Are mutual funds a good choice for a medium to low risk investment with a two year horizon?
"First, you don't state where you are and this is a rather global site.  There are people from Canada, US, and many other countries here so ""mutual funds"" that mean one thing to you may be a bit different for someone in a foreign country for one point.  Thanks for stating that point in a tag. Second, mutual funds are merely a type of investment vehicle, there is something to be said for what is in the fund which could be an investment company, trust or a few other possibilities.  Within North America there are money market mutual funds, bond mutual funds, stock mutual funds, mutual funds of other mutual funds and funds that are a combination of any and all of the former choices.  Thus, something like a money market mutual fund would be low risk but quite likely low return as well.  Short-term bond funds would bring up the risk a tick though this depends on how you handle the volatility of the fund's NAV changing.  There is also something to be said for open-end, ETF and closed-end funds that are a few types to consider as well. Third, taxes are something not even mentioned here which could impact which kinds of funds make sense as some funds may invest in instruments with favorable tax-treatment. Aside from funds, I'd look at CDs and Treasuries would be my suggestion.  With a rather short time frame, stocks could be quite dangerous to my mind. I'd only suggest stocks if you are investing for at least 5 years.  In 2 years there is a lot that can happen with stocks where if you look at history there was a record of stocks going down about 1 in every 4 years on average.  Something to consider is what kind of downside would you accept here?  Are you OK if what you save gets cut in half?  This is what can happen with some growth funds in the short-term which is what a 2 year time horizon looks like.  If you do with a stock mutual fund, it would be a gamble to my mind.  Don't forget that if the fund goes down 10% and then comes up 10%, you're still down 1% since the down will take more." I assume you mean Stock Mutual funds.  2008 wasn't that long ago. Down 37%. 07/08 combined were down 34%, or 07/09 down 20%.  The point of the long term is that over time, a decade will almost ensure a positive return.  2 years is too short, in my opinion.
"There are a couple of misconceptions I think are present here: Firstly, when people say ""interest"", usually that implies a lower-risk investment, like a government bond or a money market fund. Some interest-earning investments can be higher risk (like junk bonds offered by near-bankrupt companies), but for the most part, stocks are higher risk. With higher risk comes higher reward, but obviously also the chance for a bad year. A ""bad year"" can mean your fund actually goes down in value, because the companies you are invested in do poorly. So calling all value increases ""interest"" is not the correct way to think about things. Secondly, remember that ""Roth IRA fund"" doesn't really tell you what's ""inside"" it. You could set up your fund to include only low-risk interest earning investments, or higher risk foreign stocks. From what you've said, your fund is a ""target retirement date""-type fund. This typically means that it is a mix of stocks and bonds, weighted higher to bonds if you are older (on the theory of minimizing risk near retirement), and higher to stocks if you are younger (on the theory of accepting risk for higher average returns when you have time to overcome losses). What this means is that assuming you're young and the fund you have is typical, you probably have ~50%+ of your money invested in stocks. Stocks don't pay interest, they give you value in two ways: they pay you dividends, and the companies that they are a share of increase in value (remember that a stock is literally a small % ownership of the company). So the value increase you see as the increase due to the increase in the mutual fund's share price, is part of the total ""interest"" amount you were expecting. Finally, if you are reading about ""standard growth"" of an account using a given amount of contributions, someone somewhere is making an assumption about how much ""growth"" actually happens. Either you entered a number in the calculator (""How much do you expect growth to be per year?"") or it made an assumption by default (probably something like 7% growth per year - I haven't checked the math on your number to see what the growth rate they used was). These types of assumptions can be helpful for general retirement planning, but they are not ""rules"" that your investments are required by law to follow. If you invest in something with risk, your return may be less than expected." "But in the debt-payoff-first scenario, I'd be wiping out my debt in   two years. It would take several more years if I were to just pay the   minimums and put the extra money toward investing instead. Right. The idea is that in 2 years, you are likely to have more in the savings/stock account than you owe on the loan. But. The range of returns for X years has a smaller standard deviation the greater X is. e.g. any year has about a 1 in 3 chance of being negative. A 10 year period had a negative return (-1% CAGR) in the '00s recently, but the 15 year return even around that decade would have been successful. Jan 1 '96 - Dec 31 2010 returned 6.76% CAGR, Jan 1 2001 - Dec 31 2015 returned 4.96% CAGR.  This tells you that the time frame is as important as your sleep factor. Your 2 years? I'd just kill the loans. A 10-15 year horizon? I'd ask how you ""feel"" about that debt. The cost of going after a potential higher return may not be worth the risk to many. For some, it's fine. I retired, with a mortgage still in place, but the money in my 401(k) that could have paid off the mortgage is now about twice the remaining balance. So I sleep like a baby.  In the end, I'm a fan of investing for the long term vs paying off low rate debt, but it's a choice based on the individual." What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value).  Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss.  These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction).  As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though. @sharam - big question.  I am going to answer part of it, but not as directly as you might like. You mention 4-6 cents per unit per month, but fail to give a unit price, so it is hard to tell how much return you are really looking for. Given the amount you have to invest, depending on your time horizon, you will do much better outside of mutual funds.  Many funds in this category have fees in the 2% range.  You actually have enough money to have a diversified portfolio on your own, without recourse to funds. If you want to use a fund-like product, I encourage you to look at well established ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds).  They are basically like mutual funds that trade on the open stock market.  One good example in this category is iShares XDV Good Luck I would agree with the other answers about it being a bad idea to invest in stocks in the short term. However, do consider also long-term repairs. For example, you should be prepared to a repair happening in 20 years in addition to repairs happening in a couple of months. So, if it is at all possible for you to save a bit more, put 2% of the construction cost of a typical new house (just a house, not the land the house is standing on) aside every year into a long-term repair fund and invest it into stocks. I would recommend a low-cost index fund or passive ETF instead of manually picking stocks. When you have a long-term repair that requires large amounts of money but will be good for decades to come, you will take some money out of the long-term repair fund. Where I live, houses cost about 4000 EUR per square meter, but most of that is the land and building permit cost. The actual construction cost is about 2500 EUR per square meter. So, I would put away 50 EUR per square meter every year. So, for example, for a relatively small 50 square meter apartment, that would mean 2500 EUR per year. There are quite many repairs that are long-term repairs. For example, in apartment buildings, plumbing needs to be redone every 40 years or so. Given such a long time period, it makes sense to invest the money into stocks. So, my recommendation would be to have two repair funds: short-term repairs and long-term repairs. Only the long-term repair fund should be invested into stocks. My figuring (and I'm not an expert here, but I think this is basic math) is: Let's say you had a windfall of $1000 extra dollars today that you could either: a. Use to pay down your mortgage b. Put into some kind of equity mutual fund Maybe you have 20 years left on your mortgage.  So your return on investment with choice A is whatever your mortgage interest rate is, compounded monthly or daily.  Interest rates are low now, but who knows what they'll be in the future.  On the other hand, you should get more return out of an equity mutual fund investment, so I'd say B is your better choice, except: But that's also the other reason why I favour B over A.  Let's say you lose your job a year from now.  Your bank won't be too lenient with you paying your mortgage, even if you paid it off quicker than originally agreed.  But if that money is in mutual funds, you have access to it, and it buys you time when you really need it.  People might say that you can always get a second mortgage to get the equity out of it, but try getting a second mortgage when you've just lost your job. Basically, no.  Selecting an actively managed fund over a low-fee index fund means paying for the opportunity to possibly outperform the index fund. A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel argues that the best general strategy for the average investor is to select the index fund because the fee savings are certain. Assuming a random walk means that any mutual fund may outperform the index in some years, but this is not an indication that it will overall.  Unless you have special information about the effectiveness of the bank fund management (it's run by the next Warren Buffett), you are better off in the index fund. And even Warren Buffett suggests you are probably better off in the index fund: This year, regarding Wall Street, Buffett wrote: “When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost index funds.” "The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account.  However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to ""time the market"", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about ""dollar-cost averaging"" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)"