query: How to sell a stock in a crashing market?

positive: "Assuming you are referring to macro corrections and crashes (as opposed to technical crashes like the ""flash crash"") -- It is certainly possible to sell stocks during a market drop -- by definition, the market is dropping not only because there are a larger number of sellers, but more importantly because there are a large number of transactions that are driving prices down. In fact, volumes are strongly correlated with volatility, so volumes are actually higher when the market is going down dramatically -- you can verify this on Yahoo or Google Finance (pick a liquid stock like SPY and look at 2008 vs recent years). That doesn't say anything about the kind of selling that occurs though. With respect to your question ""Whats the best strategy for selling stocks during a drop?"", it really depends on your objective. You can generally always sell at some price. That price will be worse during market crashes. Beyond the obvious fact that prices are declining, spreads in the market will be wider due to heightened volatility. Many people are forced to sell during crashes due to external and / or psychological pressures -- and sometimes selling is the right thing to do -- but the best strategy for long-term investors is often to just hold on."

positive: It is typically possible to sell during a crash, because there are enough people that understand the mechanics behind a crash. Generally, you need to understand that you don't lose money from the crash, but from selling. Every single crash in history more than recovered, and by staying invested, you wouldn't have lost anything (this assumes you have enough time to sit it out; it could take several years to recover). On the other side of those deals are people that understand that, and make money by buying during a crash. They simply sit the crash out, and some time later they made a killing from what you panic-sold, when it recovers its value.

positive: "Your question contains a faulty assumption: During crashes and corrections the amount of sellers is of course higher than the amount of buyers, making it difficult to sell stocks. This simply isn't true.  Every trade has two sides; thus, by definition, for every seller there is buyer and vice versa.  Even if we broaden the definition of ""buyers"" and ""sellers"" to mean ""people willing to buy (or sell) at some price"", the assumption still isn't true.  When a stock is falling it is generally not because potential buyers are exiting the market; it is because they are revising the prices they are willing to buy at downward.   For example, say there are a bunch of orders to buy Frobnitz Consolidated (DUMB) at $5. Suppose DUMB announces a downward revision to its earnings guidance. Those people might not be willing to buy at $50 anymore, so they'll probably cancel their $50 buy orders.  However, just because DUMB isn't worth as much as they thought it was, that doesn't mean it's completely worthless.  So, those prospective buyers will likely enter new orders at some lower value, say, $45.  With that, the value of DUMB has just dropped by $5, a 10% correction.  However, there are still plenty of buyers, and you can still sell your DUMB holdings, if you're willing to take $45 for them. In other words, the value of a security is not determined by the relative numbers of buyers and sellers.  It is determined by the prices those buyers and sellers are willing to pay to buy or accept to sell.  Except for cases of massive IT disruptions, such as we saw in the ""flash crash"", there is always somebody willing to buy or sell at some price."

positive: What is essential is that company you are selling is transparent enough. Because it will provide additional liquidity to market. When I decide to sell, I drop all volume once at a time. Liquidation price will be somewhat worse then usual. But being out of position will save you nerves for future thinking where to step in again. Cold head is best you can afford in such scenario. In very large crashes, there could be large liquidity holes. But if you are on upper side of sigmoid, you will be profiting from selling before that holes appear. Problem is, nobody could predict if market is on upper-fall, mid-fall or down-fall at any time.

negative: You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits.

negative: "What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? It would fall to the lowest bid price, which could be $0.01 if someone had that bid in place. Here is an example which I happened to find online:  Notice there are orders to buy at half the market price and lower... probably all the way down to pennies.  If there were enough selling activity to fill all of those bids you see, then the market price would be the lowest bid on the screen.  Alternatively, the bid orders could be pulled (cancelled), which would also let the price free-fall to the lowest bid even if there were few actual sellers. Bid-stuffing is what HFT (high frequency trading) algorithms sometimes do, which some say caused the Flash Crash of May 2010.  The computers ""stuff"" bids into the order book, making it look like there is demand in order to trigger a market reaction, then they pull the bids to make the market fall.  This sort of thing happens all the time and Nanex documents it http://www.nanex.net/FlashCrash/OngoingResearch.html Quote stuffing defined: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quote-stuffing.asp I remember the day of the Flash Crash very well.  I found this video on youtube of CNBC at that time.  Watch from the 5:00 min mark on the video as Jim Crammer talks about PG easily not being worth the price of the market at that time.  He said ""Who cares?"", ""Its not a real price"", ""$49.25 bid for 50,000 shares if I were at my hedge fund.""  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86g4_w4j3jU You can value a stock how you want, but its only actually worth what someone will give you for it. More examples: Anadarko Petroleum, which as we noted in today's EOD post, lost $45 billion in market cap in 45 milliseconds (a collapse rate of $1 billion per millisecond), flash crashing from $90 all the way to an (allegedly illegal) stub quote of $0.01. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/how-last-second-flash-crash-pushed-sp-500-1667-1666 How 10,000 Contracts Crashed The Market: A Visual Deconstruction Of Last Night's E-Mini Flash Crash http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-21/how-10000-contracts-crashed-market-visual-deconstruction-last-nights-e-mini-flash-cr Symantec Flash-Crash Destroys Over $1.5 Billion In Less Than A Second http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-30/symantec-flash-crash-destroys-over-15-billion-less-second This sort of thing happens so often, I don't pay much attention anymore."

negative: Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?

negative: If the equity market in the USA crashed, its very likely equity markets everywhere else would crash. The USA has a high number of the world's largest businesses and there are correlations between equity markets. So you need to think of equities as a global asset class, not regional. Your question is then a question about the correlation between equity markets and currency markets.  Here's a guess: If equity markets crashed, you would see a lot of panic selling of stocks denominated in many currencies, but probably the most in USD, due to the large number of the world's largest businesses trading on US stock exchanges. Therefore, when the rest of the world sells US equities they receive cash USD, which they might sell for their local currency. That selling pressure would cause USD to fall. But, when equity markets crash there's a move to safety of the bond markets. The world's largest bond markets are denominated in which currency? Probably USD. So those who receive USD for their equities are going to spend that USD on bonds. In which case there is probably no correlation between equity markets and currency markets at all. A quick google search shows this kind of thing

negative: Ultimately no one really knows what causes the markets to rise and fall beyond supply and demand. If more people want to buy then sell, prices go up. And if more people want to sell, prices go down. The news channels will often try to attribute a specific reason to the price move, but that is largely just guess work to fill up the news pages so people have something to read. You may find it interesting to read up on the Elliot wave principle. The crash of 2008 was a perfect Elliot Wave fit. Elliot Wave theory states that social moods (which ultimately drive the stock market) generally occur in a relatively predictable pattern. The crash in September was a Wave 3 down. This is where the majority of people give up hope. However there are still a few people who are still holding on. The markets tend to meander about during wave 4. Finally the last few people give up hope and sell out. This causes the final crash of wave 5. Only when the last person has given up hope can the markets start to go up again..

negative: "As @ApplePie pointed out in their answer, at any given time there is a finite amount of stock available in a company. One subtlety you may be missing is that there is always a price associated with an offer to buy shares. That is, you don't put in an order simply to buy 1 share of ABC, you put in an order to buy 1 share of ABC for $10. If no one is willing to sell a share of ABC for $10, then your order will go unfilled. This happens millions of times a day as traders try to figure the cheapest price they can get for a stock. Practically speaking, there is always a price at which people are willing to sell their shares. You can put in a market order for 1 share of ABC, which says essentially ""I want one share of ABC, and I will pay whatever the market deems to be the price"". Your broker will find you 1 share, but you may be very unhappy about the price you have to pay! While it's very rare for a market to have nobody willing to sell at any price, it occasionally happens that no one is willing to buy at any price. This causes a market crash, as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis, when suddenly everyone became very suspicious of how much debt the major banks actually held, and for a few days, very few traders were willing to buy bank stocks at any price."

negative: Although it is impossible to predict the next stock market crash, what   are some signs or measures that indicate the economy is unstable? These questions are really two sides of the same coin.  As such, there's really no way to tell, at least not with any amount of accuracy that would allow you time the market. Instead, follow the advice of William Bernstein regarding long-term investments.  I'm paraphrasing, but the gist is: Markets crash every so often.  It's a fact of life.  If you maintain financial and investment discipline, you can take advantage of the crashes by having sufficient funds to purchase when stocks are on sale.  With a long-term investment horizon, crashes are actually a blessing since you're in prime position to profit from them.

negative: The short answer is if you own a representative index of global bonds (say AGG) and global stocks (say ACWI) the bonds will generally only suffer minimally in even the medium large market crashes you describe.  However, there are some caveats. Not all bonds will tend to react the same way.  Bonds that are considered higher-yield (say BBB rated and below) tend to drop significantly in stock market crashes though not as much as stock markets themselves.  Emerging market bonds can drop even more as weaker foreign currencies can drop in global crashes as well. Also, if a local market crash is caused by rampant inflation as in the US during the 70s-80s, bonds can crash at the same time as markets.  There hasn't been a global crash caused by inflation after countries left the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, I don't mean to scare you away from adding bond exposure to a stock portfolio as bonds tend to have low correlations with stocks and significant returns.  Just be aware that these correlations can change over time (sometimes quickly) and depend on which stocks/bonds you invest in.

negative: This guy has been saying this for the last 6 years:  > 2011:   100% Chance of Crisis, Worse Than 2008: Jim Rogers   2012:   Jim Rogers: It’s Going To Get Really “Bad After The Next Election”   2013:   Jim Rogers Warns: “You Better Run for the Hills!”   2014:   JIM ROGERS – Sell Everything & Run For Your Lives   2015:    Jim Rogers: “We’re Overdue” for a Stock Market Crash   2016:    $68 TRILLION “BIBLICAL CRASH” Dead Ahead? Jim Rogers Issues a DIRE WARNING   2017:   THE BOTTOM LINE: Legendary investor Jim Rogers expects the worst crash in our lifetime    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/extreme-market-predictions-like-jim-rogers-provide-no-value-144747654.html  He'll eventually be right. As they say, a broken clock is right two times a day.

negative: Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how US stock markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time).  Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers (NASDAQ) or Specialists (NYSE), who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity.  Market Makers and specialists may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for the Market Maker / specialist to accumulate or distribute a large number of shares, without end-investors like you or I being involved on both sides of the same transaction.

negative: "Do you want to do it pre or post correction? If you're bearish on the market the obvious thing to do is short an index. I would say this is kind of dumb. The main problem is that it may take months or years for the market to crash, and by then it will have gone up so much that even the crash doesn't bring you profit, and you're paying borrowing fees meanwhile as well. You need to watch the portfolio also, when you short sell you'll get a bunch of cash, which you most likely will want to invest, but once you invest it, the market can spike and pummel your short position, resulting in negative remaining cash (since you already spent it). At that point you get a margin call from your broker. If you check your account regularly, not a big deal, but bad things can happen if you treat it as a fire and forget strategy. These days they have inverse funds so you don't have to borrow anything. The fund manager borrows for you. I'd say those are much better. The less cumbersome choice is to simply sell call options on the index or buy puts. These are even cash options, so when you exercise you get/lose money, not shares. You can even arrange them so that your potential loss is capped. (but honestly, same goes for shorts - it's called a stop loss) You could also wait for the correction and buy the dip. Less worrying about shorts and such, but of course the issue is timing the crash. Usually the crashes are very quick, and there are several ""pre-crashes"" that look like it bottomed out but then it crashes more. So actually very difficult thing to tell. You have to know either exactly when the correction will be, or exactly what the price floor is (and set a limit buy). Hope your crystal ball works! Yet another choice is finding asset classes uncorrelated or even anticorrelated with the broader market. For instance some emerging markets (developing countries), some sectors, individual stocks that are not inflated, bonds, gold and so on can have these characteristics where if S&P goes down they go up. Buying those may be a safer approach since at least you are still holding a fundamentally valuable thing even if your thesis flops, meanwhile shorts and puts and the like are purely speculative."

negative: "I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way.  Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a ""high growth"" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!"

negative: A stopped clock is right two times a day.   We may get a market crash similar to the financial crisis or the dot com crash or we may not. What if over the next 10 years rates rise very sluggishly, low inflation, and  low growth more or less continues with maybe one brief and shallow recession. In that case I bet US stocks produce 4-5% returns per year and US bonds produce maybe 1-2% per year.  European and emerging market stocks should have higher returns because they are in an earlier part of the cycle.  I think your baseline has to look something like that.  The last two crashes were caused by the tech bubble and the housing bubble - where is the bubble today? US stocks are expensive, but probably not in bubble territory. Bonds worldwide are unattractive with low or negative yields - negative yields maybe a bubble, but central banks will be the most hurt by negative rates and they are in a strong position to take the pain.   There could be a crash I just don't see how we get there yet - maybe china?

negative: "If I invest in index funds or other long term stocks that pay dividend which I reinvest, they don't need to be worth more per share for me to make a profit, right? That is, if I sell part of the stocks, it's GOOD if they're worth more than I bought them at, but the real money comes from the QUANTITY of stocks that you get by reinvesting your dividends, right? I would say it is more the other way around.  It is nice to get dividends and reinvest them, but overall the main gain comes from the stocks going up in value. The idea with index funds, however, is that you don't rely on any particular stock going up in value; instead you just rely on the aggregate of all the funds in the index going up.  By buying lots of stocks bundled in an index fund, you avoid being too reliant on any one company's performance. Can I invest ""small amounts"" (part of paycheck) into index funds on a monthly basis, like €500, without taking major ""transaction fees""? (Likely to be index fund specific... general answers or specific answers using popular stocks welcomed). Yes, you can.  At least in the US, whether you can do this automatically from your paycheck depends on whether you employer has that set up.  I don't know that work in the Netherlands.  However, at the least, you can almost certainly set up an auto-invest program that takes $X out of your bank account every month and buys shares of some index fund(s). Is this plan market-crash proof? My parents keep saying that ""Look at 2008 and think about what such a thing would do to your plan"", and I just see that it will be a setback, but ultimately irrelevant, unless it happens when I need the money. And even then I'm wondering whether I'll really need ALL of my money in one go. Doesn't the index fund go back up eventually? Does a crash even matter if you plan on holding stocks for 10 or more years? Crashes always matter, because as you say, there's always the possibility that the crash will occur at a time you need the money.  In general, it is historically true that the market recovers after crashes, so yes, if you have the financial and psychological fortitude to not pull your money out during the crash, and to ride it out, your net worth will probably go back up after a rough interlude.  No one can predict the future, so it's possible for some unprecedented crisis to cause an unprecedented crash.  However, the interconnectedness of stock markets and financial systems around the world is now so great that, were such a no-return crash to occur, it would probably be accompanied by the total collapse of the whole economic system.  In other words, if the stock market dies suddenly once and for all, the entire way of life of ""developed countries"" will probably die with it.  As long as you live in such a society, you can't really avoid ""gambling"" that it will continue to exist, so gambling on there not being a cataclysmic market crash isn't much more of a gamble. Does what I'm planning have similarities with some financial concept or product (to allow me to research better by looking at the risks of that concept/product)? Maybe like a mortgage investment plan without the bank eating your money in between? I'm not sure what you mean by ""what you're planning"".  The main financial products relevant to what you're describing are index funds (which you already mentioned) and index ETFs (which are basically similar with regard to the questions you're asking here).  As far as concepts, the philosophy of buying low-fee index funds, holding them for a long time, and not selling during crashes, is essentially that espoused by Jack Bogle (not quite the inventor of the index fund, but more or less its spiritual father) and the community of ""Bogleheads"" that has formed around his ideas.  There is a Bogleheads wiki with lots of information about the details of this approach to investing.  If this strategy appeals to you, you may find it useful to read through some of the pages on that site."

negative: While JB King says some useful things, I think there is another fundamental reason why stock markets go down after disasters, either natural or man-made.  There is a real impact on the markets - in the case of something like 9/11 due to closed airport, higher security costs, closer inspections on trade goods, tighter restrictions on visas, real payments for the rebuilding of destroyed buildings and insurance payouts for killed people, and eventually the cost of a war. But almost as important is the uncertainty and risk. Nobody knew what was going to happen in the days and weeks after an attack like that. Is there going to be another one a week later, or every week for the next year? Will air travel become essentially impractical? Will international trade be severely restricted? All those would have a huge, massive effect on the economy. You may argue that those things are very unlikely, even after something like 9/11. But even a small increase in the likelihood of a catastrophic economic crash is enough to start people selling. There is another thing that drives the market down. Even if most people are sure that there won't be a catastrophic economic crash, they know that other people think there might be and so will sell. That will drive the market down. If they know the market is going down, then sensible traders will start to sell, even if they think there is zero risk of a crash. This makes the effect worse. Eventually prices will drop so far that the people who don't think there is a crash will start to buy, so they can make a profit on the recovery. But that usually doesn't happen until there has been a substantial drop.

negative: Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof.  No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping.  Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing.  This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond.  Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions.  Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond.  You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries.  If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value.   But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.

negative: Since you mention the religion restriction, you should probably look into the stock market or funds investing in it. Owning stock basically means you own a part of a company and benefit from any increase in value the company may have (and 'loose' on decreases, provided you sell your stock) and you also earn dividends over the company's profit. If you do your research properly and buy into stable companies you shouldn't need to bother about temporary market movements or crashes (do pay attention to deterioration on the businesses you own though). When buying stocks you should be aiming for the very long run. As mentioned by Victor, do your research, I recommend you start it by looking into 'value stocks' should you choose that path.

negative: You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)

negative: Thanks for the link.   The way I interpretet is like this:   IPOs are underpriced to make sure they will sell all the shares to the market, avoiding lose of face. (short term andslide 4)  But that doesn't mean it is a good investment in the long run, because these companies have their reasons to go public, and one of those reasons could be that they think the market is overpricing stocks (long term and slide 5)   There are of course other reasons, one of them to finance the business.  By the way, I think the data is heavily skewed because of the dotcom crash, but interesting nonetheless.

negative: Shit article that displays the author has no farming idea of how Warren Buffet operates.    The man has metrics that tell him when shares are too expensive. When this happens, he doesn't buy, and dividends can tend to accumulate when you have almost $500 billion in assets (which could just be 2 years of 5% dividend yields).   If they are expensive, he won't buy, and money will accumulate. When there is a crash, he buys on the cheap. That how you get 23% of Year-on-year gains for 40 years.   The fact that he is not buying does indicate that the market is overvalued, which is consistent with the fact that there is still a substantial amount of QE. The question is: what will happen as the Fed winds it down. They are aiming for a small decrease or leveling out of the stock market. If that happens, and the market stagnates for a couple of years, maybe the metrics will catch up and he will buy again without a crash happening.

negative: I don't believe I said anything about the stock market going down, which happens regularly.  It's not like municipal bond markets crash very often—once every few generations, maybe. So her being off by a couple years would be insignificant.  Not saying I think it's going to happen. I'm just posing the question. If the municipal bond markets crashed within the next year, she would be vindicated.

negative: I am a believer in stocks for the long term, I sat on the S&P right though the last crash, and am 15% below the high before the crash.  For individual stocks, you need to look more closely, and often ask yourself about its valuation. The trick is to buy right and not be afraid to sell when the stock appears to be too high for the underlying fundamentals. Before the dotcom bubble I bought Motorola at $40. Sold some at $80, $100, and out at $120. Coworkers who bought in were laughing as it went to $160. But soon after, the high tech bubble burst, and my sales at $100 looked good in hindsight. The stock you are looking at - would you buy more at today's price? If not, it may be time to sell at least some of that position.

negative: "Between 1 and 2 G is actually pretty decent for a High School Student.  Your best bet in my opinion is to wait the next (small) stock market crash, and then invest in an index fund. A fund that tracks the SP500 or the Russel 2000 would be a good choice. By stock market crash, I'm talking about a 20% to 30% drop from the highest point. The stock market is at an all time high, but nobody knows if it's going to keep going.  I would avoid penny stocks, at least until you can read their annual report and understand most of what they're claiming, especially the cash flow statement. From the few that I've looked at, penny stock companies just keep issuing stock to raise money for their money loosing operations.  I'd also avoid individual stocks for now. You can setup a practice account somewhere online, and try trading. Your classmates probably brag about how much they've made, but they won't tell you how much they lost.  You are not misusing your money by ""not doing anything with it"". Your classmates are gambling with it, they might as well go to a casino.  Echoing what others have said, investing in yourself is your best option at this point. Try to get into the best school that you can. Anything that gives you an edge over other people in terms of experience or education is good. So try to get some leadership and team experience. , and some online classes in a field that interests you."

negative: While debt increases the likelihood and magnitude of a crash, speculation, excess supply and other market factors can result in crashes without requiring excessive debt. A popular counter example of crashes due to speculation is 16th century Dutch Tulip Mania.  The dot com bubble is a more recent example of a speculative crash. There were debt related issues for some companies and the run ups in stock prices were increased by leveraged traders, but the actual crash was the result of failures of start up companies to produce profits. While all tech stocks fell together, sound companies with products and profits survive today. As for recessions, they are simply periods of time with decreased economic activity. Recessions can be caused by financial crashes, decreased demand following a war, or supply shocks like the oil crisis in the 1970's. In summary, debt is simply a magnifier. It can increase profits just as easily as can increase losses. The real problems with crashes and recessions are often related to unfounded faith in increasing value and unexpected changes in demand.

negative: "But speculation is absolutely intended to happen, and is considered necessary for healthy a investment environment.  What I am saying, however, is that this desire to rid the world of HFT appears to be moral rather than logical. There is very little reason to eliminate HFT as it stands, although there appears to be a propensity for very emotional responses to the basic concept. Ones I can appreciate. However I am suggesting they are misguided as the people who should be upset with HFT are the hedge fund managers and day traders they are outwitting, not you or me who buy and sell shares on a whim every so often. If you want to ban day traders that is a separate argument I don't want to go into.  The idea that these computer algorithms are all set to ""sell,sell,sell"" is provably nonsensical. If that were the case, all of the HFT participants would have gone massively bankrupt during the flash crashes. Also, it is quite patently the case that somebody has to be buying in order for anybody to sell. Saying ""this is what caused some of the crashes"" is just your desire for a simple explanation. It must have been more complex than this, and to my knowledge none of these crashes have been adequately explained although some poorly designed algorithms have been implicated. Note that in one of these cases IIRC a fund closed its doors due to the losses, and the market was largely unaffected. So it seems like a problem that self corrects in this case, and one that only *harms* the participant that erred.  Also, to correct a basic misunderstanding, selling happens all of the time, and does not inherently drive the price down. There are by definition an *equal number of sales to purchases*. What drives the price down is *the people buying being willing to pay less*.  EDIT: as another aside, a point I have made elsewhere and seems suitable to make here: flash crashes, whilst causing panic, are again something only the professional intra-day trading community are likely to be affected by. Their very name implies so. The reason being that anybody investing based on the *long term investment potential* of a company will only benefit in the temporary drop in price, as they can purchase more of the company at a bargain price. Any intelligent investor will not be fazed by the drop in price, as price has *no bearing on a company's real value*, and stocks do tend towards this value over time, whatever happens over the short term. The only case in which it could is if the company owns a large portfolio of stock that itself devalues dramatically that they intended to sell and as a result experience cash flow problems. This is so incredibly unlikely with a flash crash as to be ignored."

negative: "Because more people bought it than sold it. That's really all one can say. You look for news stories related to the event, but you don't really know that's what drove people to buy or sell. We're still trying to figure out the cause of the recent flash crash, for example. For the most part, I feel journalism trying to describe why the markets moved is destined to fail.  It's very complicated. Stocks can fall on above average earnings reports, and rise on dismal annual reports. I've heard a suggestion before that people ""buy on the rumor, sell on the news"". Which is just this side of insider trading."

negative: This belong in /r/redacted  If there's a market correction (not crash, as the economy is on good foundation), it will not topple the sitting president, as it did not topple other president who went through corrections and crashes.  The economy is improving a lot under Trump. Hence the stock market going up.  >  the Swamp is so undrainable that it will end up making mincemeat of Donald Trump  Then give up? Actually, that's why Trump was elected.

negative: "Your strategy fails to control risk. Your ""inversed crash"" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts ""scramble"" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your ""trick"" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook."

negative: That's not why they crashed. They crashed because the only reason people were buying them is because they would go up in value and then they could sell them for profit later. Sounds exactly like Bitcoin in my opinion. The only difference is Bitcoin is useful in the sense that criminals can use it and not get in trouble.   How many people do you know using Bitcoin as a currency? They aren't, they are only buying it to sell it for a profit later. That isn't sustainable. It isn't backed by a government or military and it is too volatile to actually use as a currency. When it crashes and criminals are the only ones using it, then what is it worth? Maybe $100 a coin? $10? Who knows, it sure as hell isn't $5,000 a coin though.

negative: "If you really believe in the particular stocks, then don't worry about their daily price.  Overall if the company is sound, and presumably paying a dividend, then you're in it for the long haul. Notwithstanding that, it is reasonable to look for a way out.  The two you describe are quite different in their specifics. Selling sounds like the simpler of the two, but the trigger event, and if it is automatic or ""manual"" matters.  If you are happy to put in a sell order at some time in the future, then just go ahead with that. Many brokers can place a STOP order, that will trigger on a certain price threshold being hit.  Do note, however, that by default this would place a market order, and depending on the price that breaks through, in the event of a flash crash, depending on how fast the brokers systems were, you could find yourself selling quite cheaply. A STOP LIMIT order will place a limit order at a triggered price.  This would limit your overall downside loss, but you might not sell at all if the market is really running away. Options are another reasonable way to deal with the situation, sort of like insurance.  In this case you would likely buy a PUT, which would give you the right, but not the obligation to sell the stock at the price the that was specified in the option.  In this case, no matter what, you are out the price of the option itself (hence my allusion to insurance), but if the event never happens then that was the price you paid to have that peace of mind. I cannot recommend a specific course of action, but hopefully that fleshed out the options you have."

negative: Buffett is a value investor. His goal is to buy good companies when the market is overly worried and prices them below intrinsic value. When the market is highly priced it is much more difficult for him to find things that he thinks are at an attractive price. When people are very worried and the market has crashed, stocks are then priced below their intrinsic value and he can use the cash he keeps in the company to make attractive purchases. Remember that Buffett is not concerned with the ups and downs of the price of Berkshire Hathaway stock, he is concerned with the economic value of the assets that the company owns. So if all stock prices crash and he can buy things that are at bargain prices, he is happy no matter what Berkshire stock price does in the short run. One consequence of value investing is that because you are buying assets at bargain prices, the total value of your assets drops less in a bear market than the highly priced stuff that drives the major indexes.

negative: The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument.


query: In US, is it a good idea to hire a tax consultant for doing taxes?

positive: 75k is short of the 'highly compensated' category.  Most US citizens in that pay range would consider paying someone to do their taxes as an unnecessary expense.  Tax shelters usually don't come into play for this level of income.  However, there are certain things which provide deductions. Some things that make it better to pay someone:   Use the free online tax forms to sandbox your returns.  If all you're concerned about is ensuring you pay your taxes correctly, this is the most cost efficient route. If you want to minimize your tax burden, consult with a CPA.  Be sure to get one who is familiar with resident aliens from your country and the relevant tax treaties. The estimate you're looking at may be the withholding, of which you may be eligible for a refund for some part of that withholding.   Tax treaties likely make sure that you get credit on each side for the money paid in the other.  For example, as a US citizen, if I go to Europe and work and pay taxes there, I can deduct the taxes paid in Europe from my tax burden in the US.  If I've already paid more to the EU than I would have paid on the same amount earned in the US, then my tax burden in the US is zero.  By the same token, if I have not paid up to my US burden, then I owe the balance to the US.  But this is way better than paying taxes to your home country and to the host country where you earned the money.

positive: There are few things going on here: My advice would be: with 75k income and a regular pay check there isn't a whole let you can do to adjust your tax burden. It's unlikely that any adviser will save enough money to warrant professional advice and the associated cost. Use off the shelf software for tax return and tax planning.

positive: It's going to depend entirely on your tax situation, its complexity, and your willingness/interest in dealing with tax filings.  Personally I find that not only do I not enjoy dealing with figuring out my taxes, but I don't know even a fraction of the possible deductions available and all the clever ways to leverage them.  Plus the tax code is changing constantly and staying on top of that is not something I'm ever going to attempt. I am of the philosophy that it is my duty to pay only the absolute minimum tax legally required, and to utilize every possible exemption, deduction, credit, etc. that is available to me.  Plus my business activities are a bit on the non-traditional side so it requires some unorthodox thinking at times.  For me, a trained professional is the only way to go.  What it costs me, I way more than make up in savings on my tax bill.  I also go out of my way to never get a refund because if I get one, it just means I gave the government a free loan. The last time I computed my own taxes (used TurboTax if memory serves) was I think in the late 90s.

positive: Good professional tax advice is expensive. If your situation is simple, then paying someone doesn't give you more than you could get from a simple software package.  In this case, doing your own taxes will save you money this year, and also help you next year, as your situation grows steadily more complex. If you don't do your own taxes when you're single with a part time job, you'll never do it when you have a family, a full time job, a side business, and many deductions. Learning how to do your taxes over time, as your 'tax life' becomes complex, is a valuable skill. If your situation is complex, you will need pay a lot to get it done correctly. Sometimes, that cost is worthwhile. At bare minimum, I would say 'attempt to do your taxes yourself, first'. This will force you to organize your files, making the administrative cost of doing your return lower (ie: you aren't paying your tax firm to sort your receipts, because you've already ordered them nicely with your own subtotals, everything perfectly stapled together). If your situation is complex, and you find a place to get it done cheaply (think H&R Block), you will not be getting value for service. I am not saying a low-end tax firm will necessarily get things wrong, but if you don't have a qualified professional (read: university educated and designated) doing your return, the complexities can be ignored. Low-end tax firms typically hire seasonal staff, train them for 1-2 weeks, and mostly just show them how to enter tax slips into the same software you could buy yourself. If you underpay for professional services, you will pay the price, metaphorically speaking. For your specific situation, I strongly recommend you have a professional service look at your returns, because you are a non-resident, meaning you likely need to file in your home country as well. Follow what they do with your return, and next year, see how much of it you can do yourself. Before you hire someone, get a fee quote, and shop around until you find someone you are comfortable with. $1k spent now could save you many headaches in the future.

positive: "I've been highly compensated for a while now, and I have never used a tax professional.  My past complications include the year that my company was bought by a VC firm and my stock options and stock held were bought out to the tune of 5x my salary.  And now I have two kids in college, with scholarships, and paying the remainder out of 529 accounts. Usually, I don't even use tax software.  My typical method is to use the online software -- like turbotax online -- and let it figure out where I am.  Then I use the ""Free File Fillable forms"" online to actually complete the process.  Search for ""Free File Fillable Forms"" -- it's not the same as using turbotax or TaxAct for free.   My suggestion to you:  download the PDF form of 1040EZ and 1040A from the IRS.  Print the EZ, and fill it out.  This will give you a better feel for what exactly is going on.  With your income, I don't think you can file the EZ, but it's a good way to get your feet wet. The way income taxes work here in the US: According to the IRS, the Personal Exemption this year is worth $4,050, and the Standard Deduction $6,300, assuming you're single.   Lets assume that your salary will be in fact 75,000, and you don't pay for any benefits, but you do make a 401k contribution of 15% of your salary.  Then your W-2 at the end of the year should tell you to put 63,750 in a particular box on your 1040 form.  (63,750 is 85% of 75,000).  Lets then assume 63,750 is your AGI after other additions and subtractions.  63,750 - 4,050 - 6,300 == 53,400. The federal Tax system is graduated, meaning there are different ranges (brackets) with different percentages.  The term tax people use for taxable income of 53,400 is ""marginal tax rate""...so the last dollar they tax at 25%.  Other dollars less.  According to the IRS, if you're single, then on 53,400, you pay ""$6,897.50 plus 25% of the amount over $50,400""  Or 6897.50 + 750, or 7647.50. Note this is only Federal Income Tax.  You will also be paying Social Security and Medicare payroll Tax.  And I'm guessing you'll also be paying colorado state income tax.  Each state has its own forms and methods for figuring out the taxes and stuff. By the way, when you start, you'll fill out a ""W-4"" form to ""help"" you figure out how much to withhold from every paycheck.  (I find the W-4 is not helpful at all).  Your company will withhold from your paycheck some mysterious amount, and the process of filling out your 1040A or 1040EZ or whatever will be, likely, to get the over-withheld amount back."

positive: "Whether you do decide to go with a tax advisor or not, be sure to do some research on your own. When we moved to the US about 5 years ago, I did find the taxes here pretty complicated and confusing.  I went ahead and read up all different tax documents and did some calculations of my own before hiring a CPA (at that point, I just wanted a second opinion to make sure I got the calculations right). However, when the office of the CPA was finished with my taxes, I found they had made a mistake! When I went back to their office to point it out, the lady just shrugged, corrected her numbers on the form and said ""You seem to know a lot about this stuff already. Why are you here?"" I swore to never use them again - not this particular CPA at least. Now, I am not saying all CPAs are the same - some of them are pretty darn good at their job and know what they are doing. All I am saying is it helps to be prepared and know some basic stuff. Just don't go in all blind.  After all, they are also humans prone to mistakes and your taxes are your liability in the end.  My suggestion is to start with a good tool that supports tax filing for non-residents. Most of them provide a step-by-step QA based tool. As you go through the steps, Google each question you don't understand. It may take more time than hiring a tax advisor directly but in the end it will all be worth it."

positive: Good tax people are expensive. If you are comfortable with numbers and computers, you can do it better yourself.

negative: "All the other answers posted thus far discuss matters from the perspective of US tax laws and are unanimous in declaring that what the OP wants to do is indeed a very bad idea. I fully agree: it is a bad idea from the perspective of US tax laws, and is likely a bad idea from the perspective of Indian tax laws too, but what the OP wants to do is  (or used to be) common practice in India. In more recent times, India has created a Permanent Account Number (""PAN number"") for each taxpayer for income tax purposes, and each bank account or investment must have the owner's (or first-named owner's, in case of a joint account) PAN number associated with it.  This most likely has decreased the popularity of such arrangements, or has led to new twists being used. The OP has not indicated the residence and citizenship of his family (or his own status for that matter), but if they are all Indian citizens resident in India and are Hindus, then there might be one mechanism for doing what the OP wants to do: apply for a PAN number in the name of the Hindu Undivided Family and use this number to carry out the investments in the name of the Hindu Undivided Family.  (There presumably are similar statuses for undivided families for other religions, but I am not familiar with them). There are lots of matters here which are more legal questions than personal finance questions: e.g. if the OP is a US tax resident, then the family presumably will not be able to claim Hindu Undivided Family status since the OP has been divided from the family for tax purposes (or so I think). Even if HUF status is available, the OP might not be able to act as the pater familias while his father is alive, and so on.  Consultation with tax lawyers, not just chartered accountants, in India is certainly advisable."

negative: If Trump close loopholes for big corporation not paying taxes, while also reducing taxes, it will work.   Any ideas how much taxes Apple paid last year? How much of Apple's money is off-shore?   But your plans are good too! Really. They also do not involve raising taxes.  You have no idea how many people are not audited by the IRS, how big is the under-the-table payments, black market, etc.  Just fix the system.  And when you close loopholes, to save tax money, companies will need to spend more capital and hire people to reduce their taxable profit.

negative: Some of the expenses you describe may be eligible to be paid off by a 401(k) without incurring a penalty. As long as you do not mind paying tax on the extra income. If your tax bracket does not go up, then using your IRA may not be a bad idea. You should consult a tax expert and see which expenses can qualify for a withdrawal without penalty.  I believe medical bills and medical insurance costs are eligible to be withdrawn without penalty in some instances.

negative: "hello – I am a natural born US citizen; I have worked 35+ years in the United States; I have a 401(k), IRA, Social Security benefits. I have researched the ex-patriot possibilities for several years. I've consulted both accountants and tax attorneys. The long answer is: hire tax consultants/attorneys to try to shelter what assets you can. 401(k), IRA, and Social Security benefits are all taxable worldwide to US citizens. unless you become the citizen of your new country of residence, these taxes are unavoidable. since all of the above assets are considered ""pretax"" to the US government, they are all taxable on distribution whether slowly or in lump sum. the short answer is: ""Hotel California""… ""Relax, said the watchman – we are programmed to receive. You can check out any time, but you can never leave…"""

negative: I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.

negative: "no, good questions my friend.  when did you do this rollover? if it was this year, your firm should have forms that you can fill out to ""undo"" the roth conversion - only earnings on your investments will be taxed, and everything gets rolled over to a traditional IRA. not fun for tax filing but...  you can also leave them as is and pay the taxes (usually only a good option if it's a low income year for the filer).  i would consult your tax advisor regardless in this situation."

negative: Expenses are where the catch is found.  Not all expenditures are considered expenses for tax purposes.  Good CPAs make a comfortable living untangling this sort of thing.  Advice for both of your family members' businesses...consult with a CPA before making big purchases.  They may need to adjust the way they buy, or the timing of it, or simply to set aside capital to pay the taxes for the profit used to purchase those items.  CPA can help find the best path.  That 10k in unallocated income can be used to redecorate your office, but there's still 3k in taxes due on it. Bottom Line:  Can't label business income as profit until the taxes have been paid.

negative: Unfortunately, nothing is ever that simple. Do you have any income in the country where you currently live? The US has tax treaties with many countries, and though you may not have tax on the income generated by 401(k) withdrawals in the US, that income may be taxable in your home country. Your best bet at this point is to hire an accountant that is familiar with US tax treaty issues and pay for some advice.

negative: Apparently Amazon's legal team that is battling to prevent online retailers from getting taxed was not consulted as to whether an idea like this would look *really* bad for their case. It's brilliant, but a wee bit diabolical. Brick and mortar retailers really have no recourse against something like this.

negative: Set up a company or partnership. Generally what you describe is a classic partnership. In the US - the partnership itself is not taxed (as opposed to a corporation), and each partner is taxed separately on the distributions. That is, the partners as a whole will be taxed on the income of one, if it is distributed through the partnership. Exactly what you want. Do consult with a tax adviser familiar with the Federal and the State laws with the specifics of setting it up and managing it, maybe you'll get a better advice from a professional (which I am not, of course).

negative: "You will need to file  a US income tax return, and declare all income world-wide.  Whether this results in any tax owed depends on your particular circumstances, and the effect of any tax treaties between the US and India. There are additional requirements for the filing of information on the amounts in foreign accounts held by ""US tax persons"".  Depending on the nature of these accounts, the complexity of the forms, and the penalties for non-compliance can be quite high... Short version:  Consult a professional well-qualified in US/India tax matters..."

negative: "1) Yes in theory that is right - minus any state taxes as well.       2) They could since there is an unknown amount outside of the US - and probably it will be a percentage and not all. Most of these companies that make a difference are already international companies.       3) They would most likely still do it for any money kept offshore, and it doesn't prevent them from continuing to do it. Again, I didn't say this was a good solution. They are just hoping to ward off economic collapse a little longer by doing this, or perhaps hire more accountants to be able to look at their books to figure out how much they are hiding to punish them. There could be many ""motivations"" for doing this tax. But I doubt any of the motivations intend to stop it from continuing to happen after the tax. The problem is any company that takes advantage of it basically says ""yes, i broke the law - in this amount."" Thus, it might be a good way to get a list of companies to audit more thoroughly."

negative: With something this complicated you are going to want to consult professionals. Either a professional with international experience, who will tell you the best tax arrangement overall but might come expensive, or one professional in each country who will optimize for that country. You will have to pay US taxes, and depending on your residency probably some in Spain. Double tax agreements should kick in to prevent you paying tax on the same money twice. You do not have to pay separate 'European' taxes. If you do substantial business in another country you might have to pay there, but one of your professionals should sort it out.

negative: Taxes should never be hated. It should be an honor to contribute toward the common good of the nation. It used to be this way until they were made into a political weapon. Our nation used to raise taxes when we held debt and lower taxes when debt was low. Instead, this bullshit idea that taxes are bad was crammed down peoples throats, and now we're sitting at a significant debt that really started to take off with Reagan.

negative: $300k gross is lunch money, even for many small brick and mortar businesses. Add in taxes (federal, state, county, city, sales tax, property tax, parking, licenses/ permits), rent, cost of goods, hired labor and that $300k turns into $0, if you're lucky.

negative: >Here's the real scoop - I would hire more people and buy more inventory and put more into capital investment if I paid less taxes,  You would do so if there was money to be made doing so.   It's as simple as that.   Corporate Taxes are on net income.    If hiring one more person contributed further to your bottom line you'd do so.    That is the only thing that drives you.   If the incremental cost of the hire is lower than the increased revenue.   Period.  Corporate taxes are on net income.   Meaning you're still going to get more money, you're just going to get a little less of that incremental income growth than you thought.    You'll still hire.

negative: From India Tax point of view: Some one else may give the US tax treatment. Refer to this similar question what taxes I need to pay in India Capital Gains. My accountant never asked or reported the bought property in taxes- should he reported in taxes?Did he do wrong not reporting   should I report the property in my next year taxes?   If you mean in IT Returns, yes it should be declared. Can i bring the money back if needed? By Back if you mean repatriate to US, The capital portion would be Ease if the loan property was purchased or loan repaid from NRE. Else there is limit on the amount and paperwork. Consult a CA. If I rent the property instead of selling, do I have to report the income and what income?   should I be filling taxes on the rental income in India or just in USA or both   You are taxable for the rent and have to report it as income and pay taxes in India.

negative: > On the other hand, no tax right offs for charities does not seem like a good idea  it's all about subsidies  I **DO NOT** want to subsidize you with your charitable deductions by paying more taxes myself  charity is an absolute and needs no fucking government involved

negative: "> Taxing wealth is an easy idea, but I don't think it can ever work. Wealth is too easily hidden, transformed, or revalued.  You should Google the effective corporate tax rates. It's much much easier to hide corporate profits or find loopholes than to tax individual income.  Also, your allegory about Kleenex makes zero sense whatsoever. These aren't things the ""owners"" would normally consume, of course not. However, that's a super weird way to define a business. I trust a sole proprietor that stocks vending machines wouldn't ""consume"" all these beverage products on their own, but a business works that way.  A corporation isn't its own entity, it is actively managed by people hired by the shareholders. It doesn't make its own decisions, it isn't a self-perpetuating machine. Why do we tax it as if it does? Tax income for people. Making the argument people will find loopholes is just as ludicrous. Corporations find tax loopholes anyway, but I find it pretty ridiculous to think ""we can't make that a law because people will break it"". Then make it so people can't break it.  As it stands, it's easier to find loopholes and write-offs as a corporation than an individual anyway, and the consequences as a corporation are insignificant to shareholders if they do get caught  Taxing individual wealth isn't the easy idea. Double-taxing an arbitrary intermediary is."

negative: The only ridiculous thing in the article is the statement that taxes to try to keep down inequality won't do any good because companies will hire less.   What bullshit. Taxes on the wealthy doesn't need to come from the companies alone, it should also come from closing ridiculous loopholes that only favour the rich, and a more progressive income tax system that includes all earnings, be them through wages or through capital gains.   I really don't understand why $100,000 in wages should be treated differently tax-wise than $100,000 in capital gains...

negative: when investing in index funds Index fund as the name suggests invests in the same proportion of the stocks that make up the index. You can choose a Index Fund that tracks NYSE or S&P etc. You cannot select individual companies. Generally these are passively managed, i.e. just follow the index composition via automated algorithms resulting in lower Fund Manager costs. is it possible to establish an offshore company Yes it is possible and most large organization or High Net-worth individuals do this. Its expensive and complicated for ordinary individuals. One needs and army of International Tax Consultants / International Lawyers / etc but do I have to pay taxes from the capital gains at the end of the year? Yes Canada taxes on world wide income and you would have to pay taxes on gains in Canada. Note depending on your tax residency status in US, you may have to pay tax in US as well.

negative: if you have 30k to invest use some of it to hire someone because the returns you'd get with some sort of professional would probably make up for what your paying them in comparison to doing it on your own. although if you're really against it then like mjvcaj said, ETF's would probably be a good idea.

negative: "I'm going to post this as an answer because it's from the GoFundMe website, but ultimately even they say to speak with a tax professional about it.  Am I responsible for taxes? (US Only) While this is by no means a guarantee, donations on GoFundMe are   simply considered to be ""personal gifts"" which are not, for the most   part, taxed as income in the US. However, there may be particular,   case-specific instances where the income is taxable (dependent on   amounts received and use of the monies, etc.).     We're unable to   provide specific tax advice since everyone's situation is different   and tax rules can change on a yearly basis. We advise that you   maintain adequate records of donations received, and consult with your   personal tax adviser.     Additionally, WePay will not report the funds   you collect as earned income. It is up to you (and a tax professional)   to determine whether your proceeds represent taxable income. The   person who's listed on the WePay account and ultimately receives the   funds may be responsible for taxes.     Again, every situation is   different, so please consult with a tax professional in your area. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/204295498-Am-I-responsible-for-taxes-US-Only- And here's a blurb from LibertyTax.com which adds to the confusion, but enforces the ""speak with a professional"" idea: Crowdfunding services have to report to the IRS campaigns that total   at least $20,000 and 200 transactions. Money collected from   crowdfunding is considered either income or a gift. This is where things get a little tricky. If money donated is not a   gift or investment, it is considered taxable income. Even a gift could   be subject to the gift tax, but that tax applies only to the gift   giver. Non-Taxable Gifts These are donations made without the expectation of getting something   in return. Think of all those Patriots’ fans who gave money to   GoFundMe to help defray the cost of quarterback Tom Brady’s NFL fine   for Deflategate. Those fans aren’t expecting anything in return –   except maybe some satisfaction -- so their donations are considered   gifts. Under IRS rules, an individual can give another individual a   gift of up to $14,000 without tax implications. So, unless a Brady fan   is particularly generous, his or her GoFundMe gift won’t be taxed. Taxable Income Now consider that same Brady fan donating $300 to a Patriots’ business   venture. If the fan receives stock or equity in the company in return   for the donation, this is considered an investment and is not taxable   . However, if the business owner does not offer stock or equity in the   company, the money donated could be considered business income and the   recipient would need to report it on a tax return. https://www.libertytax.com/tax-lounge/two-tax-rules-to-know-before-you-try-kickstarter-or-gofundme/"

negative: It seems that you're asking for a legal/tax advice, and I vote to close the question as off-topic for that. This is not the place. But on the second thought, I will share some of the ideas I have, provided of course that you will not consider them as any sort of tax advice whatsoever, and will not rely on it for any tax planning without verifying with a licensed professional. Taking 401k money out just like that means that you are going to pay your taxes on that money plus additional 10% penalty. As @JoeTaxpayer said, this rarely makes economic sense. However, taking 401K money out to pay your medical bills (which would otherwise be deductible, pay attention to the nuances) doesn't trigger the penalty. It looks like in your case you might (unfortunately) have a chance to use this provision. Another case when you can withdraw money without penalty is disability, which according to what you describe is, unfortunately, a situation you're very likely to find yourself in. Also, you can withdraw funds as income for a substantial period of time, and under certain conditions it will not be subject to the 10% penalty. Of course, leaving it to the beneficiaries, as mentioned by others, is another and very valid option. See publication 575 for specific details, and be sure to consult a tax professional before doing anything.

negative: The transaction will be taxable in India. You will have to pay Capital Gains tax. I am assuming that you purchased the house while you were Indian Resident for tax purposes. As such its needs more paper work to get the money back to US. Consult a CA in India who will help with the paperwork. You haven't mentioned your tax status in US, one you update it, someone will post a US tax aspects of the transaction.

negative: "Incremental profit, not revenue. If the incremental profit I project from an additional hire is greater than the cost. Taxes drive the cost up and the profit down, depending on the tax. Saying ""I will hire no matter what taxes are levied against me"" is just as ridiculous as saying ""I will not hire if one cent is levied against me"".   At the end of the day, profits are the source of future expansion and investment (we are not publicly traded). Taxes effectively reduce the amount we have left to invest. They do not reduce this amount to zero, but they do reduce it.   You are right to imply that I want the business to grow constantly, but that requires investment of actual money before the top or bottom line impact happens, months or years in advance. Sometimes, you take a risk that doesn't pan out, and that money is gone forever. Sometimes it develops into a profitable segment of the business. In wither case, taxes reduce the chunk of change we can use for this kind of activity.  I sense latent hostility in your phrasing, but I hope I am wrong. It feels like you are accusing me of making a profit, but I openly admit to making a profit. I do not view this as something bad. It is profitability that allows me to increase salary and benefit levels for employees, try to continually improve working conditions, invest in new equipment, spend on r&amp;d to make better products, and of course increase my personal income.  I try to align the way in which i make money personally with constantly making customers and employees happier. Happy customers means more revenue and happy employees means better processes, better ideas, and more profit. I don't view this as bad, and I hope I read emotion into your comment that you did not mean. If so, I apologize in advance, but if you did mean to be hostile, I hope you at least understand where I am coming from now.  Edit: grammar"

negative: I'm not sure 1099-MISC is what you should expect. Equity means ownership, and in LLC context it means membership. As an LLC member, you'll get distributions and should receive a K-1 form for tax treatment, not 1099 or W2. If the CEO is talking about 1099 it means he's going to hire you as a contractor which contradicts the statement about equity allocation. That's an entirely different situation. 1) Specifically, would the 1099-MISC form be used in this case? 1099-MISC is used to describe various payments. Depending on which box is filled, the tax treatment may be as of employment income (subject to SE taxes) or passive income (royalties, rents, etc - subject to various limitations in the tax code). 3) If this is the only logical method of compensation (receiving a % of real estate sales), how would it be taxed? That would probably be a commission and taxed as employment income. I suggest to get a professional tax adviser consultation on this issue, with specific details, numbers, and kinds of deals involved. You can get gain or lose a lot of money just because you're characterized as a contractor and not LLC member or employee (each has its own benefits and disadvantages, and you have to consider them all). 4) Are there any advantages/disadvantages to acquiring and selling   properties through the company as opposed to receiving a % of sales? Yes. There are advantages and there are disadvantages. For example, if you're using a corporation, you can get salary, if you're a contractor you cannot. There are a lot of issues hidden in this distinction (which I've just discussed with KeithS in this argument).

negative: "No one thinks a flat tax is a good idea.  As someone that has a good income, I would love to be paying 20%.  But I doubt a poorer person paying 5% would agree.  Flat tax is regressive and hurts poorer people the most.  ""The flat tax falls flat for good reasons""  https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/26/the-flat-tax-falls-flat-for-good-reasons/"

negative: First of all, consult an accountant who is familiar with tax laws and online businesses. While most accountants know tax laws, fewer know how to handle online income like you describe although the number is growing. Right now, since you're a minor, this complicates things a bit. That's why you'll need a tax accountant to come up with the best business structure to use. You'll need to keep your own records to estimate your quarterly taxes. At the amount you're making, you'll want to do this since you'll pay a substantial penalty at the end of the year if you don't. You can use a small business accounting software package for this or just track everything using Excel or the like.  As long as taxes are paid, you won't go to jail. But you need to pay them along with any penalties by April 15, 2013. If you don't do this, then the IRS will want to have a 'discussion' with you.

negative: "My wife and I use to file ""married file separately"".  I consulted a tax accountant and it does not matter who's name the accounts are under.  The interest from the accounts can be counted as income on either person's tax return regardless of whose name is on the account.  You can even split the interest income between the returns if that is advantageous.  This is true for any income earned between the two of you. It use to be a big hassle to file this way even using the software programs.  The programs would not attempt to allocate the income between the tax returns in order to minimize my tax liability.  I had to do this manually.  Most of the loopholes have been closed and the last couple of years I've filed ""married filed jointly"". I'm not sure how your wife's citizenship status affects any of this."

negative: It depends on where you are in life, and where you want to be at some point in the future, and the taxes, expenses and income at those points in your life. You don't get a mortgage to save on taxes, or keep a mortgage to save on taxes. But if somebody said they want to have the house paid off before they retire, that sounds to me like a great plan. They do need to balance it with saving for retirement, emergency fund, and college costs for themselves or their children.  Without having the whole picture it is impossible to say doing X is always a good idea.

negative: You will have to pay your taxes in the UK not USA. For tax purposes it is the company's tax residency not where the server is located. You are just hiring a server in USA. Take for example a CDN being used for your same service then would you pay taxes in 300 different countries if you use Akamai? Does not work that way.