Meaning of “readily transferable”?
Securities or quite a few negotiable instruments can change title of ownership without any issue. Many at times the owner ship in implicit if you are holding a certain instrument. So for example in Stock its a fractional ownership in a company, this ownership transfers to the buyer from the seller without requiring any permission from the company.   In case of say Loans, One cannot transfer the loan to some one else without the Banks permission.
I think you are having trouble understanding what 'liquid' means. Liquidity refers to how easily an asset can be converted to cash. More liquid = more easily converted to cash, less liquid, less so. Any kind of exit load is going to make an asset less liquid due to the penalties associated with making the sale. So, the whole point of liquid funds is to give people the option of selling quickly if they need to. Since an exit load is meant to discourage this behavior, liquid funds tend not to have one. The point isn't what the financial institution 'gets', it's about offering a service to clients with a particular investment need. You can do a direct transfer from one fund to another within Fidelity very easily. You will have to see if the two funds have any sales or redemption fees. If you want to leave Fidelity, they should be able to transfer the funds directly to the other IRA custodian. You don't want the money to go to you, instead you want to send them send the money directly to the other firm. The new custodian will be more than happy to help facilitate the transfer. The only fee for doing so should be if the funds you are investing in have fees for buying or selling shares. There are many options that don't have these transaction costs, both with Fidelity and with other companies. Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity. You could use a money transfer service like Western Union or the equivalent. I would certainly hope to make the transfer by wire - the prospect of   popping cross the border with several million dollars in the trunk   seems... ill fated. I suppose I'm asking what sort of taxes, duties,   fees, limits, &c. would apply Taxes - None. It is your money, and you can transfer it as you wish. You pay taxes on the income, not on the fact of having money. Reporting - yes, there's going to be reporting. You'll report the origin of the money, and whether all the applicable taxes have been paid. This is for the government to avoid money laundering. But you're going to pay all the taxes, so for transfer - you'll just need to report (and maybe, for such an amount, actually show the tax returns  to the bank). Fees - shop around. Fees differ, like any other product/service costs on the marketplace. You can perfectly well manage their wealth without transferring their money into your account first. Just make them open their own account on their name then ask them for credentials and then manage their money from within their own account. That way everyone will be taxed according to their wealth (which is probably advantageous but you probably have to help them with the paperwork) and it is clear at every time what belongs to whom and your relatives can at every time access their wealth. These are big advantages (for them). This keeps you at the role of an adviser (a very active one though) which should have almost zero legal ramifications for you unless you try to deceive your relatives. You may want to shift wealth between accounts to minimize tax burdens, but that comes at the risk that should the family relations get worse this might result in anger. You could open up a registered society, all members getting shares and voting rights, making you the CEO, but that should be a lot of paperwork and maybe only a good idea for large amounts of money. If you decide to transfer money between accounts of different persons this is like a gift. It might invoke a gift tax in your area. All in all, I strongly advise you to make them all open up their own accounts and then just operate the accounts and manage their wealth in their name. Sell it to them as the solution that retains them maximum ownership. To sum up: My question came from misunderstanding what cost basis applies to. Now I get it that it applies to stocks as physical entities. Consider a chain of buys of 40 stock A with prices $1-$4-$10-$15 (qty 10 each time) then IRS wants to know exactly which stock I am selling. And when I transfer stocks to different account, that cost basis transfers with them. Cost basis is included in transfers, so that removes ambiguity which stock is being sold on the original account. In the example above, cost basis of 20 stocks moved to a new account would probably be $1 x 10 and $4 x 10, i.e. FIFO also applies to transfers. "I'm guessing since I don't know the term, but it sounds like you're asking about the technique whereby a loan is used to gather multiple years' gift allowance into a single up-front transfer. For the subsequent N years, the giver pays the installments on the loan for the recipient, at a yearly amount small enough to avoid triggering Gift Tax. You still have to pay income tax on the interest received (even though you're giving them the money to pay you), and you must charge a certain minimum interest (or more accurately, if you charge less than that they tax you as if the loan was earning that minimum). Historically this was used by relatively wealthy folks, since the cost of lawyers and filing the paperwork and bookkeeping was high enough that most folks never found out this workaround existed, and few were moving enough money to make those costs worthwhile. But between the ""Great Recession"" and the internet, this has become much more widely known, and there are services which will draw up standard paperwork, have a lawyer sanity-check it for your local laws, file the official mortgage lien (not actually needed unless you want the recipient to also be able to write off the interest on their taxes), and provide a payments-processing service if you do expect part or all of the loan to be paid by the recipient. Or whatever subset of those services you need.  I've done this. In my case it cost me a bit under $1000 to set up the paperwork so I could loan a friend a sizable chunk of cash and have it clearly on record as a loan, not a gift. The amount in question was large enough, and the interpersonal issues tricky enough, that this was a good deal for us. Obviously, run the numbers. Websearching ""family loan""  will find much more detail about how this works and what it can and can't do, along with services specializing in these transactions. NOTE: If you are actually selling something, such as your share of a house, this dance may or may not make sense. Again, run the numbers, and if in doubt get expert advice rather than trusting strangers on the web. (Go not to the Internet for legal advice, for it shall say both mu and ni.)" Many brokers allow you to transfer shares to another broker without selling them. It depends on what kind of account and who the broker is for what forms you might have to fill out and what other hoops you might have to jump through. "A little terminology: Grant: you get a ""gift"" with strings attached. ""Grant"" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the ""gift"" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law." It's been a couple years since I worked on Transfer Pricing project.   It makes sense though. I'd imagine that's why Texas and Florida are doing, tax wise, so much better than California and other high tax states. I assume the same criteria apply for this as your previous question. You want to physically transfer in excess of 50,000 USD multiple times a week and you want the transportation mechanism to be instant or very quick. I don't believe there is any option that won't raise serious red flags with the government entities you cross the boundaries of. Even a cheque, which a person in the comments of OP's question suggests, wouldn't be sufficient due to government regulation requiring banks to put holds on such large amounts. Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas. I'd probably call it an intangible or indirect benefit. Not sure what the trade term is. First, realize that Wikipedia is written by individuals, just like this board has thousands of members. The two definition were written and edited by different people, most likely.  Think Venn diagram.  The definition for financial instruments claims that it's the larger set, and securities is contained in a subset.  Comparing the two, it seems pretty consistent.  Yes, Securities include derivatives.  Transferable is close to tradable, although to me tradable implies a market as compared to private transfers.  I don't believe there's an opposite, per se, but there's 'other stuff.' My house has value, but is not a security. My coffee cup has no value. Back to the concept of Venn. There aren't really opposites, just items falling outside the set we're discussing.  I'd caution, this is a semantic exercise. If you know what you're buying, a stock, a bond, a gold bar, etc, whether it's a financial instrument or security doesn't matter to you.