What is the difference between equity and assets?
"Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being ""what my stuff is worth"" and equity and liabilities together as being ""who owns it."" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)" "Equity does not represent production divisions in a company (i.e. chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla does not make sense).  In Sole proprietorship, equity represents 1 owner.  In Partnership, equity has at least two sub-accounts, namely Partner 1 and Partner 2.  In Corporations, equity may have Common Stockholders and Preferred Stockholders, or even different class of shares for insiders and angel investors.  As you can see, equity represents who owns the company. It is not what the company does or manufactures.  First and foremost, define the boundary of the firm. Are your books titled ""The books of the family of Doe"", ""The books of Mr & Mrs Doe"", or ""The books of Mr & Mrs Doe & Sons"".  Ask yourself, who ""owns"" this family. If you believe that a marriage is perpetual until further notice then it does not make any sense to constantly calculate which parent owns the family more. In partnership, firm profits are attributed to partner's accounts using previously agreed ratio. For example, (60%/40% because Partner 1 is more hard working and valuable to the firm.  Does your child own this family? Does he/she have any rights to use the assets, to earn income from the assets, to transfer the assets to others, or to enforce private property rights? If they don't have a part of these rights, they are certainly NOT part of Equity.  So what happens to the expenses of children if you follow the ""partnership"" model? There are two ways. The first way is to attribute the Loss to the parents/family since you do not expect the children to repay. It is an unrecoverable loss written off. The second way is to create a Debtor(Asset) account to aggregate all child expense, then create a separate book called ""The books Children 1"", and classify the expense in that separate book.  I advise using ""The family of Doe"" as the firm's boundary, and having 1 Equity account to simplify everything. It is ultimately up to you to decide the boundaries." "Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question ""Where is the value of the company coming from?""  This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments.  In the current moment, it can also be defined as ""Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses"" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of ""Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)"", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc.  Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts.  At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense.  However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances.  When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: ""How much is the company worth at this moment?"", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out.  In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for.  This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity.  This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out.  The account which represents X in gnucash is called ""Equity"", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years.  While the name would more accurately be called ""Starting Equity"", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named ""Equity""."
Different stakeholders receive cash flows at different times. The easiest way for me to remember is if you're a debt holder vs equity owner on an income statement. Interest payments are made before net income, so debt holders are repaid before any residual cash flows go to equity owners. First, A credit account is increased by credit transactions and decreased by debits. Liabilities is a credit account and should be a positive number.  A debit account is increased by debit transactions and decreased by credit. Assets is a debit account and should be a positive number.  Equity = Assets (debit) - Liabilities (credit) may be positive or negative.  You currently are subtracting a negative number for a net positive, since your Liabilities is set as a debit account.  How you currently are set -> Equity = Assets (debit) - Liabilities (debit) It is easier to understand if you change the columns from Increase/Decrease to Credit/Debit. I believe this is changed through Edit > Preferences > Accounts > Labels > Use formal accounting labels.  To fix your situation, open up the Loan account and switch columns on the amounts. This will decrease Opening Balances and increase the loan, per your current column headings.  This is a snippet of Opening Balances. You see that Opening Balances is debited and the Loan/Liability account credited. I included Petty Cash to show the reverse. Petty Cash is an asset, so it credits Opening Balances and debits Petty cash. This is a student loan Liability account. As you see, the Opening Balance is debited and decreased. The loan is credited and Liabilities increased. As payments are made, the reverse happens. The loan, being a credit account, is debited and the balance decreases. Opening Balances moves closer to 0 as well. The savings account, being a debit account, is credited and the balance decreases. There has been no change in Equity since Liabilities and Assets decresed by the same amount. "Instead of ""stocks"" I would refer to that asset class as ""equity.""  Instead of bonds, I would refer to that asset class as ""fixed income.""  Given that more general terminology, GICs would fit into fixed income." Private Equity is simply some type of an investment company, which is owned in a way not accessible to the public. ie: Warren Buffet runs Berkshire Hatheway, which is an investment company which itself is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This means that anyone can buy shares in the company, and own a small fraction of it. If Warren Buffet owned all the shares of Berkshire Hatheway, it would be a Private Equity company. Note that 'Equity' refers to the ownership of the company itself; a private investment company may simply buy Bonds (which are a form of Debt), in which case, they would not be technically considered a 'Private Equity' company. A Hedge Fund is a very broad term which I don't believe has significant meaning. Technically, it means something along the lines of an investment fund (either public or private) which attempts to hedge the risks of its portfolio, by carefully considering what type of investments it purchased. This refers back to the meaning of 'hedge', ie: 'hedging your bets'. In my opinion, 'Hedge Fund' is not meaningfully different from 'investment fund' or other similar terms. It is just the most popular way to refer to this type of industry at the present time.  You can see the trend of using the term 'investment fund' vs 'hedge fund' using this link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=hedge%20fund,investment%20fund Note that the high-point of the use of 'hedge fund' occurred on October 2008, right at the peak of the global financial crisis. The term evokes a certain image of 'high finance' / 'wall-street types' that may exploit various situations (such as tax legislation, or 'secret information') for their own gain. Without a clear definition, however, it is a term without much meaning. If you do a similar comparison between 'hedge fund' and 'private equity', you can see that the two correlate very closely; I believe the term 'private equity' is similarly misused to generally refer to 'investment bankers'. However in that case, 'private equity' has a more clear definition on its own merits. Some qualitative factors to consider when deciding whether to finance with equity vs debt (for a publicly traded company):    1) The case for equity: Is the stock trading high relative to what management believes is its intrinsic value? If so, raising equity may be attractive since management would be raising a lot of $$$, but the downside is you give up future earnings since you are diluting current ownership  2) The case for debt: What is the expected return for the project in which the raised capital will be utilized for? Is its expected return higher than the interest payments (in % terms)? If so raising debt would be more attractive than raising equity since current ownership would not be diluted  That's all I can think of off the top of my head right now, I'm sure there are a few more qualitative factors to consider but I think these two are the most intuitive "Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting.  By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is ""very similar"" to Asset.  You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0.  You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset.  Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet.  You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting.  Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity." "Invest in productive assets and by that I mean companies.  Edit: I'll elaborate on ""productive assets"": any asset that produces something; whether it produces cash or a commodity, you'll automatically accumulate more of its byproduct in the future. The rest is self explanatory" Imagine a poorly run store in the middle of downtown Manhattan. It has been in the family for a 100 years but the current generation is incompetent regarding running a business. The store is worthless because it is losing money, but the land it is sitting on is worth millions.  So yes an asset of the company can be worth more than the entire company.  What one would pay for the rights to the land, vs the entire company are not equal. Bank assets are debt. Thus bank equity is a claim on debt.   Note also that QE etal dropped interest rates, compressing interest rate spreads and making it harder for banks to make money.  Banks do well when interest rates increase "In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month.  But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to ""sell"" dividends to clients." "Market cap is synonymous with equity value, which is one way of thinking of a company's ""worth.""  The alternative would be enterprise value, which is calculated as follows:  Enterprise Value = Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt - Cash and Equivalents - Non-Operating Assets  Enterprise value is essentially ""how much is the firm worth to ALL providers of capital."" It can be viewed as ""if I wanted to buy the *entire* company, debt and all, what would I have to pay?""" Assuming you're in the United States, then International Equity is an equity from a different country.  These stocks or stock funds (which reside in a foreign country) are broken out seperately becuase they are typically influenced by a different set of factors than equities in the United States: foreign currency swings, regional events and politics of various countries. What exactly does the balance sheet of a software company tell you? The majority of meaningful assets are inside your employees' heads.   You can't capitalize R&amp;D and depreciate it, it's a straight flow through to the income statement. And you can't put human capital on a balance sheet.  Software firms generally carry little to no debt and their cap structure is almost all equity. What are you going to put up for collateral when your product is bits and bytes? You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy.   I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”.   It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors. "1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes.  They are from two different perspectives.  Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy.  So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent.  One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia?  It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics.  However, that is not the issue here.  The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities.  The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly.  It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets.   Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets.  Hence, the short-term nature in its definition.  They are more focused on the money itself.     Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch.  Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development.   Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market.  In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves.  The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money.   So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters.  The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market.  After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it.  That money flows between traders.  Facebook got its money at the ""beginning"" of the process."