Is there any reason to choose my bank's index fund over Vanguard?
That expense ratio on the bank fund is criminally high. Use the Vanguard one, they have really low expenses. "Your bank's fund is not an index fund.  From your link: To provide a balanced portfolio of primarily Canadian securities that produce income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in Canadian money market instruments, debt securities and common and preferred shares. This is a very broad actively managed fund.  Compare this to the investment objective listed for Vanguard's VOO: Invests in stocks in the S&P 500 Index, representing 500 of the largest U.S. companies. There are loads of market indices with varying formulas that are supposed to track the performance of a market or market segment that they intend to track.  The Russel 2000, The Wilshire 1000, The S&P 500, the Dow Industrial Average, there is even the SSGA Gender Diversity Index.  Some body comes up with a market index.  An ""Index Fund"" is simply a Mutual Fund or Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that uses a market index formula to make it's investment decisions enabling an investor to track the performance of the index without having to buy and sell the constituent securities on their own.  These ""index funds"" are able to charge lower fees because they spend $0 on research, and only make investment decisions in order to track the holdings of the index. I think 1.2% is too high, but I'm coming from the US investing world it might not be that high compared to Canadian offerings.  Additionally, comparing this fund's expense ratio to the Vanguard 500 or Total Market index fund is nonsensical. Similarly, comparing the investment returns is nonsensical because one tracks the S&P 500 and one does not, nor does it seek to (as an example the #5 largest holding of the CIBC fund is a Government of Canada 2045 3.5% bond). Everyone should diversify their holdings and adjust their investment allocations as they age.  As you age you should be reallocating away from highly volatile common stock and in to assets classes that are historically more stable/less volatile like national government debt and high grade corporate/local government debt.  This fund is already diversified in to some debt instruments, depending on your age and other asset allocations this might not be the best place to put your money regardless of the fees. Personally, I handle my own asset allocations and I'm split between Large, Mid and Small cap low-fee index funds, and the lowest cost high grade debt funds available to me." Extortionate expense ratio aside, comparing the fund to the vanguard balanced fund (with an expense ratio of 0.19%) shows that your bank's fund has underperformed in literally every shown time period. Mind you, the vanguard fund is all US stocks and bonds which have done very well whereas the CIBC fund is mostly Canadian. Looking at the CIBC top 10 holdings does seem to suggest that it's (poorly) actively managed instead of being an index tracker for what that's worth. Maybe your bank offers cheaper transaction costs when buying their own funds but even then the discount would have to be pretty big to make up for the underperformance. Basically, go Vanguard here. 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.”
"YES.. Management fees cut directly into your profits. A fund which achieves 8% growth but costs 1% to maintain delivers only 7% to you. Compounded over years, even a relatively small difference can add up to a significant amount of money. This is one of the advantages index funds have. They may not be as ""sophisticated"" as human-managed funds, but their expense ratio is so much lower that the end result for the investor is often as good as or better than the more expensive products. In fact, at least one study found that, for each category they researched, low expense ratio was a better predictor of good return on investment than anything else they looked at. That doesn't mean cheapest is always best or most expensive is always worst .... but it does mean you should be very, very sure an expensive fund really is that much better before choosing it. And sticking with simple index funds may be a perfectly reasonable choice." "A Roth IRA is simply a tax-sheltered account that you deposit funds into, and then invest however you choose (within the limits of the firm you deposit the funds with). For example, you could open a Roth IRA account with Vanguard.  You could then invest the $3000 by purchasing shares of VOO, which tracks the S&P 500 index and has a very low expense ratio (0.04 as of last time I checked).  Fidelity has a similar option, or Schwab, or whatever brokerage firm you prefer. IRAs are basically just normal investment accounts, except they don't owe taxes until you withdraw them (and Roth don't even owe them then, though you paid taxes on the funds you deposit).  They have some limitations regarding options trading and such, but if you're a novice investor just looking to do basic investments, you'll not notice.   Then, your IRA would go up or down in value as the market went up or down in value. You do have some restrictions on when you can withdraw the funds; Roth IRA has fewer than a normal IRA, as you can withdraw the capital (the amount you deposited) without penalty, but the profits cannot be withdrawn until you're retirement age (I won't put an actual year, as I suspect that actual year will change by the time you're that old; but think 60s). The reason not to invest in an IRA is if you plan on using the money in the near future - even as an ""emergency fund"".  You should have some money that is not invested aggressively, that is in something very safe and very accessible, for your emergency fund; and if you plan to buy a house or whatever with the funds, don't start an IRA.  But if this is truly money you want to save for retirement, that's the best place to start. **Note, this is not investment advice, and you should do your own homework prior to making any investment.  You can lose some or all of the value of your account while investing." "Yes, the ""based on"" claim appears to be true – but the Nobel laureate did not personally design that specific investment portfolio ;-) It looks like the Gone Fishin' Portfolio is made up of a selection of low-fee stock and bond index funds, diversified by geography and market-capitalization, and regularly rebalanced.  Excerpt from another article, dated 2003: The Gone Fishin’ Portfolio  [circa 2003] Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) – 15%   Vanguard Small-Cap Index (NAESX) – 15%   Vanguard European Stock Index (VEURX) – 10%   Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX) – 10%   Vanguard Emerging Markets Index (VEIEX) – 10%   Vanguard Short-term Bond Index (VFSTX) – 10%   Vanguard High-Yield Corporates Fund (VWEHX) – 10%   Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund (VIPSX) – 10%   Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX) – 5%   Vanguard Precious Metals Fund (VGPMX) – 5%   That does appear to me to be an example of a portfolio based on Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), ""which tries to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk"" (per Wikipedia).  MPT was introduced by Harry Markowitz, who did go on to share the 1990 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.  (Note: That is the economics equivalent of the original Nobel Prize.) You'll find more information at NobelPrize.org - The Prize in Economics 1990 - Press Release. Finally, for what it's worth, it isn't rocket science to build a similar portfolio.  While I don't want to knock the Gone Fishin' Portfolio (I like most of its parts), there are many similar portfolios out there based on the same concepts.  For instance, I'm reminded of a similar (though simpler) portfolio called the Couch Potato Portfolio, made popular by MoneySense magazine up here in Canada. p.s. This other question about asset allocation is related and informative." I am a huge fan of jim Cramer and while you may not get CNBC in Australia you can prolly catch jim cramers podcasts If you have an iPod or iPhone which really will help your financial literacy a bit.  Here's my advice . Set up a IRA or tax advantaged accounts if they exist in Australia (sorry I only know usa markets really well).  Then you can pick investments to go in there or in a different investment account. I am a huge fan of index funds in particular Etf index funds because they are still very liquid. I prefer the free or no commission funds by Charles scwabb but vanguard is also very good or maybe even better. A few great funds are the vanguard total stock market fund (it invests in every company in the world) and any fund that mirrors the s&p 500 or the Russell 2000 midcap.  Another good idea just to make room to save money is make a budget with your wife. I like the other post about planning in reverse . Setting up a budget to see your expenses and then make automatic pay dedications that go into savings or different accounts for savings. Excellent Question!  I agree with other repliers but there are some uneasy things with index funds. Since your view is death, I will take extremely pessimist view things that may cause it (very big may): I know warnings about stock-picking but, in imperfect world, the above things tend to happen. But to be honest, they feel too much paranoia. Better to keep things simple with good diversification and rebalancing when people live in euphoria/death. You may like Bogleheads.org. "The first consideration for the banking part of your portfolio is safety. In the United States that is FDIC protection, or the equivalent for a Credit Union. The second consideration is does it have the level of service you need. For this I mean the location of branches, ATMs, or its online services meet your needs for speed, accuracy, and ability to access or move the money as you need. The rest are then balanced on the extras. For your situation those extras include the ability to make free trades. For other it might be a discount on their mortgage. For others it is free checking.  In your current situation if the first two things are met, and you are using those extra benefits then don't change. For me the free trades wouldn't be a benefit, so any major degradation in the safety and service would cause me to leave. Keep in mind that free services exist to entice you to make a deposit: which they can then make money by lending it out; or they offer a free service to entice you to use a service they can charge you to use. All Free services come with a cost. I earned a completely paltry $3.33 YTD over the last 9 months on my   savings at my bank presumably in exchange for these ""free"" trades. Without knowing how much you had deposited in your savings account there is no way to know how much you could have made at the bank across the street. But with the low rates of the last decade there is not big money to be made off the emergency savings of a typical american family." "Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be ""yes.""  Diversification is good.""  Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified.  If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification.  There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund.  Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well?  It depends on what your funds are.  Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment.  If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your ""favorite fund"" early on.  As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not.  I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund.  Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there.  But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things.  You didn't know early on which fund would do well.  You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory.  You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age.  This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory.  Generally speaking, they are not.  They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics.  For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory.  It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things.  Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified.  The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice.  Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be.  There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance.  Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record.  Perhaps the manager really was skilled.  However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight  (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so.  However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a ""hot streak"" and ""can't lose.""  They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy.  This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer.   Diversifying across asset classes.  Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund.  There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold.  Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio.  I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds.  These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure.  Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes.  They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity.  The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity.  Normally people do not do this, though.  Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds.  I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory.  Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated.  If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund.  Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets  International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees.  You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds.  However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well.  That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste.  I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate.  You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT).  Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be.  REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap.  Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure.  It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory.  In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio.  Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain.  Many researchers feel that the small cap ""premium"" may have been a short-term artifact in the data.  Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class.  Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds.  Half the market can be classed as ""value"", while the other half is ""growth.""  Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund.  Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory.  If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds.  There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector.  If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds.  Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent.  Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do.  Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class.  There's very little if any advantage to doing that." "Emergency funds have a very specific and obvious benefit; you'll have money sitting around in case you need it.  A lot of people think a big car repair or some unexpected home repair is an emergency, and that's fine.  Emergency also expands up to ""I lost my job four months ago and we're a year in to a recession, the stock market is down 30% and I need to pay my rent or mortgage.""  Sure, you could just sell some of your stocks that have lost 30% and pay your rent. I know nobody likes to think about it, but the stock market can go down.  I know nobody likes to think about it, but the economy can slink in to a recession.  In fact, here's a small list of recent U.S. recessions: No competent investment adviser would advise that your emergency funds should be subject to market volatility because that completely defeats the purpose of an emergency fund. It's possible that this manager wants you to indicate a separate emergency fund to allocate a portion of your account to a low volatility US Treasury fund or something of the like, this would be materially different than investing in a broad market/large cap fund like VOO or VTI.  The effects of inflation are not so bad that you should put your emergency money in the market.  Who cares what inflation was if you have to sell an asset at a loss to pay rent?  One last point.  Index fund ETFs are not ""safe.""  Investing in diversified funds is safER than buying individual company stocks."