Browse All Tribes or choose a Tribe below:
By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google
By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Don't have an account? Sign Up
To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.
I've just watched the YouTube video above by Robert Kiyosaki who explains that one day we could be sued for everything we own if we hold assets in our own name and not within a company.
I was wondering what people's experience/views are on this.
There is a huge difference country from country. In the UK you do not have sue culture as US.
There are some principles which are similar, but that is all.
Robert does raise questions and some of the things he talks about is true, but I do no longer like him and is not my source for inspiration or ideas.
The USA is so different from the UK
I used to be a fan of RDPD but since all the Tax changes in the UK 50% of it just dosent hold water now in the UK
The UK govt have a death wish for anyone who wants to make themselves and there family wealth
7000 Millionaires have left the UK I believe
Learn Change and Adapt ?????
All comments are for casual information purposes only. If you wish to rely on any advice I have given please ensure you obtain independent specialist advice from a third party. No liability is accepted for comments made.
It's not dissimilar in the UK.
Take for example you have several properties in a limited company. Though a tenant takes legal action for whatever reason, which a court fines you a significant amount.Those properties with equity will be used as security for the court, perhaps forced to sell but certainly a restriction put on them.
Now if their was only one property in the limited company (others in other companies) and the tenant took legal action against the one that owns theirs.The same thing would happen but their would be less equity at risk, less properties and perhaps a court would not force sale perhaps the equity is not enough to pay the damages. etc..
If you want to see this in effect. Pick a random large company, I did HSBC at school it has subsidiaries after subsidiaries. The most like-for-like would be construction, your big construction firms own companies that own specific sites.The larger company typically does not buy the site but one of its subsidiaries.
Now its not all that simple - a good lawyer may convince a court to go after other assets. If they think fraud is involved they can also lift the "Veil of Incorporation".That aside, they call them "Limited Companies" for a reason. The "Limited" being Limited Liability.
This is just me ranting of course, take your own legal advice. I do, im certainly no solicitor.
_________________________________________________________________________My posts are not financial advice but often me rambling - passing time on a coffee break.Our team at Bespoke Finance offers Limited Company Buy-to-Let and Cheap Life Insurance._________________________________________________________________________
I'm a firm believer in owning as little as practicable and have incorporated purely on this basis, taxation was a secondary consideration.
Whilst suing is a realistic threat, I was more concerned with protecting the assets in old age and death. They are also protected from divorce (one of life's great asset strippers).
some applicable advice there for JVs....