vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
In the theory: *Somewhere between the most you think you can get, and the minimum you think you deserve * In your case: If they want you to actually invest, they aren't purely interested in your technical expertise. which means that you need to actually believe in the idea and be involved in the decision making process. That really depends on what technology entrepreneurship exactly you are talking about.
* Yes, you should incorporate if you plan on seriously investing in real estate. This not only limits liability in terms of paying back the debt but also in case your tenants sue you.  * Pass-through entities. Typically an LLC but it depends on the state if they have good or bad LLC laws. Pennsylvania is a state where you would not want to incorporate as an LLC. Other options include S-corps and LPs.  * Loans are taken out by corporations against the property. Typically mortgage loans are non-recourse. If you set up a company for each property, this further insulates you against the bank capturing other properties within the pool. However, recourse carveouts can still end up getting you on the hook personally for the loans. These typically include voluntary bankruptcy. You would very rarely have to file for bankruptcy anyway for your real estate investments. At worst, it will end in foreclosure but banks typically would prefer deed-in-lieu just because it is faster and easier for them too. You just turn over the keys and walk away. It will have very little impact on your personal finances or record. Everyone in real estate walks away from properties and leaves them with the bank. It's a fact of doing business and your lender should have been comfortable owning your property at the basis they lent money to you. If they weren't, they were just stupid.  * Yes, every real estate investment requires equity in the property. Typically it's a 20% equity check but if the lender underwrites the property to a lower value than what you purchased it for, you may have to line up more expensive financing.
As it stands equity contracts in startups are by default structured differently. The standard equity is shares or convertible notes.  Having equity that's structured in the way you propose is a bad idea for both sides. VC don't like equity that's not done with standard equity contracts. If the lawyer of the VC has to review your equity document and understand how the exact terms work that makes it more complicated to invest money into the startup. On your end it might not be fair because a company doesn't need to make any income to be successful. Various companies manage to reduce their tax burden to next to nothing by clever accounting that results in having no taxable income. Uber brought the uber.com domain name with 2% equity at the beginning, so there are certainly deals that get made with equity. There are also other kinds of deals where domain names don't get sold for a one-time payment but with regular payment for 8 years where the domain names goes back to the seller if the company folds or otherwise doesn't want to pay anyone.
Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble.   Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth.   The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake?  And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right.  You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend).  This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend.  As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes.  The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create.  Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E.  Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E.
In other words, this is mostly solving the wrong problem if you talk about IPOs. This might make more sense with a crowdfunded venture, as that replaces a few angel investors with many individuals. But most crowdfunded ventures tend to approach things from the opposite direction. Instead of looking for investors, they look for customers. If they offer a useful product, they will get customers. If not, they never get the money. Beyond all this, if a founder is only going to get a fair salary some of the time, then why put in any sweat equity? This works fine if the company looks valuable after a year. What if it doesn't? The founder is out a year of sweat equity and has nothing in return. That happens now too, but the possibility of the big return offsets it. You're taking out the big return. I don't think that this is good for either founders or investors. The founder trades a potentially good or even great return for a mediocre return. The investors trade a situation where both they and the founder benefit from a successful company to one where they benefit a lot more than the founder. That's not good for either side.
If you have a new company and you want to attract investors, such as venture capitalists and private equity, incorporating in Delaware LLC probably makes sense. There are actually many investors who will only invest in a Delaware Online incorporation, so starting off by creating a Delaware corporation from the beginning may save a lot of money and stress down the road. You can also choose to form an LLC in Delaware, to begin with, then convert it to a C corporation later.
Yep, a lot of startup funding these days is called equity, which makes for nice valuation, but there are often so many extra stipulations (I've even read of caps on upside; wish I could find the Matt Levine column on it now) that it really is effectively debt.
Isn't that uncommon in small business financing/investing. You can structure your capital anyway you wish (relatively speaking). It starts as an equity investment with an option for the founder to buy back equity.   Then there is an 8% dividend payment that takes a similar form to preferred stock.
"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: ""Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies"" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it."
Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income.    With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that.    With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions.
Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices."
Consider firstly that they're penny stocks for a reason - the company just isn't worth much. Yes, it could take off but this happenstance is rarer than you think. Next, there is the problem of how you'd find out what the good stocks to invest in are. Here in the UK, reliable news about stocks outside the FTSE indexes (AIM) is hard to come by. Also consider than there isn't the supply and demand for these stocks in the same way as there is in the main indexes. Even if you were to make a tidy profit over time, you might lose what you made in the delay selling the stock. Start-ups also have the problem of poor cash reserves so new employees are often given stock options in lieu of cash which further depresses the share price. I read a report once that said that only 1 in 10 penny shares yields a worthwhile return. I just don't like these odds so I tend to avoid.
"IPO is ""Initial Public Offering"". Just so you know. The valuations are done based on the company business model, intellectual property, products, market shares, revenues and profits, assets, and future projections. You know, the usual stuff. Yes, it is. And very frequently done. In fact, I can't think of any company that is now publicly traded, that didn't start this way. The first investor, the one who founds the company, is the first one who invests in it after raising the capital (even if it is from his own bank account to pay the fees for filing the incorporation papers). What is the difference between ""normal"" investor and ""angel""? What do you refer to as ""angel""? How is it abnormal to you? Any investor can play a role, depending on the stake he/she has in the company. If the stake is large enough - the role will be significant. If the stake is the majority - the investor will in fact be able major decisions regarding the company. How he bought the stocks, whether through a closed offering, initial investment or on a stock exchange - doesn't matter at all. You may have heard of the term ""angels"" with regards to high-tech start up companies. These are private investors (not funds) that invest their own money in start ups at very early stages. They're called ""angels"" because they invest at stages at which it is very hard for entrepreneurs to raise money: there's no product, no real business, usually it is a stage of just an idea or a patent with maybe initial prototype and some preliminary business analysis. These people gamble, in a sense, and each investment is very small (relatively to their wealth) - tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes a hundred or two thousands, and they make a lot of these. Some may fail and they lose the money, but those that succeed - bring very high returns. Imagine investing 10K for 5% stake at Google 15 years ago. Those people are as investors as anyone else, and yes, depending on their stake in the company, they can influence its decisions."
"Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is ""too good to not get into"" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets.
Choosing between an emergency fund and investing aside, there is no reason to use a systematic investment plan when you have a lump sum ready to invest. Here are the three possible futures, and the effects on each strategy: Obviously if you are investing in the market you expect it to go up over time, so using an SIP will work against you in that case.  If the market does go down you'd be better off, but historically the market has gone up more than it's gone down, so there's no practical reason to keep money in your pockets  You can always rebalance, change investments, do whatever after you've invested, so at worst you may have some transaction fees, but that shouldn't be a huge issue.
"Simple answer: Yes  A better question to ask might be ""Should I invest all my savings to buy 4 shares of a single stock."" My answer to that would be ""probably not"". If this is your first venture into the world of owning publicly traded companies, then you're better off starting with some sort of mutual fund or ETF. This will start your portfolio with some amount of diversification so you don't have all your eggs in one basket. If you really want to get into the world of picking individual stocks, a good rule of thumb to follow is to invest $1 in some sort of indexed fund for every $1 you invest in an individual stock. This gives you some diversification while still enabling you to scratch that itch of owning a part of Apple or whatever other company you think is going in the right direction."
I would strongly, strongly advise against it. Others here are answering the question of, having decided to invest in property, how one ought to ensure that one invests in the right property. What has not really been discussed here is the issue of diversification. There are a number of serious risks to property investment. In fact, it is one of the riskiest types of investment. You face more of almost every type of risk in property than maybe any other asset class. It is one thing to take on those risks as part of a diverse portfolio including other asset classes. It is quite another - extremely irresponsible - thing to take on those risks as your sole investment, when your portfolio is in its infancy. So no, do not invest in property when you lack any other investments. Absolutely not.
"The best answer here is ""maybe, but probably not"". A few quick reasons: Its not a bad idea to watch other investors especially those who can move markets but do your own research on an investment first. Your sole reason for investing should not be ""Warren did it""."
"That argument is an argument for investing generally, not peer-to-peer lending per se, and the argument as phrased (""thus you should invest your money at a Peer-to-peer loan platform"") is a false dichotomy. That said, as soon as one is investing as opposed to just getting a small but guaranteed return, then risk comes into play.  In that sense, any savings account is fundamentally different from any investment, and, in that reading, the two shouldn't be compared as different approaches to ""investing"".  Peer-to-peer lending as an investment could be aptly compared with stock market investing, for one."
You'll most likely need additional funding at some point in the future so that'll dilute your position below 51%. I think it's best to do what you can with what you've got before you NEED those additional funds from outside investors. They only cause trouble and if they're focused on short-term results &amp; getting their cash back as soon as possible rather than long-term sustainability, it'll be a nightmare dealing with them.
I am not entirely sold on investing in start-up companies, but I really like the idea of crowdfunding investments. I've been an investor at [LendingClub](https://www.lendingclub.com/) for 10 months now and am quite happy so far. For those of you who don't know, Lending Club is where you can crowdfund consumer loans.  I'm also very interested in [Solar Mosaic](https://solarmosaic.com/). Once their quiet period ends I am planning on investing in solar projects through them. Of course I'll want to see some data related to their risk and returns, but I love the idea of earning a return from funding solar projects.    I think that crowdfunding allows you to invest in areas that are normally off-limits to those of us who aren't rich. At the very least these investments offer a nice source of portfolio diversification.
For this type of business a sole tradership would seem appropriate. You might then want to register as a limited company at a later date if you were growing significantly, taking on premises, seeking debt etc, as that would then shield you from liability.
"This may be a great idea, or a very bad one, or it may simply not be applicable to you, depending on your personal circumstances and interests. The general idea is to avoid passive investments such as stocks and bonds, because they tend to grow by ""only"" a few percent per year. Instead, invest in things where you will be actively involved in some form. With those, much higher investment returns are common (but also the risk is higher, and you may be tied down and have to limit the traveling you want to do). So here are a few different ways to do that: Get a college degree, but only if you are interested in the field, and it ends up paying you well. If you aren't interested in the field, you won't land the $100k+ jobs later. And if you study early-childhood education, you may love the job, but it won't pay enough to make it a good investment. Of course, it also has to fit with your life plans, but that might be easier than it seems. You want to travel. Have you thought about anthropology, marine biology or archeology? Pick a reputable, hard-to-get-into, academic school rather than a vocation-oriented oe, and make sure that they have at least some research program. That's one way to distinguish between the for-profit schools (who tend to be very expensive and land you in low-paying jobs), and schools that actually lead to a well-paying future. Or if your interest runs more in a different direction: start a business. Your best bet might be to buy a franchise. Many of the fast-food chains, such as McDonalds, will let you buy as long as you have around $300k net worth. Most franchises also require that you are qualified. It may often make sense to buy not just one franchised store, but several in an area. You can increase your income (and your risk) by getting a loan - you can probably buy at least $5 million worth of franchises with your ""seed money"". BTW, I'm only using McDonalds as an example.
The point of the article is not making your own investments vs. hiring a money manager. It is about passive low cost investments vs. active money managers.  This article is advising people to avoid active money managers because (A) even an extra 1% management fee adds up to a lot, and (B) active managers usually don't beat the low cost passive options anyway.