Ownership in company and rounds of investment
Say the company has created 500 shares [or whatever number]. You have 10 shares [equivalent of 2%]. Now when new capital is needed, generally more shares are created. Say they create 100 more shares and sell it to venture capital to raise funds. After this happens; Total Shares: 500+100 = 600 You own: 10 shares Your Ownership % = 1.66% down from 2% Like wise for other older shareholder. The New Venture guy gets 16.66% of ownership.   More funds would mean more growth and overall the value of your 10 shares would be more depending on the valuation.
"Price is current price per share, but you can buy fractional shares. Minimal investment is how later the first purchase of shares must be to make it worth their efforts to set up the account for you. How you manage it is up to you. You can buy or sell shares at any time, pretty much, though it may take a few days for the transaction to ""settle"" and take effect. You can do this via checks, or you can give the broker (or the investment house, if you are dealing directly with them as I do) permission to take money from or put money to your bank account when you tell them you want to buy or sell shares. You may be able to set up direct deposit; talk to your employer about that. Or you may be able to have your bank make a periodic transfer/purchase for you." You could think of points 1 and 3 combined to be similar to buying shares and selling calls on a part of those shares. $50k is the net of the shares and calls sale (ie without point 3, the investor would pay more for the same stake). Look up convertible debt, and why it's used. It's basically used so that both parties get 'the best of both world's' from equity and debt financing.   Who is he selling his share to in point 2 back to the business or to outside investors? "When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the ""60-day window"" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company." If someone invest certain amount on my company and after a year I am   able to return the exact capital with the profit, what will I do to   that investor?  Did the investor receive shares in the company for the money that was invested in the company? This is the big question here as if so then there isn't the need to return the money but rather grow the business so that the investor's shares are worth more. Will that person still invest in my company?  You may need to consider what you mean by invest as generally there are a couple of ways to finance a business: Equity - Ownership of the company is sold to raise money to run the company. Debt - The company is lent money that is to be repaid over time. Investing is usually the first case not the second. What if I have enough profit to continue my business, do I still need   that investor? You wouldn't need the investor. However, you may want that investor as they could provide more funds, connections or other benefits to the company that may be worth considering here. "Thanks for your reply. I think a lot of people are confused when talking about ownership, and I think it is a definitional issue.   When a company issues stock (the first time or anytime), what they are doing is ""selling"" the right to a percentage of the dividend. They are not actually selling parts of the company to you. Everyone thinks this way though, and that has to do with the Chicago School economists who perpetuated their ideas of ownership which is what everyone know thinks is the case. This way of thinking about corporations and ownership is just wrong (not ethically), just erroneous.   As I stated before, Lynn Stout of Cornell University explains this really well. I would encourage anyone to read more about it." From your question, it seems your problem is that you have a company that wants to make a deal, but does not currently have enough money to go through with it. Therefore it needs to raise capital. Assuming that you cannot get a loan from a bank and you do not want to seek funding from other sources, the two owners must provide the funds themselves somehow. Option A: The easiest and fairest way to do this is for the two shareholders to provide 75%, and 25% of the funding as a loan to the company. They will provide this loan knowing it may not be paid back if the company goes under. Note that it would not be fair for one of the shareholders to provide more, as that shareholder would be taking all the risk, while the other still reaps the rewards (although you could add a large interest rate to account for this). Option B: But say one of the shareholders cannot provide additional funds. In that case, the company should issue new shares, and each shareholder can purchase however many of the new shares he/she wants (each shareholder is entitled to purchase at least 75% or 25% respectively, but does not have to). The result of this may be that company ownership percentages have changed after the capital raising. This is more complex as it require valuing the company accurately to be fair, and probably requires reporting to a government (depending on the jurisdiction). A firm is a separate legal person from its shareholders or owners (but doesn't get invited to parties much). Owners invest capital to get shares in the firm or may get shares for investing time, effort etc. but those shares are on a limited liability basis. That means that shareholders are only liable up to the value of their shares and that the firm itself is responsible for any expenses or liabilities. The firm will have working capital from its initial investors (i.e. any capital invested to get shares) and can borrow money on the bond market or issue new shares to cover outgoings. Share ownership simply entitles the owner to a proportion of the residual equity of the company and voting rights (for non-prefered equity). In a firm that I previously worked for, for example, one of the partners owned 51% of the firm but put up 100% of the firm's equity capital. The other partner owned 49% and provided 90% of the intellectual capital of the firm. They both took decisions equally. The distribution of ownership should, therefore, have no bearing on who finances deals. The owners (or managers in larger firms) should decide together how to use the company's capital for spending because it is exactly that; the company's capital; not any one of the investor's. Limited liability of owners is one of the major benefits of forming a company. Another way to decide would be to do a fair valuation of the company agreeable to both the partners. Lets assume when you started the company it was worth $10,000 and to acquire 75%, you must have put $7,500 worth of money and effort. Similarly, the other partner must have put $2,500 worth of time and money. Now say after 2 years, you both agree that company is worth $50,000. And say now the company needs $10,000 worth of investment. Whoever invests that money should get 20% (10k/50k) of the company. Or each $1,000 will buy 2% in the company. Post this investment the equity division would be  First investor (you) 75% of 80% = 60 % Second investor (your partner) 25% of 80% = 20% Third (new) investor = 20% Now, if you alone decide to put all the money you stake will be 60 + 20 = 80% and your partner will be reduced to 20%. If you guys want to maintain equity as it was (75-25), you need to put money in the same ratio ($7500 and $2500). If you do that- First investor 60% + 15% (for $7,500) = 75% Second investor 20% + 5% (for $2,500) = 25%. Please know for IP-centric company valuation is very subjective. But, do make an effort to do the valuation at every stage of the company so that you can put a number in terms of equity for each investment. Shares in a company represent a portion of a company. If that company takes in money and doesn't pay it out as a dividend (e.g. Apple), the company is still more valuable because it has cold hard cash as an asset. Theoretically, it's all the same whether your share of the money is inside the company or outside the company; the only immediate difference is tax treatment.  Of course, for large bank accounts that means that an investment in the company is a mix of investment in the bank account and investment in the business-value of the company, which may stymie investors who aren't particularly interested in buying larve amounts of bank accounts (known for low returns) and would prefer to receive their share of the cash to invest elsewhere (or in the business portion of the company.) Companies like Apple have in fact taken criticism for this. Your company could also use that cash to invest in itself (growing the value of its profits) or buy other companies that are worth money, essentially doing the job for you. Of course, they can do the job well or they can do it poorly... A company could also be acquired by a larger company, or taken private, in exchange for cash or the stock of another company. This is another way that the company's value could be returned to its shareholders. yeah but most likely, it's a 1x liquidation preference. The startup isn't going to generate cash flows enough to pay off the initial investment to the investor. Technically it isn't exactly specified as only triggered on a liquidation event because OP didn't specify the real legal language but it seems likely that's the case. Point 2 is exactly what a liquidation preference is. No way the owner of the company is participating in anything until the investor gets his initial investment back. "Each company has X shares valued at $Y/share. When deals like ""Dragon's Den"" in Canada and Britain or ""Shark Tank"" in the US are done, this is where the company is issuing shares valued at $z total to the investor so that the company has the funds to do whatever it was that they came to the show to get funding to do, though some deals may be loans or royalties instead of equity in the company. The total value of the shares may include intangible assets of course but part of the point is that the company is doing an ""equity financing"" where the company continues to operate. The shareholders of the company have their stake which may be rewarded when the company is acquired or starts paying dividends but that is a call for the management of the company to make. While there is a cash infusion into the company, usually there is more being done as the Dragon or Shark can also bring contacts and expertise to the company to help it grow. If the investor provides the entrepreneur with introductions or offers suggestions on corporate strategy this is more than just buying shares in the company. If you look at the updates that exist on ""Dragon's Den"" or ""Shark Tank"" at least in North America I've seen, you will see how there are more than a few non-monetary contributions that the Dragon or Shark can provide." You'll own whatever fraction you bought. To own the company (as in, boolean - yes or no) you need to buy 100% of the outstanding stock. RE controlling the company, in general the answer is yes - although the mechanism for this might not be so straight forward (ie. you may have to appoint board members and may only be able to do so at pre-set intervals) and there may be conditions in the company charter designed to stop this happening. Depending on your jurisdiction certain ownership percentages can also trigger the need to do certain things so you may not be able to just buy 50% - in Australia when you reach 20% ownership you have to launch a formal takeover bid. "We're not ""helping"" the company in a comparable sense to donating money to a non-profit.  As you wrote, investing in a company deals with ownership and in a sense, becoming a part owner of a company, even if it is a minor ownership, indicates that we sense it has some sort of value, whether that's ethical, financial or tangible value.  As investors, we should take responsibility and ensure that our voices are heard when voting occurs (sadly, not too common). EDIT: @thepassiveinvestor makes an excellent point that this paragraph only applies to IPOs: Keep in mind, when we purchase stock in a company, that money is used for business purposes.  It also signals value to the market as well, if enough money or enough investors buy the stock." A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own  part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors. However what actually appears to happen is that the 100k is invested into the company to fund some growth plan. So is it actually the case that E's company is worth 400k only AFTER the transaction? Is the 100k added to the balance sheet as cash and would the other 300k be listed as an IP asset? The investor gets 25% of the shares of the company and pays $100k for them, so Owner's Equity increases by $100k, and the company gets $100k more in cash. The $400k number is an implicit calculation: if 25% of the company is worth $100k, 100% of the company is worth $400k. It's not on the books: the investor is just commenting that they feel that they are being over-charged.