Investing €70,000: Treasury Bills vs Index Funds in 2025

Investing €70,000: Treasury Bills at 3.6% until January, then a jump to index funds

With €70,000 saved, is it wise to wait until January to enter the stock market? The proposed plan is textbook: keep all capital in Spanish Treasury Bills (Letras del Tesoro) at 3.6% from June to December and, in January 2025, transfer it to index funds—S&P 500, Nasdaq, EuroStoxx 50, Ibex 35, or MSCI World—assuming Trump's US election victory and a potential S&P 500 drop will open an entry window. The consensus response for beginners is unanimous and far less epic: nobody knows what the market will do. The 3.6% yield on Treasury Bills, however, is already signed.

What the plan proposes before investing €70,000

The money is not needed short-term, as assumed in the thread, which is the only point where almost all answers agree. From there, three doubts arise that structure the issue: how to distribute the €70,000 among index funds—two or three funds, or seven different ones; whether to do it via ING for convenience or open an account with MyInvestor or DeGiro; and whether to invest a lump sum or stagger contributions of €5,000 per month.

Some remind us that such a figure is no shield: €70,000 does not buy decent housing, especially if liquidity must be maintained. An emergency fund and being debt-free weigh more on the final decision than any chart.

Treasury Bills or fixed-term deposit?

Parking capital for six months in public debt is an option, but not the only one. Against the 3.6% of Treasury Bills, deposits of three and six months from entities like Facto, Novum, Big, Finantia, or Haitong are cited, along with one specific case: Deutsche Bank, six months at 3.33% APR with no ties. The advantage of the deposit is paperwork, not the rate.

The fine print appears in public debt operations: the 0.15% fee for transfer at maturity drags down returns when the term is so short, as warned in the thread. With high rates, some propose more aggressive allocations—€50,000 in a 4% deposit, €10,000 in Bitcoin, and €10,000 in a couple of stocks—but that is another portfolio and risk profile.

Lump sum or monthly distribution?

Time allocation generates the most debate. The initial plan contemplates €5,000 monthly contributions during early 2025, the classic DCA (Dollar Cost Averaging), designed to cushion a drop right after entry. The objection is twofold: this method also cushions rises and delays market exposure without solid statistical backing.

The alternative put on the table is VCA, or value cost averaging: contribute more when the portfolio drops and less when it rises. The example used is simple. If the goal is €12,000 over twelve months and in early February the fund is down 10%, you invest more that month; if it’s up, you invest less, leaving the surplus in cash. It sounds reasonable and works on paper, but requires something inexperienced investors rarely have: checking balances without panic.

The most repeated advice points in the opposite direction: everything at once, into a global index fund with a minimum ten-year horizon without touching anything. With a caveat added by the cautious: five years is the absolute minimum, and anyone who cannot withstand a 50% correction without selling should not be in equities. Less volatile alternatives, like Baelo Patrimonio portfolios, are suggested for that profile.

ING, MyInvestor, and the price of convenience

Here consensus is unusually firm: ING charges high commissions for the product sought. Online brokers are no less secure, according to the debate, and compete with lower fees: the user places their fund costs between 0.12% and 0.18%. As assets grow, another criterion appears: some recommend splitting money across several entities above €100,000 to avoid concentration.

Why betting on Trump and the S&P 500 doesn’t fit

The plan to wait until January relies on a political prediction: Trump’s victory, an S&P 500 drop, and cheap buying afterward. Statistics contradict this. Under Trump, the S&P 500 returned 14.1% annualized, versus 13.8% under Obama. Both above historical averages, and very similar.

Comparisons by party are methodologically disastrous: they depend on the start date—a bullish presidential term distorts the series—the post-2009 rebound effect, and Trump’s first term hitting the 2020 lockdown. Democrats win on average, Republicans on median, with marginal differences. The repeated warning applies to everything else: correlation does not imply causation.

What return can really be expected?

Cold water trinc here. An experienced investor says plainly: aiming for 10% annually as a newcomer leads to failure, while settling for 3% is a dignified result. Every three to five years, a 20% crash appears—Ukraine, for instance—and every fifteen to twenty, a serious one like Lehman or the pandemic, with recovery years ahead. All before fees.

As contrast, a personal case: €75,000 invested over eight years now worth €141,000, plus €9,000 in accumulated dividends. Prerequisites always repeat: paid-off home, emergency fund, and no plan to touch the money.

With those elements, waiting until January has a concrete cost: six months at 3.6% are guaranteed; the next ten years are not. And in €70,000 there are exactly 70,000 one-euro hamburgers, the only return nobody disputes.