Eligibility for stock rights offering
Yes, there is a delay between when you buy a stock and when you actually take ownership of it.  This is called the settlement period. The settlement period for US equities is T+2 (other markets have different settlement periods), meaning you don't actually become a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you buy.  Conversely, you don't stop being a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you sell. Presumably at some point in the (far) future all public markets will move to same-day changes of ownership, at which point companies will stop making announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd and will switch to announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd at 13:00 UTC
My memory served me correctly. I remember this because it was on my Series 7, so that link is misleading if you are studying for the 7. Here is the exception:  &gt; Transactions to Which the Rule is Not Applicable (Proposed FINRA Rule 2121(d)) Consistent with the initial proposal, FINRA Rule 2121(d) provides that FINRA Rule 2121 is not applicable to: (1) **the sale of securities where a prospectus** or offering circular must be delivered and the securities are sold at the specific public offering price, based on NASD IM-2440-1(d); and (2) a transaction in a non-investment grade debt security with a QIB that meets the conditions set forth in proposed FINRA Rule 2122(b)(9), which is described below.  If you're studying for the 7, you will know that every mutual fund sale requires the delivery of a prospectus. No, it doesn't work like this. Your charitable contribution is limited to the FMV. In your scenario your charitable contribution is limited by the FMV, i.e.: you can only deduct the worth of the stocks. It would be to your advantage to sell the stocks and donate cash. Had your stock appreciated, you may be required to either deduct the appreciation amount from the donation deduction or pay capital gains tax (increasing your basis to the FMV), depending on the nature of your donation. In many cases - you may be able to deduct the whole value of the appreciated stock without paying capital gains. Read the link below for more details and exceptions. In this scenario, it is probably more beneficial to donate the stock (even if required to pay the capital gains tax), instead of selling and donating cash (which will always trigger the capital gains tax). Exceptions.   However, in certain situations, you must reduce the fair   market value by any amount that would have been long-term capital gain   if you had sold the property for its fair market value. Generally,   this means reducing the fair market value to the property's cost or   other basis. You must do this if: The property (other than qualified appreciated stock) is contributed to certain private nonoperating foundations, You choose the 50% limit instead of the special 30% limit for capital gain property, discussed later, The contributed property is intellectual property (as defined earlier under Patents and Other Intellectual Property ), The contributed property is certain taxidermy property as explained earlier, or The contributed property is tangible personal property (defined earlier) that: Is put to an unrelated use (defined later) by the charity, or Has a claimed value of more than $5,000 and is sold, traded, or otherwise disposed of by the qualified organization during the year   in which you made the contribution, and the qualified organization has   not made the required certification of exempt use (such as on Form   8282, Donee Information Return, Part IV). See also Recapture if no   exempt use , later. See more here. No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public.  However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital. "I did a little research and found the eligible investments for TFSAs. In this document under heading ""Shares of private and other corporations"", sub heading ""Shares of small business corporations"" there is clause about owning less than 10% share and less than $25000 total value of the corporation. Generally, a connected shareholder of a corporation (as  defined in subsection 4901(2) of > the Regulations) at any time  is a person who   owns, directly or indirectly, at that time,  10% or more of the shares   of any class of shares of the  corporation or of any other corporation   related to the  corporation.    However, where   • such a person is   dealing at arm's length with the  corporation or any other related   corporation; and   • the aggregate cost amount of all shares of the   corporation  or any other related corporation the person owns, or is    deemed to own, is less than $25,000 that person will not be a   connected shareholder of the  corporation. For purposes of the 10%   and $25,000 tests, the rules in the  definition of ìspecified   shareholderî in subsection 248(1)  apply with the result that certain   shares will be deemed to be  owned by the shareholder. For example, by   virtue of  paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively, of that definition,   an  annuitant, a beneficiary or a subscriber under a plan trust is    deemed to own the shares owned by a person with whom the  annuitant,   beneficiary or subscriber is not dealing at armís  length, as well as   the shares owned by the plan trust.  In addition, any share that  • the annuitant, beneficiary, or subscriber under a plan trust;  or • a person not dealing at arm's length with any of the above  has a right to acquire is also included in the calculation of the  percentage and   cost amount of the shares held for purposes  of the 10% and $25,000   tests pursuant to subsection  4901(2.2) of the Regulations." "I'm not the OP, but I'm happy to give a brief overview.  Basically, pre-JOBS act there were a lot of limits on who could make an equity investment in a non-public company (i.e. a startup or even a hedge fund). There were some loopholes, but basically you had to be an 'accredited investor'. An accredited investor was someone who either has made $200,000+ ($300,000+ for married people) for the past two years and expects to make that much again in the current year. Alternately, they could have a net worth of $1 million, excluding the value of their primary residence. There was also a limit of 500 investors for a non-public company before the company had to become public (they didn't really have to IPO, but they did have to file their financials with the SEC, so the effect was basically the same). Finally, non-public companies were prohibited from seeking investment through advertising basically. They couldn't take out an ad in a paper or event send a mass email and say, ""Hey, we're looking to raise a $1 million funding round, contact us if you're interested!""  Okay, now after the JOBS Act.  The JOBS Act changed a) the number and type of investors who could make equity investments in a non-public company b) the regulation of advertising for investments.  Post-JOBS private companies could have 2,000 shareholders and 500 of those could be unaccredited (e.g. regular people like you and I). The change in the number of shareholders isn't really that important because it's just shareholders of record, but that's another post for another day. There are still some requirements for unaccredited shareholder, which I don't remember off the top of my head. I think you have to have income of at least $40k. They also changed the solicitation ban, so it's possible that you might see an ad in the WSJ someday for a startup company, venture capital fund, hedge fund, etc.  There are some other things it changed, but IMO those are the two most important." 1st question: If I bought 1 percent share of company X, but   unfortunately it closed down because of some reason as it was 1   million in debt. Since I had 1 percent of it shares, does it mean I   also have to pay the 1 percent of it's debt? Stock holders are not liable for anything more than their current holdings.  In cases of Ch11 bankruptcy stock holders usually get nothing.  In Ch7 the holdings will be severely hit but one may get 10% of pre-bk prices.  I would strongly recommend against investing in bankrupt companies.  A seasoned trader can make plenty off short term trades. The payoff structure is usually: 2nd question: Is there an age requirements to enter the stock market?   I am 15 years old this year. Yes it is generally 18, but some firms offer a joint option that your parents can open. Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure. The process would look something like:  1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC  3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO   1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees A company generally sells a portion of its ownership in an IPO, with  existing investors retaining some ownership.  In your example, they believe that the entire company is worth $25MM, so in order to raise $3MM it is issuing stock representing 12% of the ownership stake (3/25), which dilutes some or all of the existing stockholders' claims. As an NRI there are certain limitations as well as benefits.  Limitation in terms of holding a specified quantity of shares in company, thus the need to open new account, so that Bank can track the holding and inform regulator.  Benfits in terms of able to reptriate any amount of funds from trades in this account. In order to ease this, there are 2 Accounts NRO demat account (Non PINS): Essentially this does not automatically allow for reptration of funds [like NRE] but its more like NRO, amount upto USD 1 million per year. NRO Demat account PINS: Here you can buy fresh shares and take the proceeds out of country without any limits. So in short, you would need an NRO Demat NON PINS Account. Transfer your existing shares here. Sell whenever you like. Open a NRO Demat PINS account, if you wish to buy more with status as NRI, if you don't wish you buy, there is no need for this account. You should ask the bank supplying the SBA loan about the % of ownership that is required to personally guarantee the loan. Different banks give different figures, but I believe the last time I heard about this it was 20% or more owners must personally guarantee the loan. Before you spend a lot of money on legal fees drawing up a complicated scheme of shares, ask the bank what they require. Make sure you speak with an underwriter since many service people don't know the rules. "I have received a response from SIPC, confirming littleadv's answer: For a brief background, the protections available under the Securities   Investor Protection Act (""SIPA""), are only available in the context of   a liquidation proceeding of a SIPC member broker-dealer and relate to   the ""custody"" of securities and related cash at the SIPC member   broker-dealer. Thus, if a SIPC member broker-dealer were to fail at a   time when a customer had securities and/or cash in the custody of the   SIPC member broker-dealer, in most instances it would be SIPC's   obligation to restore those securities and cash to the customer,   within statutory limits. That does not mean, however, that the   customer would necessarily receive the original value of his or her   purchase. Rather, the customer receives the security itself and/or the   value of the customer's account as of the day that the liquidation   commenced. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of any   security. In a liquidation proceeding under the SIPA, SIPC may advance   up to $500,000 per customer (including a $250,000 limit on cash in the   account). Please note that this protection only applies to the extent that you   entrust cash or securities to a U.S. SIPC member. Foreign broker   dealer subsidiaries are not SIPC members. However, to the extent that   any assets, including foreign securities, are being held by the U.S.   broker dealer, the assets are protected by SIPC. Stocks listed on the   LSE are protected by SIPC to the extent they are held with a SIPC   member broker dealer, up to the statutory limit of $500,000 per   customer. As I mentioned in the comments, in the case of IB, indeed they have a foreign subsidiary, which is why SIPC does not cover it (rather they are insured by Lloyds of London for such cases)." In my original question, I  was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear. This seemed very unrealistic, I mean who would do that? But to my immense surprise the market price increased to 5.50$ in the following week! Why is that? This is strange. It seems that people mistakenly [?] believe that the company should be at 5.5 and currently available cheap. This looks like irrational behaviour. Most of the past 6 months the said stock in range bound to 4.5 to 5. The last time it hit around 5.5 was Feb. So this is definitely strange. If the company had set a price of 6.00$ in the rights offering, would the price have increased to 6$? Obviously the company thinks that their shares are worth that much but why did the market suddenly agree? Possibly yes, possible no. It can be answered. More often the rights issue are priced at slight discount to market price. Why did this happen? Obviously management thinks that the company is worth that much, but why did the market simply believe this statement without any additional information? I don't see any other information; if the new shares had some special privileges [in terms of voting rights, dividends, etc] then yes. However the announcements says the rights issues is for common shares. Of course, this calculation does not take into consideration the fact that once the rights are issues, the price of the shares will drop. Usually this drop corresponds to the discount. Therefore, if a rights issue is done correctly share price before issuance-discount=share price after issuance. In this result, noone's wealth changes because shareholders can then sell their stock and get back anything they had to put in.