Professional investment planning for small net-worth individual in bearish market
You're going to have a hard time finding a legit investment planner that is willing to do things like take short-term positions in shorts, etc for a small investor. Doing so would put them at risk of getting sued by you for mismanagement and losing their license or affiliation with industry associations. There is no magic bullet here.   If you want professional management, because you think they know more about entry and exit points for short positions, have more time to monitor a position, etc... (but they might not) try a mutual fund or exchange traded fund that specializes in shorts. Note:  a lot of these may not have done so well, your mileage may vary
You have a lot of different questions in your post - I am only responding to the request for how to value the ESPP. When valuing an ESPP, don't think about what you might sell the shares for in the future, think about what the market would charge you for that option today. In general, an option is worth much less than the underlying share itself. For the simplest example, assume you work at a public company, and your exercise price for your options is $.30, and you can only exercise those options until the end of today, and the cost of the shares on the public stock exchange is also $.30. You have the same 'strike price' as everyone else in the market, making your option worth nothing. In truth, holding that right to a specific strike price into the future does give you value, because it means you can realize the upside in share price gains, without risking any money on share losses. So, how do you value the options? If it's a public company with an active options market, you can easily compare your $.30 strike price with the value of call options in the market that have a $.30 strike price. That becomes the value to you of the option (caveat: it is unlikely you can find an exact match for the terms of your vesting period, but you should be able to find a good starting point). If it's a public company without an active options market, you will have to do a bit of estimation. If a current share is worth $.25 (so, close to your strike price), then your option is worth a little bit, but not much. Compare other shares in your industry / company size to get examples of the relative value between an option and a share. If the current share price is worth $.35, then your option is worth about $.05 [the $.05 profit you could get by immediately exercising and selling, plus a bit more for an option on a share that you can't buy in the open market]. If it's a private company, then you need to be very clear on how shares are to be valued, and what methods you have available to sell back to the company / other individuals. You can then consider as per above, how to value the option for a share, vs the share itself. Without a clear way to sell your shares of a private company [ideally through a sale directly back to the company that you are able to force them to agree on; ie: the company will buyback shares at 5x Net income for the previous year, or something like that], then the value of a small number of shares is very nebulous. There is an extremely limited market for shares of private companies, if you don't own enough to exert control. In your case, because the valuation appears to be $2/share [be sure that these are the same share classes you have the option to buy], your option would be worth a little more than $1.70, if you didn't have to wait 4 years to exercise it. This would be total compensation of about $10k, if you were able to exercise today. Many people don't end up working for an early job in their career for 4 years, so you need to consider whether how much that will reduce the value of the ESPP for you personally. Compared with salary of 90k, 10k worth of stock in 4 years may not be a heavy motivating compensation consideration. Note also that because the company is not public, the valuation of $2/share should be taken with a grain of salt. "Rich people use ""depositor"" banks the same way the rest of us use banks; to keep a relatively small store of wealth for monthly expenses and a savings account for a rainy day. The bulk of a wealthy person's money is in investments. Money sitting in a bank account is not making you more money, and in fact as Kaushik correctly points out, would be losing value to inflation. Now, all investments have risk; that's why interest exists. If, in some alternate universe, charging interest were illegal across the board, nobody would loan money, because there's nothing to be gained and a lot to lose. You have to make it worth my while for me to want to loan you my money, because sure as shootin' you're going to use my loan to make yourself wealthier. A wealthy person will choose a set of investments that represent an overall level of risk that he is comfortable with, much like you or I would do the same with our retirement funds. Early in life, we're willing to take a lot of risk, because there's a lot of money to be made and time to recover from any losses. Closer to retirement, we're much more risk-averse, because if the market takes a sudden downturn, we lose a significant portion of our nest egg with little hope of regaining it before we have to start cashing out. The very wealthy have similar variances in risk, with the significant difference that they are typically already drawing a living from their investments. As such, they already have some risk aversion, but at the same time they need good returns, and so they must pay more attention to this balancing act between risk and return. Managing their investments in effect becomes their new job, once they don't have to work for anyone else anymore. The money does the ""real work"", and they make the executive decisions about where best to put it. The tools they use to make these decisions are the same ones we have; they watch market trends to identify stages of the economic cycle that predicate large movements of money to or from ""safe havens"" like gold and T-debt, they diversify their investments to shield the bulk of their wealth from a sudden localized loss, they hire investment managers to have a second pair of eyes and additional expertise in navigating the market (you or I can do much the same thing by buying shares in managed investment funds, or simply consulting a broker; the difference is that the wealthy get a more personal touch). So what's the difference between the very wealthy and the rest of us? Well first is simple scale. When a person with a net worth in the hundreds of millions makes a phone call or personal visit to the financial institutions handling their money, there's a lot of money on the line in making sure that person is well looked-after. If we get screwed over at the teller window and decide to close our acocunts, the teller can often give us our entire account balance in cash without batting an eyelid. Our multimillionaire is at the lower end of being singlehandedly able to alter his banks' profit/loss statements by his decisions, and so his bank will fight to keep his business. Second is the level of control. The very wealthy, the upper 1%, have more or less direct ownership and control over many of the major means of production in this country; the factories, mines, timber farms, software houses, power plants, recording studios, etc that generate things of value, and therefore new wealth. While the average Joe can buy shares in these things through the open market, their investment is typically a drop in the bucket, and their voice in company decisions equally small. Our decision, therefore, is largely to invest or not to invest. The upper 1%, on the other hand, have controlling interests in their investments, often majority holdings that allow them far more control over the businesses they invest in, who's running them and what they do." "They are limiting your total investment in Notes to no more than 10% of your net worth. Step 1: determine your net worth Step 2: Divide this number by 10 The answer is the maximum amount you can put at risk through Lendingclub. The issue is that if you lose all the investment you will not be bankrupted. If it was the other way you could invest all your net worth in Lendingclub by splitting it among 10+ notes. Your net worth is  ""determined exclusive of the value of your home, home furnishings and   automobile."" Which means don't include the house and the stuff in the house. That means your net worth is the money in the bank; plus the money invested in stocks, ETFs, and mutual funds; plus retirement accounts (401K, IRA); minus loans (student, credit cards)." In a situation like this, I presume you'd invest in the child company if you thought that the child company would increase in value at a higher rate than the parent. You'd invest in the parent company if you thought the parent company would perform well as a whole, but you did not want to assume the risk of an individual company underneath it. Say the child company is worth 100 million, and the parent company is worth 500 million. You've invested a sum of money in the child company. The child company performs very well, and increases in value by, say, 20 million. As the parent company owns the child, we could say it also increases in value by roughly 20 million. The difference is proportional - Your investment in the child sees a 20% gain in value, whereas your investment in the parent sees a 4% gain in total value, as in this example the parent company, which owns nearly 100% of the child company, is worth 5x more and thus proportionally sees 1/5 the increase in value, due to it being worth more as a whole. Think of it similarly to a mutual fund or ETF that invests in many different stocks on the market. As the market does well, that mutual fund or ETF does well, too.  As the mutual fund is made up of many individual stocks, one stock performing very well, say at a 10-20% increase in value, does not raise the value of the ETF or mutual fund by 10-20%. The etf / mutual fund will perform slightly better (Assuming all other components remain equal for this example), but only proportionally to the fraction of it that's made up of the stock that's performing well. If your gut told you to buy during the depths of '09, your gut might be well-calibrated. The problem is stock market declines during recessions are frequently not that large relative to the average long run return of 9%:  A better strategy might be hold a percentage in equities based upon a probability distribution of historical returns.  This becomes problematic because of changes in the definition of earnings and the recent inflation stability which has encouraged high valuations:  Cash flow has not been as corrupted as earnings now, and might be a better indicator:  This obviously isn't perfect either, but returns can be improved. Since there is no formulaic way yet conventionally available, the optimal primary strategy is still buy & hold which has made the most successful investor frequently one of the richest people on the planet for decades, but this could still be used as an auxiliary for cash management reserves during recessions once retired. If you are trying to invest in closely held / private companies (things that don't trade on the stock market), you will run into a variety of regulatory problems. For various reasons, most private companies only raise funds with accredited investors. To be an accredited investor you basically have to have $1,000,000 in net worth - NOT including your primary residence, OR you have to make over $200,000 a year for the last two years and expect to keep making that much. This is a class distinction the Federal government created, you will see different but similar wealth and investment classes worldwide. So your best most organized opportunities are left out, unless you do qualify as an accredited investor. There are tons of other companies, things you will find locally, that will let you invest in their smaller time operations. (Think like a local yoga studio looking for $20,000 and willing to split the profits with you). But the problem here is lack of accountability, where partners skip town or just stop answering your calls, and the legal remedies cost you more than your claim. That being said there are people that provide capital to smaller publicly traded companies on the bulletin boards and pink sheets. They have opportunities do much better than the actual stock market investors in these companies, because you can negotiate contracts that let you cash out in their inevitable financing death spirals with very little risk to you. You can do these things as an individual or as a holding company, but the holding company will limit your liability to the amount your holding company invested, instead of your personal assets, in case your financing starts to incur liability with the company. okay, I was thinking of an investment advisor. I believe in not doing it alone too. But i don't believe in just one more person. Investing advisors, tax advisors, business and law. I don't go to an advisor bc I can't balance my monthly budget and also want to save, you know. Questions more like, highest growth sectors, diversified strategies, etc.  And right, they wouldn't get fired bc their client is still happy, (even though their losing money during a record bull market). Guy must be a good sales man. I'd just want to know that my advisors performance is decent relative to the market. But again, I'm not handing over checks to people, only speaking with them.  edit: Yes, the average person should worry about making their kids soccer games and shit, not necessarily the markets and what their investment is worth in 30yrs You're in a good spot: making good money with prospects for that to continue for the foreseeable future. Even if/when you quit dancing nursing pays quite well. Leaving all that money in a savings account is a mistake. At a minimum: Open an IRA account at any of the discount brokers (Schwab, Fidelity, etc). Roth is fine to start, once your taxable income goes up consider switching to a traditional IRA. Max out your IRA every year. Invest in low-fee index funds. There are frankly too many options these days, but an S&P 500 Index fund is almost never a mistake. Open a regular taxable investment account where you can invest additional money. Leave some cash/savings for emergencies. But if you do #3 you can always sell some investments in a cash emergency. Yes, it may lose money in the short term, but given your steady income, not a huge concern. I think if you read all the investment advice out there, you'll see a familiar theme along these lines. Your nest egg will grow considerably when you invest.