Financially Shielded Entity Separating Individuals Behind It From Risks
You are describing a corporation.  You can set up a corporation to perform business, but if you were using the money for any personal reasons the courts could Pierce the corporate veil and hold you personally liable.  Also, setting up a corporation for purely personal reasons is fraud.
As far as I understand, equifax collects data about individuals and scores their credit worthiness. The ceo did Jack shit about keeping all that private data safe, so they got hacked and all that data is now in someone else's hands. The possible implications? Large scale identify fraud of anyone whose details got stolen, since it encompasses everything  that is needed for that. And that is besides the privacy violation. Yep, this is a fact - and actually goes double for non-profits and the public sector. I'm significantly more shielded from this than if I was employed as a developer for a private entity.   I once worked for a startup where I had to sign a contract to not create a competing service within 2 years of leaving the company. I've been very careful to never put myself in that position again. My question is: absent the corporate shield, to what extent are partners liable for a serious disaster or accident such as the BP Gulf incident. IN other words, if an oil pipeline had a major spill or explosion in which there were serious liabilities, to what extent would this effect the owners of a listed partnership beyond the effects of corporate liability on a common stock holding? If the business is legally separated and not commingled - they probably cannot. What they can do is put a lien on it (so that you cannot sell the business) and garnish your income. If the corporate veil is pierced (and its not that hard to have it pierced if you're not careful) - then they can treat it as if it is your personal asset. Verify this with a lawyer licensed in your state, I'm not a lawyer or a tax professional. "There are TWO parts to an LLC or any company structure.  This being the entire point of creating an LLC.  The context is that a lawyer is after your LLC, and he's arguing that the LLC is not genuine, so he can go after your personal assets - your house, car, IRAs, tap your wife's salary etc.  This is called ""piercing the corporate veil"".  What would he use to claim the LLC is not genuine?  The determination here is between you and the judge in a lawsuit.  Suffice it to say, the way you withdraw money must consider the above issues, or you risk breaking the liability shield and becoming personally liable, which means you've been wasting the $25 every year to keep it registered.  The IRS has a word for single member LLCs: ""Disregarded entity"".  The IRS wants to know that the entity exists and it's connected to you.  But for reporting tax numbers, they simply want the LLC's numbers folded into your personal numbers, because you are the same entity for tax purposes. The determination here is made by you.  *LLCs are incredible versatile structures, and you can actually choose to have it taxed like a corporation where it is a separate ""person"" which files its own tax return. * The IRS doesn't care how you move money from the LLC to yourself, since it's all the same to them.  The upshot is that while your own lawyer prohibits you from thinking of the assets as ""all one big pile"", IRS requires you to. Yes, it's enough to give you whiplash." This isn't new. In the mid 80s rules were established by the IRS to differentiate life insurance from Modified Endowment Contracts, placing upper limits on how much money could be placed in life insurance accounts relative to the coverage provided and how quickly (fastest a policy can become paid-in-full is 7 years). None of this closes the fundamental loophole, but it exists for a reason, taxation of life insurance is probably unwise and would result in less people using life insurance as a risk mitigation technique, despite the fact that it's very appropriate for that in some situations.  The problem here is that once you get out of everyday-people numbers and into very large sums the vehicle can be clearly abused to avoid taxes on investment gains while living, and possibly avoid them altogether depending on how the estate is structured, and this is bad for the average person who'd like the megarich to pay their percent towards the public needs the same way the average guy does. Strange that they're holding you personally legally liable rather than the company. That's normally a big part of the corporate veil. You need a lawyer, not a stackexchange. I'm not familiar enough with finance in any capacity to know what the difference is between financial services or a finance department (beyond what you said); my familiarity of the industry extends to trading, rating, and financial law enforcement. But at a glance on mobile, that looks like pretty much exactly what I was looking for. I have no connect to the industry, but habe been on a Wall St media binge lately, and like to understand powerful/influencial sectors of society anyways. Thanks. "What you are describing is a Chart of Accounts.  It's a structure used by accountants to categorise accounts into sub-categories below the standard Asset/Liability/Income/Expense structure. The actual categories used will vary widely between different people and different companies.  Every person and company is different, whilst you may be happy to have a single expense account called ""Lunch"", I may want lots of expense accounts to distinguish between all the different restaurants I eat at regularly.  Companies will often change their chart of accounts over time as they decide they want to capture more (or less) detail on where a particular type of Expense is really being spent. All of this makes any attempt to create a standard (in the strict sense) rather futile.  I have worked at a few places where discussions about how to structure the chart of accounts and what referencing scheme to use can be surprisingly heated!  You'll have to come up with your own system, but I can provide a few common recommendations: If you're looking for some simple examples to get started with, most personal finance software (e.g. GnuCash) will offer to create an example chart of accounts when you first start a session." This article is 100% incorrect. The governments main concern is to PREVENT depositors and tax payers from losing funds in the case of bank default.  How?  By having debt holders being forced to converted into equity to create a capital buffer to keep a bank solvent which will help protect depositors and prevent tax payers from having to bail the banks out.  Please ask me more questions on this as I have done a lot of work on this topic as of late. In the US, pension benefits promised by employers are tightly regulated by a law called ERISA. One of the requirements is that money be deposited in a trust that is out of the reach of the employer and the employer's creditors, so even if the employer falls on hard times or goes bankrupt, the money to pay the pensions is still there. In addition, the benefits are guaranteed by the federal government through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (usually called the PBGC). Relative to most investments, pensions are a safe bet. Framing is not fraud. Fraud is a material misrepresentation of facts for financial gain. You need to misrepresent actual facts.  As for harm, the difference is consent. There is an ethical mandate to protect innocent from harm by others, but no similar mandate to protect them from themselves. You can say it's a bad proxy but practically all the richest people have their money tied up in equities, and it would be foolish for them not to. You have to include that somehow. Net worth is not just liquid assets "First off, the jargon you are looking for is a hedge. A hedge is ""an investment position intended to offset potential losses/gains that may be incurred by a companion investment"" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_(finance)) The other answers which point out that put options are frequently used as a hedge are correct. However there are other hedging instruments used by financial professionals to mitigate risk.  For example, suppose you would really prefer that Foo Corporation not go bankrupt -- perhaps because they own you money (because you're a bondholder) or perhaps because you own them (because you're a stockholder), or maybe you have some other reason for wanting Foo Corp to do well. To mitigate the risk of loss due to bankruptcy of Foo Corp you can buy a Credit Default Swap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap). A CDS is essentially a bet that pays off if Foo Corp goes bankrupt, just as insurance on your house is a bet that pays off if your house burns down.   Finally, don't ever forget that all insurance is not just a bet that the bad thing you're insuring against is going to happen, it is also a bet that the insurer is going to pay you if that happens.  If the insurer goes bankrupt at the same time as the thing you are insuring goes bad, you're potentially in big trouble." I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account.  This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage.  The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything.  From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution.