Is unrealized gain part of asset?
"Stocks, as an asset, represent the sum of the current market value of all of your holdings. If your portfolio is showing unrealized gains and losses, then that net amount is inherently reflected in the current market value of your holdings.  That's not to say cost basis is not important. Any closed trades, realized gains or losses, will of course have an impact on your taxable income. So, it couldn't hurt to keep track of your cost basis from a tax standpoint, but understand that the term ""asset"" refers to the current market values and does not consider base amounts. Taxes do. Perhaps consider making separate cells for cost basis, but also bear in mind that most if not all of the major online discount brokers will provide transferring of cost basis information electronically to the major online tax service providers." "There's an expression, ""stock prices have no memory."" Apple trades at about $115. Why would I carry my shares at anything but $115 even though I paid say $75 a share, while you just bought it at $115?  The only difference, perhaps, is that if I hold them in a non retirement account, I might track the net I'd have, post tax."
"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year.  When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the ""owner"" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question." "Credit cards are a reasonable if relatively expensive tool to gain liquidity. If you have $50k in liquid cash, you don't have a liquidity problem for credit to help you solve.  You have 100 months of expenses in cash. I suppose you could see a balance as a motivational tool, but it's all stick and no carrot.   Take the next part half seriously in the spirit of ""what if"" talking therapy: If you feel you need to be motivated to get back to work by the true risk of running out of cash, and take such advice from strangers on the internet, the traditional midlife crisis purchase is a sports car.  At least have some fun in a (depreciating but resellable) asset instead of paying a financier's bonus in evaporated interest!  If there is a luxury car tariff in your country, you may even be able to exploit a personal exemption if you drove in from the U.S.  I suppose this advice could possibly get you booted from the family house as it'll probably come across as a seriously ""ugly American"" move though..." I once bought both preferred and common shares in a bankrupt company.  It is true that those preferred shares had less potential for appreciation than the common shares.  The reason is because the preferred shares were trading around $50 and had a face value of $1000.  This means that if the bankruptcy proceedings ended up finding enough assets to make the preferred shares whole, then the preferred shareholders would be paid $1000 per share and no more than that.  So if you bought the preferred shares at $50 and received $1000 per share for them, then you made a 1900% gain. But if the bankruptcy proceedings found enough assets to pay not just the preferred shareholders but also the common shareholders, then the common shareholders had the potential for a greater gain than the preferred shareholders.  The common stock was trading around 20 cents at the time, and if enough assets were found to pay $10 per share to the common shareholders, then that would have been a 4900% gain.  The preferred shares were capped by their face value, but the common shares had no limit on how high they could go. "First, I'd recommend that you separate ""short-term"" assets from ""long-term"" assets in your head.  Short-term assets are earmarked for spending on something specific in the near future or are part of your emergency fund.  These should be kept in cash or short bond funds.   Long-term assets are assets that you can take some risks with and aren't going to spend in the next few years.  Under normal circumstances, I'd recommend 80% stocks/20% bonds or even 70/30 for someone your age, assuming you're saving mainly for retirement and thus have a correspondingly long time horizon.  These portfolios historically are much less risky than 100% stock and only return slightly less.   Right now, though, I think that anyone who doesn't absolutely need safety keep 100% of their long-term assets in stocks.  I'm 26 and this is my asset allocation.  Bond yields are absolutely pathetic by historical standards.  Even ten year treasury yields are comparable to S&P 500 dividend yields and likely won't outperform inflation if held to maturity.  The stock market is modestly undervalued when measured by difference between current P/E ratio and the historical average and more severely undervalued when you account for the effects of reduced inflation, transaction costs and capital gains taxes on fair valuation.  Therefore, the potential reward for taking risk is much higher now than it usually is." If this happened, first you would be breaking the law for driving without insurance. Second, my uninsured motorists insurance would cover it.   Third, your personal net worth is not zero. You are the owner of all those corporations which happen to own those assets. I could sue you and you would have to liquidate your stakes in those corporations. Your example is just saying someone doesn't have any assets if all their cash is tied up in stocks (equity ownership of corporations). If you're argument held true in court, no one could sue anyone successfully, because everyone would just put all their money in equities before a lawsuit. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if—   (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution. "The part that I find confusing is the loan/stock hybridization.  Why would the investor be entitled to a 30% share if he's also expecting to be getting paid back in full? This is the part that's making me scratch my head.  I can understand giving equity and buying out later.  I can understand giving equity with no expectation of loan repayment.  I can understand loan repayment without equity.  I can even understand collateralizing the loan with equity.  I can not understand how ""zeroing out"" the loan still leaves him with a claim on 30% of the equity. Would this be more of a good will gesture as a way to thank the investor for taking a chance?  Please forgive any naivety in my questions." The thing you get wrong is that you think the LLC doesn't pay taxes on gains when it sells assets.  It does. In fact, in many countries LLC are considered separate entities for tax properties and you have double taxation - the LLC pays its own taxes, and then when you withdraw the money from the LLC to your own account (i.e.: take dividends) - you pay income tax on the withdrawal again. Corporate entities usually do not have preferential tax treatment for investments. In the US, LLC is a pass-though entity (unless explicitly chosen to be taxed as a corporation, and then the above scenario happens). Pass-through entities (LLCs and partnerships) don't pay taxes, but instead report the gains to the owners, which then pay taxes as if the transaction was their personal one. So if you're in the US - investing under LLC would have no effect whatsoever on your taxes, or adverse effect if you chose to treat it as a corporation. In any case, investing in stocks is not a deductible expense, and as such doesn't reduce profits.