Asset protection: When should an individual seriously consider shielding their assets?
"If your meaning of ""asset protection"" is buying gold and canned food in the name of a Nevada LLC because some radio guy said so, bad idea. For a person, if you have assets, buy appropriate liability limits with your homeowner/renter insurance policy or purchase an ""umbrella"" liability policy. This type of insurance is cheap. If you don't have assets, it may not be worth the cost of insuring yourself beyond the default limits on your renter's or homeowner's policy. If you have a business, you need to talk to your insurance agent about what coverage is appropriate for the business as a whole vs. you personally. You also need to talk to your attorney about how to conduct yourself so that your business interests are separated from your personal interests."
"Wikipedia-level definitions are not an argument.  You're also conflating terms you don't understand.  Obligations issued by the US government are backed by the full faith and credit of the government, as is its physical currency.  This is not the same as every electronic dollar in every bank account comprising the money supply.  Money is accepted by convention, and by government fiat.  Now, I know you don't understand the nuance of what I just said, so I look forward to your confused and strenuously mixed up answer, which will be a blend between whatever white knighting you can lift off a Money 101 website coupled with a C-level community college education.  Hahaha but seriously thanks for letting me know about fractional reserve banking by simply elaborating on its definition.  True insights there, my friend.  Anyway, when a bank lends out money, funds above the reserve are created out of thin air.  The bank gives you a whole lot of ""full faith and credit"" apparently by your understanding, and if you don't pay them, then they get your car, house, non-exempt assets in bankruptcy, etc.  My point is that it is an exorbitant privilege which if thought about for more than two seconds, and without an authority-worshipping, boot licking attitude, is pretty fucked up.  The reserve ratio isn't just about the assets kept on hand.  It's about where the 100% of those assets come from.  Ultimately they come from the Federal Reserve, and not even the Treasury." "One thing I would add to TTT's answer: One of the benefits of using an LLC for your business is right there in the name - ""limited liability"". It provides a level of protection for your personal assets should your business go bankrupt, get sued, and so forth. However, if someone can show that there's no real separation between your LLC's activities and your personal activities, then they can ""pierce the corporate veil"" and go after your personal assets. If this loan is really purely personal and not related to your business activities, you may create a paper trail that can later be used in this way. My advice would be to just avoid the whole thing and make the loan from personal funds. I don't see any upside to doing this out of the LLC funds." It is highly unlikely that this would be approved by a mortgage underwriter.   When the bank gives a loan with a security interest in a property (a lien), they are protected - if the borrower does not repay the loan, the property can be foreclosed on and sold, and the lender is made whole for the amount of the loan that was not repaid.   When two parties are listed on the deed, then each owns an UNDIVIDED 50% share in the property.  If only one party has pledged the property as surety against the loan, then in effect only 50% of the property is forecloseable.  This means that the bank is unable to recoup its loss.   For a (fictional, highly simplified) concrete example, suppose that the house is worth $100,000 and Adam and Zoe are listed on the deed, but Adam is the borrower for a $100,000 mortgage.  Adam owes $100,000 and has an asset worth $50,000 (which he has pledged as security for the loan), while Zoe owes nothing and has an asset worth $50,000 (which is entirely unencumbered).  If Adam does not pay the mortgage, the bank would only be able to foreclose on his $50,000 half of the property, leaving them exposed to great risk.   There are other legal and financial reasons, but overall I think you'll find it very difficult to locate a lender who is willing to take that kind of risk.  It's very complicated and there is absolutely no up-side.   Also - speaking from experience (from which I was protected because of the bank's underwriting rules) and echoing the advice offered by others on this site: don't bother trying.  Commingling assets without a contract (either implicit by marriage or explicit by, well a contract) is going to get you in trouble. "I have received a response from SIPC, confirming littleadv's answer: For a brief background, the protections available under the Securities   Investor Protection Act (""SIPA""), are only available in the context of   a liquidation proceeding of a SIPC member broker-dealer and relate to   the ""custody"" of securities and related cash at the SIPC member   broker-dealer. Thus, if a SIPC member broker-dealer were to fail at a   time when a customer had securities and/or cash in the custody of the   SIPC member broker-dealer, in most instances it would be SIPC's   obligation to restore those securities and cash to the customer,   within statutory limits. That does not mean, however, that the   customer would necessarily receive the original value of his or her   purchase. Rather, the customer receives the security itself and/or the   value of the customer's account as of the day that the liquidation   commenced. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of any   security. In a liquidation proceeding under the SIPA, SIPC may advance   up to $500,000 per customer (including a $250,000 limit on cash in the   account). Please note that this protection only applies to the extent that you   entrust cash or securities to a U.S. SIPC member. Foreign broker   dealer subsidiaries are not SIPC members. However, to the extent that   any assets, including foreign securities, are being held by the U.S.   broker dealer, the assets are protected by SIPC. Stocks listed on the   LSE are protected by SIPC to the extent they are held with a SIPC   member broker dealer, up to the statutory limit of $500,000 per   customer. As I mentioned in the comments, in the case of IB, indeed they have a foreign subsidiary, which is why SIPC does not cover it (rather they are insured by Lloyds of London for such cases)." You are likely thinking of a individual variable insurance contract (IVIC) , better known as a segregated fund, or a principal-protected note (PPN). For a segregated fund, to get a full guarantee on invested capital, you need a 100/100 where the maturity value and death benefit are each 100% guaranteed. The PPN works similar to a long-term GIC (or CD) with a variable investment component.  The thing is, neither of these things are cheap and the cost structure that is built in behind them makes it difficult to make any real above market rates of return. In both cases, if you try to break the contracts early then the guarantees are null and void and you get out what you get out. "While a lot of the answers focus on cost to replace and how much money you should have for tangible goods. There are a few more issues to consider.  However before we get started, these issues are not related to ones net worth. They are related to other factors. Having money certainly helps, but someone worth only $10 may not need to insure their stuff under some circumstances. Insurance is a risk avoidance strategy.  As such, it should be used to avoid risks that would otherwise cause issues for you. The normal example is a house. If you lost your house due to fire, would you be able to ""make it"" while you paid the mortgage off, and got a new mortgage to pay for a new house? This is a relatively simple view, but a good one.  These days people tend to look at insurance as a savings account. I payed in X so I am entitled to Y. Heath insurance (a bit more on this later) is exacerbating the issue by selling it's self that way, but it simply isn't true. What your paying the premium for to avoid the risk of loss. Not so you can have a pool of money to draw from in time of need, but so that a time of need should never arise. Which brings us back to, should you get insurance?  Tangible Assets Let's assume you have no legal or contractual obligation to have insurance. If you put the money you were spending aside would you have enough money to secure a new asset should your current one just vanish? This is the normal argument. But it has a second side. Do you need the asset at all, or can you just accept the loss. Lets pick on a red neck for a second. While certainly not millionaires, or ""well off"" by conventional means, the guy with 6 cars on bricks in his lawn does not need to insure 6 cars. If one were to vanish, it may make a hardship but hey, he's got 5 more. So with tangible goods it's more of a question of can you afford to replace the item, do you need to replace the item, and how big a risk is it to you to loose the item? What would you rather loose, the item, or the cost of the insurance? Non-tangible Assets I am going to try to keep this as un-rant like as I can manage, but be aware that I am biased. There are two big examples of non-tangible assets that are commonly insured. Life Insurance, and Health insurance. There are others, but it's very hard to get people to pay money to insure something that they don't actually have. Ideas can be insured, for example, but in order to insure an idea you have to spell it out, at that point why not just file for the patent etc. etc. Keep in mind that a lot of people and companies will insure against losses due to IP theft or other such intangible things. Largely these follow the same rules as tangible assets. This section is meant to focus on those insurances that do not. Life Insurance Life insurance is a bit odd. Were all going to die, so it seems like a ""good bet"" but what your insuring against with life insurance is an early death. For term life insurance it's a gamble. Will you die before your term runs out. For full life insurance (with no term) it's a different gamble. Will you die before you have paid in what they agreed to pay out. In many cases it's also a gamble that you will miss a payment or two and cancel the policy before you die. If the risk of your death worth the insurance. Usually while young the answer is yes. Do you leave your Family short one earner? Will they make it without the insurance? But as you get older, as life insurance becomes more of a sure thing it also becomes less needed. Your kids move out, there not dependent on you any more. You have retirement accounts setup so your partner need not worry should something happen. What risk exactly are your trying to avoid at this point. You will die. You have planned for that eventuality, it's not a risk anymore, it's a fact.  Heath Insurance Is another beast all together. Historically you insured against some catastrophic event, that you couldn't really plan for. Say a heart attack. Surgery and treatment would run in the tens of thousands, so it would ruin you if you didn't have insurance to cover that. That was the risk that you were avoiding. A big, expensive event, causing financial ruin. However, over time it has shifted into something else. The general concept is still there, insure to avoid a risk. But the ""risk"" has been widened to include all manor of things that are not actually risks.  For example a flu. You would go to your doctor, pay your co-pay, and your insurance would pay the rest of the visit. Then you would go to the drug store and get the drugs, pay your co-pay and the insurance pays the rest. But what risk, in this instance are you insuring against? That you can't cover the cost of a doctors visit? That you can't cover the cost of the medication? In this example, a common one, historically the ""mother of the house"" would go you have a flu, have some chicken noodle soup and go to bed. That would be the end of it. Cost of care is a day's lost wages (or maybe a weeks) and a few cans of soup.  However today, because we choose to, the cost of care is much higher. We go to the doctor, pay our co-pays, the insurance has to pay it's part. The doctors office has to carry the cost of the staff it takes to see you, and the staff it takes to handle the claims with the insurance company. And now your flu, cost $1,500. But again that's not exactly true either. With heath insurance and ""normal"" medical care (like sprained ankles, and colds, etc.) the insurance only really covers the cost of having insurance. In that same flu example, if you went to the doctor as a ""self pay"" (no insurance) you would often time get a much lower, and reasonable rate. Frequently, under the cost of your standard co-pay. This seems like the doctors being ""bad"" but it's not. They don't have to file a claim, they don't have to keep track of it. They get immediate payment, not payment 6 months down the line that they need to share with other businesses. With ""critical"" or ""catastrophic"" care, heath insurance is still a good thing. If you have a big, unforeseen event, then heath insurance is great at helping you avoid that risk.  With chronic (long term) care, your back in the same boat as the flu. Often times you can get better, and cheaper, care as a self pay patent, then as a insured patent. That is not always the case however. So you have to measure your own circumstance, and decide if insurance is right for you. But remember insurance is about risk avoidance, and not about paying less. You will ALWAYS pay more for insurance. It's designed that way. Even if the cost is hidden in many ways. (Taxes, spread out over visits, or prescriptions, etc.)" "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!" First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund?  Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable.  You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks.  Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount.  My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured.  Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered.  (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash?  You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'.  You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still).  In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort.  Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k?  That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance.  Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account.  Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later.  This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank.  If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all.