A fund tracking the DOW is not such a great idea, considering it's not a representative slice of the market, and the process of deciding what's included is opaque and not exclusively dependent on externally verifiable factors. Tracking the S&P 500 or FTSE 100 is better, because the criteria for what they include can be validated externally.

I mean it's better than picking stocks yourself, but what isn't? As long as it's equally easy to choose a good option and a less good option, why not choose the one that's better?

Sorry I should have said the S&P 500

> start thinking about diversification

Buying an index fund composed of 500 large U.S.-listed companies is pretty diversified. I suppose you could diversify internationally, but no need to stray from index funds if you're not managing your money full-time.

Stocks aren't the only asset available for investment, regardless of geographical location. They're also fairly volatile, so retail investment often consists of blending that with more stable fixed income assets.

I meant in different countries and sectors I did very well with a commercial property trust a few years back when the sector was out of favour.

You can use an international stock index fund like VT. That will include some real estate companies like EQR, but if you want extra real estate exposure, there are index funds like VNQ for that. Or if you want bonds, there are index funds like BND.

Closed end funds (investment trusts etc) are much better for property for technical reasons a fund or OIEC has to retain cash.

So you invest in other index funds and bonds. What the balance looks like requires taking some kind of position, I suppose, although a fairly common piece of advice seems to be to have investments in different geographical areas in proportion to their share of the global market. Bonds vs. equities is a matter of investment timescale and risk tolerance.

That's the best I've managed to suss it out anyway, If you meant something different I'd be interested to hear it!