Is it possible to make money off of a private company?
Yes, but only if they're looking for investors. You would need to contact them directly. Unless you're looking to invest a significant sum, they may not be interested in speaking with you. (Think at least 6 figures, maybe 7 depending on their size and needs). This is otherwise known as being a Venture Capitalist. Some companies don't want additional investors because the capital isn't yet needed and they don't want to give up shares in the profit/control. Alternatively, you could try and figure out which investment groups already have a stake in the company you're interested in. If those companies are publicly traded, you could buy stocks for their company with the expectation that their stock price will increase if the company you know of does well in the long run. Another way to do this is go to work for that company.  Companies in this situation normally offer low pay, long hours, and stock options.  Given a sufficient grant, it could be all very lucrative or worthless.   Even if you have no electronics background you might be able to work in a different capacity.  There were secretaries at various companies that became wealthy off of their stock options.
"Not at all impossible. What you need is Fundamental Analysis and Relationship with your investment. If you are just buying shares - not sure you can have those. I will provide examples from my personal experience:  My mother has barely high school education. When she saw house and land prices in Bulgaria, she thought it's impossibly cheap. We lived on rent in Israel, our horrible apartment was worth $1M and it was horrible. We could never imagine buying it because we were middle class at best. My mother insisted that we all sell whatever we have and buy land and houses in Bulgaria. One house, for example, went from $20k to EUR150k between 2001 and 2007. But we knew Bulgaria, we knew how to buy, we knew lawyers, we knew builders.  The company I currently work for. When I joined, share prices were around 240 (2006). They are now (2015) at 1500. I didn't buy because I was repaying mortgage (at 5%). I am very sorry I didn't. Everybody knew 240 is not a real share price for our company - an established (+30 years) software company with piles of cash. We were not a hot startup, outsiders didn't invest. Many developers and finance people WHO WORK IN THE COMPANY made a fortune. Again: relationship, knowledge!  I bought a house in the UK in 2012 - everyone knew house prices were about to go up. I was lucky I had a friend who was a surveyor, he told me: ""buy now or lose money"". I bought a little house for 200k, it is now worth 260k. Not double, but pretty good money!  My point is: take your investment personally. Don't just dump money into something. Once you are an insider, your risk will be almost mitigated and you could buy where you see an opportunity and sell when you feel you are near the maximal real worth of your investment. It's not hard to analyse, it's hard to make a commitment." Yes. There are exceptions under the pre-JOBS laws to allow unaccredited investors (off the top of my head I don't remember the limit, but 35 sounds right). However, it increases the amount of information the company has to give to those investors.   Post-JOBS you're allowed to have up to 500 unaccredited investors and as far as I know, it doesn't really change the information the company has to give. "The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock.  Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money.  In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies.  There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world:  Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says ""all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles."" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run." It is difficult to value a private company. Most of the valuations is based on how one feels the idea would translate into revenue in some future time. The VC firms take into account various factors to determine the price, but more often then not, its their hunch. Even VC don't make money on all picks, very few picks turn out to be stars, most picks lose money they have invested. Few picks just return their money. So if you feel that the idea/product/brand/people are great and would someday make good money, invest into it. Else stay away. "It could be just as exploitable given the current system.  Also, who is this ""owner""?  A large shareholder of a public corporation isn't just going to come into 16 houses.  There's a board of directors, and about a million other shareholders, including those in blackrock and vangaurd who have nothing to gain from allowing such corruption.  A private company's owner who decided to buy himself a house on the company's dime and not tell the IRS can do so at his peril regardless of tax policy.  I still don't understand the point." Here is something I have always wondered. Companies are required to go public after they have a certain number of investors. Used to be 500 now 2000. Can a company that has been forced to go public, then be made private again? How? Yes, it's possible. However, it's not likely, at least not for most people. Earning a million is not that difficult, but when you talk about billions that's an entirely different story. I think the key point that you're missing is leverage. It's common knowledge that Warren Buffett likes to have a huge cash warchest at his disposal and does not soak himself in debt. However, in his early years Buffett did not get to where he's at by investing only his own money. He ran what was basically a hedge fund and leveraged other peoples' money in the market. This magnified his returns quite substantially. If you look at Buffett's investments, you'll notice that he had a handful of HUGE wins in his portfolio and many more just mediocre success stories. Not everything he invested in turned to gold, but his portfolio was rocketed by the large wins that continued to compound over many years because he held them for so long. Also, consider the fact that Buffett's wealth is largely measured in Berkshire stock. This stock is a reflection of anticipated future earnings by the company. There's no way that alone could turn   $10k in 1950 into $50B today... could   it? Why not? Take the two founders of Google for example, they became billionaires in short order when Google had it's IPO and basically started in a garage with very little cash. Of course, they didn't do this by buying and selling shares. There are many paths to earnings enormous sums of money like the people you're talking about, but one characteristic that the richest people in society seem to have in common is that they all own their own companies. Public companies sometimes buy up all their shares in order to go private^(1).  Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?  If so, [this article](http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/public-companies-privatize-go-private.asp) might be of interest to you.  ^(1) Actually, most of the time, they partner with private equity firms to do it, but I think the effect is essentially what you're describing. There are a couple of ways to buy into a private company.  First, the company can use equity crowd funding (approved under the JOBS act, you don't need to be an accredited investor for this).   The offering can be within one state (i.e. Intrastate offerings) which don't have the same SEC regulations but will be governed by state law.   Small companies (small assets, under $1 million) can be made under Regulation D, Rule 504.  For assets under $5 million, there is Rule 505, which allows a limited number of non-accredited investors.  Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of 504 and 505 issues. Rule 506 issues are common, and it does allow a few non-accredited investors (I think 35), but non-accredited investors have to be given lots of disclosure, so often companies use a Rule 506 issue but only for accredited investors. "Private companies often ""make the market"" for their own stock. So they may offer to buy back so many shares a year, give staff the option to sell stock back after so many years, etc.  But private companies can have their own restrictions. They can, for instance, forbid secondary trading or explicitly limit voting stock to family members.  Ostensibly, someone could sell a big chunk of a company for whatever price they wanted (unless it was prohibited).  For tax purposes, IRS will come after you if you get a bunch of value for less than you paid for.  It is not an unheard of way to transfer wealth, but a dollar? Probably just gift it. But I'm not a tax attorney...   But is absolutely not the same kind of price transparency, or price movement, that you see in public stock, you are correct. Larger private companies may have secondary markets that are still less transparent." Are you daft?? In most US cities it’s **illegal** to run a private bus/mass-transit business. However, here’s two examples if it will get you to STFU:  https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/09/the-unique-genius-of-hong-kongs-public-transportation-system/279528/  https://thedetroitbus.com  http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/28/google-buses-corporate-shuttles-popular-poll/   Notice how Google and other companies that use buses for employees have to do it at no cost, because governments made it **illegal** for them to charge money for mass-transit services. this is not necessarily true. sometimes it makes sense for a public company to go private. usually a private equity firm will buy up the shares. the private equity firm would usually be financed by a bank and the cash flow from the company will help pay off the financing. there are pros and cons to both private and public companies. a pro for a private company is the reduced regulation and there is no need to follow sarbanes-oxley act. "The recommendation is not to make the investment. In general, a company does not have to sell their shares to you or allow you to become an investor, because, as you have stated, it is a private company not quoted on the stock market.   If everyone were trustworthy, you could buy the tools for $11000 -- so that you own the tools -- and sign a lease of the tools to the company whereby they pay you $X/month.  The lease should be reviewed by a lawyer before it is signed, and perhaps give the buyer the right to demand back the tools at any time.  However, even this arrangement is very risky, because the ""company"" could simply steal or damage the tools and disappear.   It is not an investment that I would make, because it sounds too good to be true.  $2800/mo steady cash flow for $11,000 invested.  No, I don't think so.   The following information may also be useful, either to you, or future readers: If you still want to make this investment, then you should know that: The offering for sale of shares by companies located in the USA is subject to a wild array of complex laws.  This is true in many other countries as well.  These laws,  called securities laws or regulations,  can require certain disclosures, require that investors have a high net worth so that they can afford to lose the money or conduct their own investigations and legal actions, or require that the investors know the company founders personally, and can prohibit or limit resale by the buyer/investor.  Promoters who say you can still invest and are ignoring or disobeying the securities laws are being at least negligent, but more likely are dishonest and probably criminal.  Even if you trust in the investment, can you trust negligent managers to do a good job executing that investment? What about dishonest managers?  What about criminals and thieves?" Yes, all the shares of a publicly traded company can be purchased. This effectively takes the company private so that it's no longer traded on a stock market. Here are some examples: EDIT: to answer your edited question... the corporation can issue more stock.  However that would dilute the value of existing shares.  Thus, existing shareholders must vote to allow more shares to be issued. So... in your situation yes, you'd need to wait for someone else to sell. 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.