If you really eligible for trader status it might not be worth the hassle til you are making $100,000 a year. If you can't get trader status it would be a lot less than that. Because you need a LLC for asset protection and corporation for deductions and retirement accounts.
AND THEN there are lots of little inconvenienes like this. i have a individual account and a limited partnership account. I opened an account at IB and the individual account took 30 minutes for approval and funding. ive been working on the limited partnership account now for three weeks and still not open. and i go through that with EVERY broker, not just one. its a pain.
There are so many mis-informed posts in this thread today, it just goes to show how a little good knowledge and planing can go astray when passed about person-to-person after the specific person it was meant for leaves the room As to SMLLC's, which are little more than the alter ego of the sole member, they offer virtually nothing to most solo businesses, including traders in securities. The Albright decision hammered the nail into the coffen of those day dreamer lawyers that touted this noncense. An SMLLC would effectively protect the solo member if and probably only if, there was a properly unsupervised employee working on company business, who screwed up and the SMLLC ended up getting sued, in that case the solo member's personal assets would not be subject to forfieture. Few traders have employees, and fewer have any possible way to injure someone that would result in an uninsured loss resulting in a law suit. Margin default... doesn't work with the SMLLC Being sued for actions outside of the SMLLC... don't get stopped at the SMLLC shield since Albright. No, there are few places where the SMLLC is of use as the SOLE entity structure for an individual to own.
Let's recall the thread start... This thread is/was not about asset protection. So while your comments have merit, it does not negate the fact that SMLCCs are completely valid and legal entities in regards to the original intent of the thread.
I suggest that there simply are no viable "bennies" availed with an SMLLC for a securities trader with a $10,000 starting capital base. I further suggest that a "disregarded" SMLLC offers few viable "bennies" other than the asset protection as discussed above. There's little ELSE that would be the legitimate point of forming an SMLLC. It is merely an alter ego of the owner, but one with very limited legal liability protection (as described above)
Repeat after me ... The benefit is you get to contribute to a pension plan and sock away tax deferred money. The benefit is you get to contribute to a pension plan and sock away tax deferred money. The benefit is you get to contribute to a pension plan and sock away tax deferred money. If you dont want to do this then don't incorporate.
What about the thought that as a corporation, I can carry over my losses from previous years to offset profits in a current year? Or can I do that without the corporation?