What are some valuable sources for investment experience, when there is very little to no money to start with?
Fake stock market trading may teach you about trading, which isn't necessarily the same thing as investing. I think you need to understand how things work and how to read financial news and statistics before you start trading. Otherwise, you're just going to get frustrated when you mysteriously win and lose funny money. I'd suggest a few things: Also, don't get into individual stocks until you have at least $5k to invest -- focus on saving and use ETFs or mutual funds. You should always invest in around a half dozen diversified stocks at a time, and doing that with less than $1,000 a stock will make it impossible to trade and make money -- If a $100 stock position goes up 20%, you haven't cleared enough to pay your brokerage fees. "One way to start with stocks is by playing the fake stock market.  Investigate what trading fees would be with a broker, then ""invest"" a certain amount of money - note it on paper or in a spreadsheet.  Follow your stocks, make decisions on selling and buying, and see where you would be after a year or so.  That way you can get an idea, even if not exactly precise, on what your returns would be if you really invested the money."
"In my experience, Shiller is always way before his time with his predictions and often it comes at too early a point for anyone actually making some money to care about. His view is very long term - and I trust his predictions, because he so accurately predicted so many of the homepocalypse, and the measures that would follow. He even predicted that there would be bailouts in his book ""Irrational Exuberance"".  His opinons were poo-poo'd as doom and gloom and manipulative until every piece started falling apart in the specific order of events (give or take) that they did.  I personally think people like Dr. Shiller make bold predictions that are hard to swallow. The derivatives market is a bit skittish about rolling into bull territory with any kind of housing index, but Warren Buffet's old adage to ""buy when everyone is selling and sell when everyone is buying."" (paraphrase). I see this as a good long-term investment because I trust Shiller's judgement, he stuck to his guns when the doubts were lobbed at him incessantly  (and Krugman, et. al. to some extent), and he turned out to be more than vindicated.  To me, these kinds of sources are usually pretty sound. The man knows what he's talking about, and I wouldn't mind picking up a piece of that action, especially if the market just doesn't trust any real estate investments. It's pretty easy to realize that right now housing will be undervalued and now that mortgage applications are (supposedly) stricter, I think there's a good argument to be made that this economist should continue to exceed expectations." So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of   compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock   market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds! "It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what ""the market"" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is ""earnings per share"", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the ""price-earnings ratio"" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected ""yield"" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets.  Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a ""book value"" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers." "Kudos for wanting to start your own business.  Now let's talk reality. Unless you already have some kind of substantial track record of successful investing to show potential investors, what you want to do will never happen, and that's just giving you the honest truth. There are extensive regulatory requirements for starting any kind of public investment vehicle, and meeting them costs money.  You can be your own hedge fund with your own money and avoid all of this if you like.  Keep in mind that a ""hedge fund"" is little more than someone who is contrarian to the market and puts their money where their mouth is.  (I know, some of you will argue this is simplistic, and you'd be right, but I'm deliberately avoiding complexity for the moment) The simple truth is that nobody is going to just give you their money to invest unless, for starters, you can show that you're any good at it (and for the sake of it we'll assume you've had success in the markets), and (perhaps most importantly) you have ""skin in the game"", meaning you have a substantial investment of your own in the fund too.   You might have a chance at creating something if you can show that whatever your hedge fund proposes to invest in isn't already overrun by other hedge funds.  At the moment, there are more mutual and hedge funds out there than there are securities for them to invest in, so they're basically all fighting over the same pie.  You must have some fairly unique opportunity or approach that nobody else has or has even considered in order to begin attracting money to a new fund these days.  And that's not easy, trust me. There is no short or easy path to what you want to do, and perhaps if you want to toy around with it a bit, find some friends who are willing to invest based on your advice and/or picks.  If you develop a track record of success then perhaps you could more seriously consider doing what you propose, and in the meanwhile you can look into the requirements for laying the foundations toward your goal. I hope you don't find my answer cruel, because it isn't meant to be.  I am all about encouraging people to succeed, but it has to start with a realistic expectation.  You have a great thought, but there's a wide gulf from concept to market and no quick or simple way to bridge it. Here's a link to a web video on how to start your own hedge fund, if you want to look into it more deeply: How To Legally Start A Hedge Fund (From the Investopedia website) Good luck!" First: it sounds like you are already making wise choices with your cash surplus. You've looked for ways to keep that growing ahead of inflation and you have made use of tax shelters. So for the rest of this answer I am going to assume you have between 3-6 months expenses already saved up as a “rainy day fund” and you're ready for more sophisticated approaches to growing your funds. To answer this part: Are there any other ways that I can save/ invest that I am not currently doing? Yes, you could look at, for example: 1. Peer to peer These services let you lend to a 'basket' of borrowers and receive a return on your money that is typically higher than what's offered in cash savings accounts. Examples of peer to peer networks are Zopa, Ratesetter and FundingCircle. This involves taking some risks with your money – Zopa's lending section explains the risks. 2. Structured deposits These are a type of cash deposit product where, in return for locking your money away for a time (typically 5 years), you get the opportunity for higher returns e.g. 5% + / year. Your deposit is usually guaranteed under the FSCS (Financial services compensation scheme), however, the returns are dependent on the performance of a stock market index such as the FTSE 100 being higher in x years from now. Also, structured deposits usually require a minimum £3,000 investment. 3. Index funds You mention watching the stock prices of a few companies. I agree with your conclusion – I wouldn't suggest trying to choose individual stocks at this stage. Price history is a poor predictor of future performance, and markets can be volatile. To decide if a stock is worth buying you need to understand the fundamentals, be able to assess the current stock price and future outlook, and be comfortable accepting a range of different risks (including currency and geographic risk). If you buy shares in a small number of companies, you are concentrating your risk (especially if they have things in common with each other). Index funds, while they do carry risks, let you pool your money with other investors to buy shares in a 'basket' of stocks to replicate the movement of an index such as the FTSE All Share. The basket-of-stocks approach at least gives you some built-in diversification against the risks of individual stocks. I suggest index funds (as opposed to actively managed funds, where you pay a management fee to have your investments chosen by a professional who tries to beat the market) because they are low cost and easier to understand. An example of a very low cost index fund is this FTSE All Share tracker from Aberdeen, on the Hargreaves Lansdown platform: http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/a/aberdeen-foundation-growth-accumulation General principle on investing in stock market based index funds: You should always invest with a 5+ year time horizon. This is because prices can move up and down for reasons beyond your anticipation or control (volatility). Time can smooth out volatility; generally, the longer the time period, the greater your likelihood of achieving a positive return. I hope this answer so far helps takes into account the excess funds. So… to answer the second part of your question:  Or would it be best to start using any excess funds […] to pay off my student loan quicker? Your student loan is currently costing you 0.9% interest per annum. At this rate it's lower than the last 10 years average inflation. One argument: if you repay your student loan this is effectively a 0.9% guaranteed return on every pound repaid – This is the equivalent of 1.125% on a cash savings account if you're paying basic rate tax on the interest. An opposing argument: 0.9% is lower than the last 10 years' average inflation in the UK. There are so many advantages to making a start with growing your money for the long term, due to the effects of compound returns, that you might choose to defer your loan repayments for a while and focus on building up some investments that stand a chance to beat inflation in the long term. "Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career.  $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want.  $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google ""Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio"", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses.  If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin" At this stage of the game your best investment is yourself. Rather than putting it in stocks, use any spare money you have to get yourself the best education you can. See if you can drop that part-time job and give yourself more time to study. Or maybe you can go to a better, more expensive college. Or maybe college will give you some opportunity to travel and learn more that way. You don't want to exclude yourself from those opportunities by not having enough spare cash. So in short, spend what you need to get yourself the best education you can, and keep any spare money you have somewhere you can use it to take advantage of any opportunities that come your way. Real estate investment is a proven creator of wealth.  Check into the history of the rich and you will find real estate investment. Starting your investment in multi-family is a great idea.  It is a good way to gain experience in real estate while exponentially increasing cash flow. If you turn the properties over to a reputable property management company, your cash flow will be a little less but so will your headaches. (Expect to pay 8 - 10% of gross income.) You could start investing now by looking into discounted real estate such as foreclosures, tax sales, short sales etc while the market is still depressed.  This way your return on investment should be higher. From there you could expand into land development (i.e. subdivision) or commercial investments. Commercial properties with triple net leases can be a great low-stress investment opportunity (but they take more cash upfront). Attending some local real estate investment classes would be a great idea for starters.