Corporate Equity Draw vs Income
You tagged with S-Corp, so I assume that you have that tax status.  Under that situation, you don't get taxed on distributions regardless of what you call them.  You get taxed on the portion of the net income that is attributable to you through the Schedule K that the S-Corp should distribute to you when the S-Corp files its tax return.  You get taxed on that income whether or not it's distributed. If you also work for the small business, then you need to pay yourself a reasonable wage.  The amount that you distribute can be one factor in determining reasonableness.  That doesn't seem to be what you asked, but it is something to consider.
It is. The outstanding value is the net cash flow, but it will always be higher than cash outflow due to a constant growth rate/expected return. I was slightly confused when my manager told me to find the IRR before and after cash inflows (the whole life of the investment). Especially as IRR after cash inflows is higher than the former. You need to distinguish a company's guidance from analysts' estimates. A company will give a revenue/earnings guidance which is generally based on internal budgets. The guidance  may be aggressive or conservative - some managements are known to be conservative and the market will take that into account to form actual estimates. When you see a headline saying that a company missed, it is generally by reference to the analysts' estimates. Analysts use a company's guidance as one data point among many others to form a forecast of revenue/earnings. The idea behind those headlines is that the average sales/earnings estimates of analysts is a good approximation of what the market expects (which is debatable). "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." "You'll generally get a number close to market cap of a mature company if you divide profits (or more accurately its free cash flow to equity) by the cost of equity which is usually something like ~7%.    The value is meant to represent the amount of cash you'd need to generate investment income off it matching the company you're looking at. Imagine it as asking ""How much money do I need to put into the bank so that my interest income would match the profits of the company I'm looking at"". Except replace the bank with the market and other forms of investments that generate higher returns of course and that value would be lower." Lets just get to the point...Ordinary income (gains) earned from S-Corp operations (i.e. income earned after all expenses for providing services or selling products) is passed through to the owners/shareholders and taxed at the owner's personal tax rate. Separately, if an S-Corp earns capital gains (i.e. the S-Corp buys and sells stock, earns dividends from investments, etc), those gains are passed through to the owners and taxed at a capital gains rate Capital gains are not the same as ordinary income (gains). Don't get the two confused, they are as different for S-Corp taxation as they are for personal taxation. In some cases an exception occurs, but only when the S-Corp was formally a C-Corp and the C-Corp had non-distributed earnings or losses. This is a separate issue whereas the undistributed C-Corp gains/losses are treated differently than the S-Corp gains/losses. It takes years of college coursework and work experience to grasp the vast arena of tax. It should not be so complex, but it is this complex. It is not within the scope of the non-tax professional to make sense of this stuff. The CPA exams, although very difficult and thorough, only scrape the surface of tax and accounting. I hope this provides some perspective on any questions regarding business tax for S-Corps and any other entity type. Hire a good CPA... if you can find one. This is fine, but I'd probably spend a moment introducing WACC and it's estimation. It's also useful to link up the enterprise value to share price, so just also mentioning the debt subtraction to get equity value and division by shares for price.  Keep in mind you're usually given like a minute to answer this, so you can afford to be a bit more detailed in some parts. Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing.  A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula. Would you mind adding where that additional value comes from, if not from the losses of other investors?  You asked this in a comment, but it seems to be the key to the confusion.   Corporations generate money (profits, paid as dividends) from sales.  Sales trade products for money.  The creation of the product creates value.  A car is worth more than General Motors pays for its components and inputs, even including labor and overhead as inputs.  That's what profit is:  added value.  The dividend is the return that the stock owner gets for owning the stock.   This can be a bit confusing in the sense that some stocks don't pay dividends.  The theory is that the stock price is still based on the future dividends (or the liquidation price, which you could also consider a type of dividend).  But the current price is mostly based on the likelihood that the stock price will increase rather than any expected dividends during ownership of the stock.   A comment calls out the example of Berkshire Hathaway.  Berkshire Hathaway is a weird case.  It operates more like a mutual fund than a company.  As such, investors prefer that it reinvest its money rather than pay a dividend.  If investors want money from it, they sell shares to other investors.  But that still isn't really a zero sum game, as the stock increases in value over time.   There are other stocks that don't pay dividends.  For example, Digital Equipment Corporation went through its entire existence without ever paying a dividend.  It merged with Compaq, paying investors for owning the stock.   Overall, you can see this in that the stock market goes up on average.  It might have a few losing years, but pick a long enough time frame, and the market will increase during it.  If you sell a stock today, it's because you value the money more than the stock.  If it goes up tomorrow, that's the buyer's good luck.  If it goes down, the buyer's bad luck.  But it shouldn't matter to you.  You wanted money for something.  You received the money.   The increase in the stock market overall is an increase in value.  It is completely unrelated to trading losses.  Over time, trading gains outweigh trading losses for investors as a group.  Individual investors may depart from that, but the overall gain is added value.   If the only way to make gains in the stock market was for someone else to take a loss, then the stock market wouldn't be able to go up.  To view it as a zero sum game, we have to ignore the stocks themselves.  Then each transaction is a payment (loss) for one party and a receipt (gain) for the other.  But the stocks themselves do have value other than what we pay for them.  The net present value of of future payments (dividends, buyouts, etc.) has an intrinsic worth.  It's a risky worth.  Some stocks will turn out to be worthless, but on average the gains outweigh the losses. "In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled ""Net Income"". That's followed by a line labeled ""Preferred Dividends"", which is followed by ""Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items"" and ""Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items"". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., ""earnings for the common stock""." I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the *operating assets* of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc.  In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant. "Equity could mean stock options. If that's the case if the company makes it big, you'll have the option to buy stocks cheap (which can then be sold at a huge profit) How are you going to buy those without income?  5% equity is laughable. I'd be looking for 30-40% if not better without salary.  Or even better, a salary. To elaborate, 5% is fine, and even normal for an early employee taking a mild pay cut in exchange for a chance at return. That chance of any return on the equity is only about 1/20 (94% of startups fail) There is no reason for an employee to work for no pay. An argument could be made for a cofounder, with direct control and influence in the company to work for equity only, but it would be a /lot/ more (that 30-40%), or an advisory role (5% is reasonable)  I also just noticed you mentioned ""investing"" in the startup with cash. As an angel investor, I'd still expect far more than 5%, and preferred shares at that. More like 16-20%.  Read this for more info on how equity is usually split." It is difficult to reconcile historical balance sheets with historical cash flow statements because there are adjustments that are not always clearly disclosed. Practitioners consider activity on historical cash flow statements but generally don't invest time reconciling historical accounts, instead focusing on balancing projected balance sheets / cash flow statements. If you had non-public internal books, you could reconcile the figures (presuming they are accurate). In regards to Mike Haskel's comment, there's also a section pertaining to operating capital, not just effects on net income. This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc.  For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes. First, corporate profits can grow relative to GDP.  If companies succeed in growing revenue without paying much more to workers, then corporate profits and stock prices will grow relative to GDP.  That has been happening for the last couple decades.  If you require that we keep corporate profits vs GDP constant, then borrowing/leverage is how you do it.  Companies can expand their operations on a fixed amount of shareholder equity, and as long as they can grow their profits faster than the cost of the debt, then shareholders keep the upside.  But this also means that share prices will quickly fall if profits decline even a small amount, because the debt must still be paid off. It is true that operation profit comes from gross profit however it is possible for a company to have negative net profit yet have postive cash flow , it has to do with the accounting practice A possible example is that a company has extremely high depreciation expense of fixed asset hence net profit will be negative but cash flow will be positive. Assuming the fixed asset has been fully paid for in earlier years