What does the phrase “To make your first million” mean?
"I'd interpret it as ""Net Worth"" reached 1M where ""net worth"" = assets - liabilities." I've not heard it used in any way other than one's net worth reaching a million.  No 30 yr old lawyer brags that his cumulative income just passed $1M because he may not have saved a dime of it. When people are crowing about their achievements, they often take liberties with those achievements. Vitalik's interpretation -- net worth, is probably what you would naturally come to mind. But when someone is bragging, that could mean anything -- $1M of total revenue.
"Depositum irregulare is a Latin phrase that simply means ""irregular deposit."" It's a concept from ancient Roman contract law that has a very narrow scope and doesn't actually apply to your example. There are two distinct parts to this concept, one dealing with the notion of a deposit and the other with the notion of irregularity. I'll address them both in turn since they're both relevant to the tax issue. I also think that this is an example of the XY problem, since your proposed solution (""give my money to a friend for safekeeping"") isn't the right solution to your actual problem (""how can I keep my money safe""). The currency issue is a complication, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing probably isn't a good solution. The key word in my definition of depositum irregulare is ""contract"". You don't mention a legally binding contract between you and your friend; an oral contract doesn't qualify because in the event of a breach, it's difficult to enforce the agreement. Legally, there isn't any proof of an oral agreement, and emotionally, taking your friend to court might cost you your friendship. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the absence of a contract implies that even though in the eyes of you and your friend, you're giving him the money for ""safekeeping,"" in the eyes of the law, you're simply giving it to him. In the US, you would owe gift taxes on these funds if they're higher than a certain amount. In other words, this isn't really a deposit. It's not like a security deposit, in which the money may be held as collateral in exchange for a service, e.g. not trashing your apartment, or a financial deposit, where the money is held in a regulated financial institution like a bank. This isn't a solution to the problem of keeping your money safe because the lack of a contract means you incur additional risk in the form of legal risk that isn't present in the context of actual deposits. Also, if you don't have an account in the right currency, but your friend does, how are you planning for him to store the money anyway? If you convert your money into his currency, you take on exchange rate risk (unless you hedge, which is another complication). If you don't convert it and simply leave it in his safe, house, car boot, etc. you're still taking on risk because the funds aren't insured in the event of loss.  Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily ""safe"" with your friend even if you ignore all the risks above. Without a written contract, you have little recourse if a) your friend decides to spend the money and not return it, b) your friend runs into financial trouble and creditors make claim to his assets, or c) you get into financial trouble and creditors make claims to your assets. The idea of giving money to another individual for safekeeping during bankruptcy has been tested in US courts and ruled invalid. If you do decide to go ahead with a contract and you do want your money back from your friend eventually, you're in essence loaning him money, and this is a different situation with its own complications. Look at this question and this question before loaning money to a friend. Although this does apply to your situation, it's mostly irrelevant because the ""irregular"" part of the concept of ""irregular deposit"" is a standard feature of currencies and other legal tender. It's part of the fungibility of modern currencies and doesn't have anything to do with taxes if you're only giving your friend physical currency. If you're giving him property, other assets, etc. for ""safekeeping"" it's a different issue entirely, but it's still probably going to be considered a gift or a loan. You're basically correct about what depositum irregulare means, but I think you're overestimating its reach in modern law. In Roman times, it simply refers to a contract in which two parties made an agreement for the depositor to deposit money or goods with the depositee and ""withdraw"" equivalent money or goods sometime in the future. Although this is a feature of the modern deposit banking system, it's one small part alongside contract law, deposit insurance, etc. These other parts add complexity, but they also add security and risk mitigation. Your arrangement with your friend is much simpler, but also much riskier.  And yes, there probably are taxes on what you're proposing because you're basically giving or loaning the money to your friend. Even if you say it's not a loan or a gift, the law may still see it that way. The absence of a contract makes this especially important, because you don't have anything speaking in your favor in the event of a legal dispute besides ""what you meant the money to be."" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court." What is the best option to start with? and  I am not sure about my goals right now but I do want to have a major retirement account without changing it for a long time That is a loaded question. Your goals should be set up first, else what is stopping you from playing the mega millions lottery to earn the retirement amount instantly. If you have the time and resources, you should try doing it yourself. It helps you learn and at a latter stage if you don't have the time to manage it yourself, you can find an adviser who does it for you. To find a good adviser or find a fund who/which can help you achieve your monetary goals you will need to understand the details, how it works and other stuff, behind it.  When you are thrown terms at your face by somebody, you should be able to join the dots and get a picture for yourself. Many a rich men have lost their money to unscrupulous people i.e. Bernie Madoff. So knowing helps a lot and then you can ask questions or find for yourself to calm yourself i.e. ditch the fund or adviser, when you see red flags. It also makes you not to be too greedy, when somebody paints you a picture of great returns, because then your well oiled mind would start questioning the rationale behind such investments. Have a look at Warren Buffet. He is an investor and you can follow how he does his investing. It is simple but very difficult to follow. Investing through my bank I would prefer to stay away from them, because their main service is banking and not allowing people to trade. I would first compare the services provided by a bank to TD Ameritrade, or any firm providing trading services. The thing is, as you mentioned in the question, you have to go through a specific process of calling him to change your portfolio, which shouldn't be a condition. What might happen is, if he is getting some benefits out of the arrangement(get it clarified in the first place if you intend to go through them), from the side of the fund, he might try to dissuade you from doing so to protect his stream of income. And what if he is on a holiday or you cannot get hold of him. Secondly from your question, it seems you aren't that investing literate. So it is very easy to get you confused by jargon and making you do what he gets the maximum benefit out of it, rather than which benefits you more.  I ain't saying he is doing so but that could be a possibility too, so you have consider that angle too. The pro is that setting up an account through them might be much easier than directly going to a provider. But the best point doing it yourself is, you will learn and there is nothing which tops that. You don't want somebody else managing your money, however knowledgeable they maybe i.e. Anthony Bolton. "An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares.  If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10.  If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45.  Note that the real $10/share ""real value"" of their stock would never have changed.  If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10.  The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price.  Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of ""meaningful quantity"".  If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller.  Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup." "A coworker put the idea in my head ""what if one day we wake up and thousands of pissed off young people are defaulting on their student loans""?  It's Crazy I know but out of curiosity I started doing homework on this and within one paragraph of Investopedia reading, I had questions.    1).  How is a loan an asset?  I'm the bank and I have 100$.  I loan Jimmy 20$.  With interest I expect him to pay back 25$.  My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$!  I gave away 20$.  I'm worth 80$ right?  Sure I can put it on my books that Jimmy owes me 20$ but I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I?  Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? Explain why it makes sense to consider a loan an asset.  Is the risk of default accounted for?  Which leads me to question 2.  2).  I came across this phrase: "" because default risk is not transferred with the asset.""  Does that mean that when these institutions pass around the loan, the risk doesn't go with it?  How is it possible?  Assuming loan has the risk of default priced in (which I still don't fully get See #1), how can it possibly be sold in such a way that the risk of default is detached?    I am guess I am trying to dig around and learn as much as I can about student loans because the initial theory is not far-fetched to me." The main thing you're missing is that while you bear all the costs of manipulating the market, you have no special ability to capture the profits yourself. You make money by buying low and selling high. But if you want to push the price up, you have to keep buying even though the price is getting high. So you are buying high. This gives everyone, including you, the opportunity to sell high and make money. But you will have no special ability to capture that -- others will see the price going up and will start selling within a tiny fraction of a second. You will have to keep buying all the shares they keep selling at the artificially inflated price. So as you keep trying to buy more and more to push the price up enough to make money, everyone else is selling their shares to you. You have to buy more and more shares at an inflated price as everyone else is selling while you are still buying. When you switch to selling, the price will drop instantly, since there's nobody to buy from you at the inflated price. The opportunity you created has already been taken -- by the very people you were trading with. Billions have been lost by people who thought this strategy would work. "I'm not saying necessarily arguing with the idea that chasing prestige is a mistake, but the way that this is argued within this article is fundamentally flawed. The author even says ""Fuck prestige, get money"" at the end - this is entirely the 'wrong' mindset. One of the worst things you can do in your career is chase dollars early on without considering what you actually want to spend your life doing. Many savvy people would work at McKinsey for free if they could include it in their resume - these are the kinds of jobs that set you up with skills and opportunity for a long, long time.  At any rate, prestige early on will open a lot of doors later in your career. Even if your dreams are entrepreneurial, you'll go from being ""a guy starting a company"" to a ""an ex Goldman Sachs executive launching exciting new startup"".  A career is a marathon, not a sprint." Congratulations on making it at minimum you are close to a 2 millionaire if I understand your numbers correctly.  Here is what I would do if I woke up in your shoes: 1)  Take some time.  Budget some money and time.  Go live abroad, take hang gliding lessons or become scuba certified.  Something like that.  The only thing I really dislike about your situation is that your wife may be precluded on going with you due to her business concerns.  During this time dream, plan and decide what you want your life to look like.  You seem to understand that you won't be happy doing nothing for a really long time.  Its not a big deal if you blow 50K or so doing this.  Take the wife to Paris, go visit the Galapagos Islands.  2)  You are going to have to become wise about investing.  I'd put close to one million in stock based mutual funds.  That may sound scary, and you might seek others out to help you with this transition.  I feel like that your time spent in your business may have precluded you delving into this area of knowledge.  For now, you may just want to stick it all in interest bearing accounts, and slowly invest the money.  Don't invest in things you don't understand, and you have to be on the look out for the next Bernie Madoff.   3)  Its hard to speak to your desire to downsize your home.  You could probably buy a nice ranch in Nevada from the sale of your home if that is what you desire, but you may kind of hate something like that. 4)  Could you start more of a boutique business?  Not one that occupies all of your time, but one that takes 20-40 hours per week.  Something that interests you, not something that is overly a chore.  Perhaps you can consult in the field that your former business was in.  You most certainly have a lot of intelligent things to say.   5)  Be generous.  Find worthwhile charities to give time and money to.   Congratulations again.  Take some time to dream, and then make those things happen.   Edit:  You may need to make new friends.  Actually wealthy people are a very small segment of the population and are out numbered by people who act wealthy.  Its going to be hard, but you need to find people that have a certain level of wealth but are also don't make you uncomfortable with their level of spending (either high or low). Wealth Generators is there for you to make you learn all the essentials techniques required to make your hard earned money provide you with the best output which you can never imagine. Yes, optimism and the smart skills are the two pivotal ways to get success over the curvature of the financial twisting.