billionaires. So the math for your plan falls apart somewhere, obviously. However, in the spirit of being helpful, and with the caveat that super high returns involve super high risk I'll try and point you in the direction where this is theoretically possible, even if the odds would be better buying lottery tickets. One way to get more leverage from your money than just buying stocks is to buy options. With an options strategy your return/loss will be magnified greatly compared to buying stocks. That is, you can lose or gain a much higher multiplier of your original investment. That said, I don't advise doing that with any money that you can't afford to lose every penny of, because you likely will.
"Zero? Ten grand? Somewhere in the middle? It depends. Your stated salary, in U.S. dollars, would be high five-figures (~$88k). You certainly should not be starving, but with decent contributions toward savings and retirement, money can indeed be tight month-to-month at that salary level, especially since even in Cardiff you're probably paying more per square foot for your home than in most U.S. markets (EDIT: actually, 3-bedroom apartments in Cardiff, according to Numbeo, range from £750-850, which is US$1200-$1300, and for that many bedrooms you'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of deal in a good infield neighborhood of the DFW Metro, and good luck getting anywhere close to downtown New York, LA, Miami, Chicago etc for that price. What job do you do, and how are you expected to dress for it? Depending on where you shop and what you buy, a quality dress shirt and dress slacks will cost between US$50-$75 each (assuming real costs are similar for the same brands between US and UK, that's £30-£50 per shirt and pair of pants for quality brands). I maintain about a weeks' wardrobe at this level of dress (my job allows me to wear much cheaper polos and khakis most days and I have about 2 weeks' wardrobe of those) and I typically have to replace due to wear or staining, on average, 2 of these outfits a year (I'm hard on clothes and my waistline is expanding). Adding in 3 ""business casual"" outfits each year, plus casual outfits, shoes, socks, unmentionables and miscellany, call it maybe $600(£400)/year in wardrobe. That doesn't generally get metered out as a monthly allowance (the monthly amount would barely buy a single dress shirt or pair of slacks), but if you're socking away a savings account and buying new clothes to replace old as you can afford them it's a good average. I generally splurge in months when the utilities companies give me a break and when I get ""extra"" paychecks (26/year means two months have 3 checks, effectively giving me a ""free"" check that neither pays the mortgage nor the other major bills). Now, that's just to maintain my own wardrobe at a level of dress that won't get me fired. My wife currently stays home, but when she worked she outspent me, and her work clothes were basic black. To outright replace all the clothes I wear regularly with brand-new stuff off the rack would easily cost a grand, and that's for the average U.S. software dev who doesn't go out and meet other business types on a daily basis. If I needed to show up for work in a suit and tie daily, I'd need a two-week rotation of them, plus dress shirts, and even at the low end of about $350 (£225) per suit, $400 (£275) with dress shirt and tie, for something you won't be embarrassed to wear, we're talking $4000 (£2600) to replace and $800 (£520) per year to update 2 a year, not counting what I wear underneath or on the weekends. And if I wore suits I'd probably have to update the styles more often than that, so just go ahead and double it and I turn over my wardrobe once every 5 years. None of this includes laundering costs, which increase sharply when you're taking suits to the cleaners weekly versus just throwing a bunch of cotton-poly in the washing machine. What hobbies or other entertainment interests do you and your wife have? A movie ticket in the U.S. varies between $7-$15 depending on the size of the screen and 2D vs 3D screenings. My wife and I currently average less than one theater visit a month, but if you took in a flick each weekend with your wife, with a decent $50 dinner out, that's between $260-$420 (£165-270) monthly in entertainment expenses. Not counting babysitting for the little one (the going rate in the US is between $10 and $20 an hour for at-home child-sitting depending on who you hire and for how long, how often). Worst-case, without babysitting that's less than 5% of your gross income, but possibly more than 10% of your take-home depending on UK effective income tax rates (your marginal rate is 40% according to the HMRC, unless you find a way to deduct about £30k of your income). That's just the traditional American date night, which is just one possible interest. Playing organized sports is more or less expensive depending on the sport. Soccer (sorry, football) just needs a well-kept field, two goals and and a ball. Golf, while not really needing much more when you say it that way, can cost thousands of dollars or pounds a month to play with the best equipment at the best courses. Hockey requires head-to-toe padding/armor, skates, sticks, and ice time. American football typically isn't an amateur sport for adults and has virtually no audience in Europe, but in the right places in the U.S., beginning in just a couple years you'd be kitting your son out head-to-toe not dissimilar to hockey (minus sticks) and at a similar cost, and would keep that up at least halfway through high school. I've played them all at varying amateur levels, and with the possible exception of soccer they all get expensive when you really get interested in them. How much do you eat, and of what?. My family of three's monthly grocery budget is about $300-$400 (£190-£260) depending on what we buy and how we buy it. Americans have big refrigerators (often more than one; there's three in my house of varying sizes), we buy in bulk as needed every week to two weeks, we refrigerate or freeze a lot of what we buy, and we eat and drink a lot of high-fructose corn-syrup-based crap that's excise-taxed into non-existence in most other countries. I don't have real-world experience living and grocery-shopping in Europe, but I do know that most shopping is done more often, in smaller quantities, and for more real food. You might expect to spend £325 ($500) or more monthly, in fits and starts every few days, but as I said you'd probably know better than me what you're buying and what it's costing. To educate myself, I went to mysupermarket.co.uk, which has what I assume are typical UK food prices (mostly from Tesco), and it's a real eye-opener. In the U.S., alcohol is much more expensive for equal volume than almost any other drink except designer coffee and energy drinks, and we refrigerate the heck out of everything anyway, so a low-budget food approach in the U.S. generally means nixing beer and wine in favor of milk, fruit juices, sodas and Kool-Aid (or just plain ol' tap water). A quick search on MySupermarkets shows that wine prices average a little cheaper, accounting for the exchange rate, as in the States (that varies widely even in the U.S., as local and state taxes for beer, wine and spirits all differ). Beer is similarly slightly cheaper across the board, especially for brands local to the British Isles (and even the Coors Lite crap we're apparently shipping over to you is more expensive here than there), but in contrast, milk by the gallon (4L) seems to be virtually unheard of in the UK, and your half-gallon/2-liter jugs are just a few pence cheaper than our going rate for a gallon (unless you buy ""organic"" in the US, which carries about a 100% markup). Juices are also about double the price depending on what you're buying (a quart of ""Innocent"" OJ, roughly equivalent in presentation to the U.S. brand ""Simply Orange"", is £3 while Simply Orange is about the same price in USD for 2 quarts), and U.S.-brand ""fizzy drinks"" are similarly at a premium (£1.98 - over $3 - for a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola). With the general preference for room-temperature alcohol in Europe giving a big advantage to the longer unrefrigerated shelf lives of beer and wine, I'm going to guess you guys drink more alcohol and water with dinner than Americans. Beef is cheaper in the U.S., depending on where you are and what you're buying; prices for store-brand ground beef (you guys call it ""minced"") of the grade we'd use for hamburgers and sauces is about £6 per kilo in the UK, which works out to about $4.20/lb, when we're paying closer to $3/lb in most cities. I actually can't remember the last time I bought fresh chicken on the bone, but the average price I'm seeing in the UK is £10/kg ($7/lb) which sounds pretty steep. Anyway, it sounds like shopping for American tastes in the UK would cost, on average, between 25-30% more than here in the US, so applying that to my own family's food budget, you could easily justify spending £335 a month on food." "Both models understand that the value of a company is the sum total of all cashflows in the future, discounted back to the present. They vary in their definition of ""cash"". The Gordon Growth model uses dividends as a proxy for cashflow, under the assumption that this is the only true cash received by shareholders. (In theory, counting cash is meaningless if there's no eventual end-game where the accumulated cash is divvied up amongst the owners.) The Gordon model is best used to value companies that have an established, reliable dividend. The company should be stable, and the payout ratio high. GG will underestimate the value of firms that consistently maintain a low payout ratio, and instead accumulate cash. There are multiple DCF models. A firm valuation measures all cash available to both equity and debt holders. A traditional equity valuation measures all cash that can be claimed by shareholders. While the latter seems most intuitive and pertinent to a shareholder, the former is very good at showing what a company can do regardless of their choice of capital structure. A small add-on to a firm valuation is the concept of EVA, or economic value add, where the return on capital (all capital -- both debt and equity) is compared to the blended cost of capital. The DCF model is more flexible (optimistic?) than the Gordon in its approach to cash. The approach can be applied to many types of companies, at every stage in their maturity, even if they don't pay a dividend. A simplistic, or single-stage DCF is similar to the Gordon. The assumption is that the company is fully mature, growing at a rate perhaps just slightly above inflation, forever. For younger companies a multi-stage DCF can be employed, where you forecast fairly confident numbers for the next 3-5 years, then 3-5 years beyond that the forecast is less certain, but assumed to be slowing growth, and a generally maturing, stabilizing company. And then the steady-state stage is tacked on to the end. You'll want to check out Professor Aswath Damodaran's website: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ . He addresses all this and so much more, and has a big pile of spreadsheets freely downloadable to get you started. I also highly recommend his book ""Investment Valuation"". It's the bible on the topic." "Sorry in advance, but this will be long.  Also, it sounds like your friend is a tool. I hope this ""friend"" is not also your financial advisor... they would be encouraging you to make a very poor investment decision. They also don't know how to do financial math.  For what it's worth, I am not wrong. I have correctly answered a set of changing questions as you have asked them... Your friend is answering based on a third, completely different investment model, which you proposed in the edit to your last post. If that's what you meant all along, then you should have been more clear in the questions you were asking.  Please let me layout the following: How the previous questions//investment proposals were built How to analyze this current proposal What your other option is Why the other option is best in a 'real world' market The First Question My understanding of the initial proposal was to take out a $10,000 loan, invest the proceeds, and expect to not have any money of your own tied up in this. Because that OP did not specify that this is an interest-only loan (you still haven't in any of your questions), the bank will require you to make payments back to them each month that include principal and interest.  Your ""friend"" is talking about the total interest paid being the only cost of a loan. While that is (almost) true, regardless of what your friend says, significantly more cash is involved in making sure that all the payments are made on time---unless you set up an interest-only loan. But with the set up laid out in this post, and with the assumptions I specified there, the principal payments must be included because the borrower has to pay back the bank and isn't not tying up any of their own money.  In that case, my initial analysis is correct--your breakeven is in the low teens for an annual required return.  The Second Proposal Your second proposal... before any edits... refined things a little bit, to try to capture the any possible returns by not selling something. As I indicated there, (with what was an exaggerating assumption), the lack of clarity makes for an outlandish required return.  The Second Proposal...with edits, or the one proposed above I will get to the one proposed above in a second, but first let me highlight a few problems with your friend's analysis.  Simple interest: the only place (in the US at least) that will lend with simple interest is student loans. Any loan that you actually take out will be compound interest.  Not an interest only loan: your ""friend"" is not calculating interest correctly. Since this isn't an interest-only loan, the principal balance will reduce every time you make a payment, by ~$320-$340 each month. This substantially reduces the total interest paid, to $272.79 over the total 24 months.  ""Returns"": I don't know what country, or what business your friend works in, but ""returns"" are a very ambiguous concept. Investopedia defines returns as gains or losses. (I wish I could inhabit the lala land that your friend lives in when returns are always positive). TheFreeDictionary.com defines a return for finance as ""The change in the value of a portfolio over an evaluation period, including any distributions made from the portfolio during that period.""  When you have not made it clear that any other money is being used in this investment plan (as was the case in scheme #1 and scheme #2a,) the loan still has to be paid. So, clearly the principal must be included in the return calculations.  How to evaluate this proposed investment scheme Key dimensions: Loan ($8,000 ... 24 months ... 0.27% monthly rate... monthly compounding... no loan origination fees) Monthly payment (PMT in Excel yields $344.70). Investment capital (starting = $8,000) Monthly Return (Investment yields... we hope it's positive!)  Your monthly contribution from your salary Taxes = 10%. Transaction Fees = $20  Go and lookup how to build an amortization table for a loan in Excel. Your life will be infinitely better for it.  Now, you get this loan set up and invested into something... (it costs $20 to buy the assets).  So you've got $7980 chugging away earning interest. I calculate that your break even, with you paying in $344.70 of your own money each month is 1.81% annually, or 3.42% over the 24 month life of this scheme. That is using monthly compound interest for the payments, because that's what the real world would use, and using monthly compounding of the investments' returns.  Your total interest expense would be $272.79.  This seems feasible. But let's talk about what your other option is, given that you're ready to spend $344.70 each month on an investment.  Your other option  I understand the appeal of getting $8,000... right away... to invest in something. But the risk behind this is that if the market goes down (and markets do) you're stuck paying a fixed amount for your loan that is now worth less money.  Your other option is to take your $344.70, and invest it step-by-step. (You would want to skip a month or two buying assets in the market, so that you can lessen transaction costs). This has two advantages: (1) you save yourself $272 in interest. (2) When the market goes down, you still win.  With this strategy, you still win when the market goes down because of what is commonly called ""dollar cost averaging"". When the market is up, your investments are also up. When the market goes down, your previous investments decrease in value but you can invest new money at the lower rates.  Why the step-by-step, invest your own money strategy is better At low rates (when you're looking for your break-even), the step-by-step model outperforms the loan. At higher rates of return (~4% + per year), you get the benefit of having the borrowed money earning more gains.  In fact, for every continuous (meaning set... not changing month-to-month) interest rate that you can dream up that is greater than about 4% per year, the borrowed money earns more.  At 10% per year, the borrowed money will earn about $500 more over the 2 years than your step by step investment would.  BUT I recognize that you might feel like the market will always go up. That's what everyone thinks. And that's alright.  But have one really bad month, or a couple of just-not-great-months, and your fixed 'loan' portfolio will underperform. Have a few really bad months, and your portfolio could be substantially reduced in value... but you would still be paying the same amount for it each month.  And if that happened (say your assets declined -3% in 3 of the 24 months...) You'd be losing money relative to the step-by-step portfolio." "Now store the money in -- okay here, think about a realistic worst case scenario.  Not zombie attack or meteor mega-strike, but the kinds  in which you are not entirely helpless: job loss stacked on top of the worst recession since the Great Depression, along with credit drying up so you can't just borrow your way through the hard times.   Store the money in an account and investment which is  relatively liquid, meaning you could extract cash value from it fairly easily in a worst case scneario.  Safe -- essentially impossible to lose significant value in a worst case scenario.  (or, you only count the part of its value that's sure to be there in a worst case.) If you're much too cool for an emergency fund, then sorry to waste your valuable time!    For the rest of us, it's a planning tool.   Even dot-coms do this: it's called a ""burn-rate"" and they know exactly how many more weeks their VC can fund operations.    Of course in practicality, it may not go to X months of routine expenses. Most of it may get burned up in month 2 on a new transmission.  You can't really predict this stuff, the ""X month"" paradigm is just an arm-wave.   For the financially uneducated, it's also a training tool.   In the US, school does not provide financial education.  Most people get financial habits from their parents, and like most family lessons, they are deeply emotionally wired, even if they are unconscious of that fact.  For instance, some people don't ask for the salaries they deserve, and spend lavishly until the checkbook is zero - they literally push money away.  Suffice it to say, it's a challenge to get some people to even realize that savings is a thing, when they have never in their whole lives been able to hold onto more than $20 for more than a week. The concept of an emergency fund is a sellable way to break through that ""I can't save"" mental-block. So I can see where you might think the emergency fund is greasy kidstuff.   Fair.  But it's not just that, it's also a very practical planning tool." If you can generate a higher ROI by renting than by cashing out and investing, then you should rent it out. Please consider your risk tolerance as well. It's always a personal decision whether to assume higher risk for a higher return. In that case, forget this whole pot shop and look into buying some REITs (Real estate investment trusts).  Or invest in QCLN, a ETF that invests in companies that produce and distribute green energy.   You're looking for a get rich quick scheme, not a solid investment. You don't even have any money. You can't afford to lose $92,000 when you have $0. The following advice assumes that you have a significant amount already in the account in cash equivalents. If you are only talking a few hundred bucks or so, then just jump in at the next dip (like today's). If you have a larger amount to move into equities, the safest approach is to gradually move it into investments over some period of time at regular intervals regardless of what is going on in the market. This mitigates the risk of investing it all into an fund that is peaking at the exact moment you buy.  So, for example, you might invest 20% of the total amount each month for 5 months to gradually get into the market. The larger the amount you are investing, the more you probably want to spread it out, but don't spread it out much further than a year or you are losing opportunity cost by leaving your money in cash-type investments with likely a very poor rate of return. This strategy is called dollar-cost averaging if you want to research it more. "There are no risk-free high-liquidity instruments that pay a significant amount of interest.  There are some money-market accounts around that pay 1%-2%, but they often have minimum balance or transaction limits.   Even if you could get 3%, on a $4K balance that would be $120 per year, or $10 per month.  You can do much better than that by just going to $tarbucks two less times per month (or whatever you can cut from your expenses) and putting that into the savings account. Or work a few extra hours and increase your income. I appreciate the desire to ""maximize"" the return on your money, but in reality increasing income and reducing expenses have a much greater impact until you build up significant savings and are able to absorb more risk.  Emergency funds should be highly liquid and risk-free, so traditional investments aren't appropriate vehicles for them."