Good/Bad idea to have an ETF that encompasses another
Let's simplify things by assuming you only own 2 stocks. By owning VOO and VTI, you're overweight on large- and mid-cap stocks relative to the market composition. Likewise, by owning VTI and VT, you're overweight on U.S. stocks; conversely, by owning VXUS and VT, you're overweight on non-U.S. stocks. These are all perfectly fine positions to take if that's what you intend and have justification for. For example, if you're in the U.S., it may be a good idea to hold more U.S. stocks than VT because of currency risk. But 4 equity index ETFs is probably overcomplicating things. It is perfectly fine to hold only VTI and VXUS because these funds comprise thousands of stocks and thus give you sufficient diversification. I would recommend holding those 2 ETFs based on a domestic/international allocation that makes sense to you (Vanguard recommends 40% of your stock allocation to be international), and if for some reason you want to be overweight in large- and mid-cap companies, throw in VOO. You can use Morningstar X-Ray to look at your proposed portfolio and find your optimal mix of geographic and stock style allocation. "You are overthinking it. Yes there is overlap between them, and you want to understand how much overlap there is so you don't end up with a concentration in one area when you were trying to avoid it. Pick two, put your money in those two; and then put your new money into those two until you want to expand into other funds. The advantage of having the money in an IRA held by a single fund family, is that moving some or all of the money from one Mutual fund/ETF to another is painless. The fact it is a retirement account means that selling a fund to move the money doesn't trigger taxes. The fact that you have about $10,000 for the IRA means that hopefully you have decades left before you need the money and that this $10,00 is just the start. You are not committed to these investment choices. With periodic re-balancing the allocations you make now will be adjusted over the decades. One potential issue. You said: ""I'm saving right not but haven't actually opened the account."" I take it to mean that you have money in a Roth TRA account but it isn't invested into a stock fund, or that you have the money ready to go in a regular bank account and will be making a 2015 contribution into the actual IRA before tax day this year, and the 2016 contribution either at the same time or soon after. If it is the second case make sure you get the money for 2015 into the IRA before the deadline."
How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties.  Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.)  Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions?    In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea. I agree we should be efficient with the food we produce, especially meats, but I don't like using food production efficiency overall as an encompassing statistic.   It comes with all sorts of problems largely due to artificial fertilizer productions, extremely demanding GMO plants, and of course overall pesticides.  Pushing for extreme yields out of fields using artificial fertilizer can result in disastrous circumstances down the road. Over utilization of a field gives better returns now but we can't do that indefinitely and depletes the top soil of many micronutrients and healthy bacteria. Over time yields will decrease and, if it ever gets taken that far, you end it with more dustbowl problems. Even if you stop before it gets that bad you then have to suffer years of less than average yield to build the topsoil back up to health just so you can get average yield again. And then there is the problem of how artificial fertilizer is made, which while currently necessary to produce enough food (currently 50% of the world's food is produced directly due due to use of artificial fertilizer), it utilizes fossil fuels both as reagents and to burn for power to fuel the process of turning fossil fuels into fertilizer.  If we really want to be sustainable we should be utilizing more farm land to make up for reduced yields from avoiding as much artificial fertilizer as we can. "(Real) interest rates are so low because governments want people to use their money to improve the economy by spending or investing rather than saving. Their idea is that by consuming or investing you will help to create jobs that will employ people who will spend or invest their pay, and so on. If you want to keep this money for the future you don't want to spend it and interest rates make saving unrewarding therefore you ought to invest. That was the why, now the how. Inflation protected securities, mentioned in another answer, are the least risk way to do this. These are government guaranteed and very unlikely to default. On the other hand deflation will cause bigger problems for you and the returns will be pitiful compared with historical interest rates. So what else can be done? Investing in companies is one way of improving returns but risk starts to increase so you need to decide what risk profile is right for you.  Investing in companies does not mean having to put money into the stock market either directly or indirectly (through funds) although index tracker funds have good returns and low risk. The corporate bond market is lower risk for a lesser reward than the stock market but with better returns than current interest rates. Investment grade bonds are very low risk, especially in the current economic climate and there are exchange traded funds (ETFs) to diversify more risk away. Since you don't mention willingness to take risk or the kind of amounts that you have to save I've tried to give some low risk options beyond ""buy something inflation linked"" but you need to take care to understand the risks  of any product you buy or use, be they a bank account, TIPS, bond investments or whatever. Avoid anything that you don't fully understand." "Starting with small amount of money is definitely a good idea, as it is a fact that majority of the online traders lose their initial investment. No wonder that for example in the UK, FCA decided to make steps to raise the chances of clients staying in business by limiting leverage to 1:50 and 1:25. http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/bloggers/new-fca-regulations-going-affect-retail-brokers/ Trading leveraged products is risky and you will lose some, or all your money with very high chance. But that doesn't mean necessarily it is a ""bad investment"" to trade on your own. Imagine you have a $1000 account, and you trade max 0,1 lot fx position at once maximum (=$10.000 position size, that is 1:10 leverage max). Beginner steps are very challenging and exiting, but turning back to your initial question: is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money Obviously you could purchase a cheap ETF that follows a broad market index or an already existing successful portfolio." I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals.  I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here. Unless your brokerage will sell you fractional shares, the most obvious difference (without us knowing the actual identify of the companies) is that with the $260 one, you will have 3 shares plus you will have $220 minus commission left over that you wanted to invest but weren't able to simply because of the mechanics of long division. You could put that $220 into one of the cheaper stocks, but now the multiple commissions will start to eat your returns. My personal opinion is you should go for a low cost index mutual fund or ETF, and wait to pick individual stocks until you have more than $1000 to work with (and even then, probably still go with the low cost index fund) UNG    United States Natural Gas Fund  Natural Gas USO    United States Oil Fund  West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil UGA    United States Gasoline Fund     Gasoline DBO    PowerShares DB Oil Fund     West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil UHN    United States Heating Oil Fund  Heating Oil I believe these are as close as you'd get. I'd avoid the double return flavors as they do not track well at all.  Update - I understand James' issue. An unmanaged single commodity ETF (for which it's impractical to take delivery and store) is always going to lag the spot price rise over time.   And therefore, the claims of the ETF issuer aside, these products will almost certain fail over time. As shown above, When my underlying asset rises 50%, and I see 24% return, I'm not happy. Gold doesn't have this effect as the ETF GLD just buys gold, you can't really do that with oil. "I read the book, and I'm willing to believe you'd have a good chance of beating the market with this strategy - it is a reasonable, rational, and mechanical investment discipline. I doubt it's overplayed and overused to the point that it won't ever work again. But only IF you stick to it, and doing so would be very hard (behaviorally). Which is probably why it isn't overplayed and overused already. This strategy makes you place trades in companies you often won't have heard of, with volatile prices. The best way to use the strategy would be to try to get it automated somehow and avoid looking at the individual stocks, I bet, to take your behavior out of it. There may well be some risk factors in this strategy that you don't have in an S&P 500 fund, and those could explain some of the higher returns; for example, a basket of sketchier companies could be more vulnerable to economic events. The strategy won't beat the market every year, either, so that can test your behavior. Strategies tend to work and then stop working (as the book even mentions). This is related to  whether other investors are piling in to the strategy and pushing up prices, in part.  But also, outside events can just happen to line up poorly for a given strategy; for example a bunch of the ""fundamental index"" ETFs that looked at dividend yield launched right before all the high-dividend financials cratered. Investing in high-dividend stocks probably is and was a reasonable strategy in general, but it wasn't a great strategy for a couple years there. Anytime you don't buy the whole market, you risk both positive and negative deviations from it. Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think ""beating the market"" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying ""you can't beat the market so buy the index"" or Greenblatt saying ""here's how to beat the market with this strategy,"" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an ""index hugger,"" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a ""moat"" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)"