Why would a long-term investor ever chose a Mutual Fund over an ETF?
First, it's not always the case that ETFs have lower expenses than the equivalent mutual funds.  For example, in the Vanguard family of funds the expense ratio for the ETF version is the same as it is for the Admiral share class in the mutual fund version.  With that in mind, the main advantages of a mutual fund over an equivalent ETF are: From a long-term investor's point of view, the main disadvantage of mutual funds relative to ETFs is the minimum account sizes.  Especially if the fund has multiple share classes (i.e., where better classes get lower expense ratios), you might have to have quite a lot of money invested in the fund in order to get the same expense ratio as the ETF.   There are some other differences that matter to more active investors (e.g., intraday trading, options, etc.), but for a passive investor the ones above are the major ones.  Apart from those mutual funds and ETFs are pretty similar.  Personally, I prefer mutual funds because I'm at a point where the fund minimums aren't really an issue, and I don't want to deal with the more fiddly aspects of ETFs. For investors just starting out the lower minimum investment for an ETF is a big win, as long as you can get commission-free trades (which is what I've assumed above.) I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative. http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker. There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF.  In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example).  In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax.  In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out.  In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund.  Not a ton in either case.  The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.
"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a ""tax-free"" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's ""pay now or pay later."" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price." First of all kudos to you for seeing the value in saving at a young age. There are several different things you can mean by this and I'm not sure which is accurate so I am going to address the first two that I thought of. If you are selling your investments because you need the money (emergency expenses, saved enough for a short term goal, whatever the reason) then this may not be the best solution for your savings.  Investing in mutual funds, ETFs, stocks, 401k, IRA, etc are typically for longer term goals such as a goal that is 10+ years away (maybe buying a home, paying for college for your children, retirement, etc). If you are selling your investments because you believe that another investment is performing better and you want to get in on that one instead what I would suggest is leaving the money you have invested where it is and starting future investments in the new fund/ETF you are interested in.  For example if you have $2000 invested in fund X and now you do some research and fund Q looks more appealing that is great, start investing in fund Q with your next deposit.  Any research you do will be based on past results, there is nothing that guarantees that fund Q will continue doing better than the fund X you already have.  Trying to time the market rarely ends well for the investor. I would encourage you to continue saving money a bit at a time just like you have been doing.  Avoid selling your investments until it is time to sell them for whatever goal you intended them for.  Set aside some cash to cover any unexpected expenses so you won't have to sell your investments to cover the costs, even at 18 unplanned things happen. People that argue for an FTT, whether they know it or not, are directly advocating for savers to have reduced stock market returns, making it even harder to save for retirement.  Make no mistake - a financial transactions tax would disproportionately hurt middle class savers the most.  In almost every article I see advocating an FTT, the authors have a profound misunderstanding about how financial markets work.  They focus on jealousy politics (target the rich!) and dismiss the hugely detrimental effects on the market as obscure academic objections.  FFTs impose a DIRECT cost on ALL investors in four major ways: (1) larger bid/ask spreads, (2) higher volatility, (3) reduced capital mobility, and obviously (4) the tax itself.  All of these things are BAD for any investor.  Advocates for FFT essentially want the stock market to be less efficient.  Even investors that make NO trades during the year will see the returns drop on their ETFs, mutual funds, index funds, that they are accumulating for retirement.  Why?  Institutional funds (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc) churn billions of dollars during the normal course of business handling buy/sell orders, portfolio rebalancing, unit creation/elimination.  Increased bid/ask spreads make these transactions more expensive, higher volatility makes them more risky, reduced capital mobility reduces volumes available to trade, and the tax adds to the cost.  All of these effects show up as reduced returns on a typical fund.  Vanguard put the reduced returns on the order of 1% depending on fund style - in other words, hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost savings compounded over a middle class working career.  For a middle class saver, that could mean the difference between retiring at a reasonable age or never being able to retire!  But don't take my word on it.  [There are an extensive number of studies and statements from both academia and industry on this subject, all saying the same thing.](https://modernmarketsinitiative.org/topics/ftt/)  When Vanguard says an FTT will hurt investors, people should listen.  Vanguard is perhaps the most consumer friendly investment firm in history, single-handedly responsible for bringing investing costs down near zero.  They have done more for middle class investors than virtually any other firm. "The problem with daily-rebalanced ""inverse"" or ""leveraged"" ETFs is that since they rebalance every day, you can lose money even if your guess as to the market's direction is correct. Quoting from FINRA'S guide as to why these are a bad idea: How can this apparent breakdown between longer term index returns and ETF returns happen? Here’s a hypothetical example: let’s say that on Day 1, an index starts with a value of 100 and a leveraged ETF that seeks to double the return of the index starts at $100. If the index drops by 10 points on Day 1, it has a 10 percent loss and a resulting value of 90. Assuming it achieved its stated objective, the leveraged ETF would therefore drop 20 percent on that day and have an ending value of $80. On Day 2, if the index rises 10 percent, the index value increases to 99. For the ETF, its value for Day 2 would rise by 20 percent, which means the ETF would have a value of $96. On both days, the leveraged ETF did exactly what it was supposed to do—it produced daily returns that were two times the daily index returns. But let’s look at the results over the 2 day period: the index lost 1 percent (it fell from 100 to 99) while the 2x leveraged ETF lost 4 percent (it fell from $100 to $96). That means that over the two day period, the ETF's negative returns were 4 times as much as the two-day return of the index instead of 2 times the return. That example is for ""just"" leveraging 2x in the same direction. Inverse funds have the same kind of issue. An example from Bogleheads Wiki page on these kinds of funds says that over 12/31/2007 to 12/31/2010, The funds do exactly what they say on any given day. But any losses get ""locked in"" each day. While normally a 50% loss needs a 100% gain to get back to a starting point, a fund like this needs more than a 100% gain to get back to its starting point. The result of these funds across multiple days doesn't match the index it's matching over those several days, and you won't make money over the long term. Do look at the further examples at the links I've referenced above, or do your own research into the performance of these funds during time periods both when the market is going up and going down. Also refer to these related and/or duplicate questions:" ETrade allows this without fees (when investing into one of the No-Load/No-Fees funds from their list). The Sharebuilder plan is better when investing into ETF's or stocks, not for mutual funds, their choice (of no-fees funds) is rather limited on Sharebuilder. "What does ETFs have to do with this or Amazon?   Actually, investing in ETFs means you are killing actively managed Mutual Funds (managed by people, fund managers) to get an average return (and loss) of the market that a computer manage instead of a person. And the ETF will surely have Amazon stocks because they are part of the index.  I only invest in actively managed mutual funds. Yes, most actively managed mutual funds can't do better than the index, but if you work a bit harder, you can find the many that do much better than the ""average"" that an index give you." The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way.  In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets.  This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year.  The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover.  The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market.  This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares. "A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an   average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly.  The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity.  It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity.  This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh.  Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund   in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically   bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question.  Bond prices today reflect what ""people"" are willing to pay for them.  Those ""people"" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them.  If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that.  (aka ""Don't fight the Fed"").  My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-)  This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general.  The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent."