Buying shares in employer's company during IPO
I think of these things in terms of risk.  Investing in individual stocks is risky, and investing in brand new individual stocks is riskier still. However, the payoff can be quite high.  The fact that you work at the company increases your exposure. If the company goes under, then not only have you lost your investment, but you've lost your job and income as well.  It really depends on how much of your total portfolio this investment represents. Consider the following: If you can say yes to all or most of these, then a small investment in your company is fine. If you end up losing your investment, you'll still be okay.  I think it can help a company when the employees have a little skin in the game. I hope it pays out big for you. Rather than take anyone's word for it (including and especially mine) you need to do think very carefully about your company; you know it far better than almost anyone else. Do you feel that the company values its employees? If it values you and your immediate colleagues then its likely that it not only values its other employees but also its customers which is a sign that it will do well. Does the company have a good relationship with its customers? Since you are a software engineer using a web stack I assume that it is either a web consultancy or has an e-commerce side to it so you will have some exposure to what the customers complain about, either in terms of bugs or UX difficulties. You probably even get bug reports that tell you what customer pain points are. Are customers' concerns valid, serious and damaging? If they are then you should think twice about taking up the offer, if not then you may well be fine. Also bear in mind how much profit is made on each item of product and how many you can possibly sell - you need to be able to sell items that have been produced. Those factors indicate how the future of the company looks currently, next you need to think about why the IPO is needed. IPOs and other share offerings are generally done to raise capital for the firm so is your company raising money to invest for the future or to cover losses and cashflow shortfalls? Are you being paid on time and without issues? Do you get all of the equipment and hiring positions that you want or is money always a limiting factor? As an insider you have a better chance to analyse these things than outsiders as they effect your day-to-day work. Remember that anything in the prospectus is just marketing spiel; expecting a 4.5 - 5.3% div yield is not the same as actually paying it or guaranteeing it. Do you think that they could afford to pay it? The company is trying to sell these shares for the maximum price they can get, don't fall for the hyped up sales pitch. If you feel that all of these factors are positive then you should buy as much as you can, hopefully far more than the minimum, as it seems like the company is a strong, growing concern. If you have any concerns from thinking about these factors then you probably shouldn't buy any (unless you are getting a discount but that's a different set of considerations) as your money would be better utilized elsewhere. So the key factor here, IMHO, is the amount we are talking about.  $2K is just not a lot of money.  If you lose every penny, you can recover.  On the other hand it is unlikely to make you wealthy.  So if I was you I would buy in, more for the fun of it all. Now if it was a large amount of money that we were talking about it would be about a percentage of my net worth.  For example, lets say the minimum was 20K, and you really believed in the company.  If I had a net worth of less than 200K, I would not do it.  If I had a larger net worth, I would consider it unless I was near retirement. So if I was 30, hand a net worth of 300K, I would probably invest as even if I did lose it all, I could recover.    Having said all that it does not sound like you completely agree that the company will be profitable.  So in that case, don't buy. Also, I have the opportunity to buy my own company's stock at a discount.  However, I do not for two reasons.  The first is I don't like investing in the company I work for.  Secondly, they require you to hold the stock for a year. its the best investment you can have specially with the company you work for and IPO, if i was you i would invest in more then just the minimum since its IPO. ask you your manager or supervisor how much are they buying the stocks for if they are doing it the go for it you'll be okay just keep track of it regular sometime you can invest more as time go by. You can get the idea by how much production your company is doing, if your company's profit going up chances are you need to buy more.
No necessarily.   Do you bring any unique value to the company other than a sweaty pair of hands?   Did you bring a unique skill, bring in investors, have relationships that are able to get the business off the ground, have intellectual property worth something to the business?  Did you cultivate the unique seeds or strain on your own before the business started?  These are all things one takes into consideration when dividng up shares in a company.  The question you need to ask yourself is could someone else have provided the sweaty hands other than you?  If yes, then unfortunately you provide no unique value to the business and that will be reflected in how share are portioned.   I'm speaking as a co-founder in a Silicon Valley tech company.   I've spent a lot of money with lawyers to understand this.   You should definitely talk to a lawyer. Zuckerberg already cashed out $1B.  But that was planned from the get-go so he could diversify.  Employees with stock options still have to wait before they can cash out.  I think its 6 months after IPO. First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here. You also need to remember that stock options usually become valueless if not exercised while an employee of the company.  So if there is any chance that you will leave the company before an IPO, the effective value of the stock options is zero.  That is the safest and least risky valuation of the stock options.   With a Google or Facebook, stock options can be exercised and immediately sold, as they are publicly traded.  In fact, they may give stock grants where you sell part of the grant to pay tax withholding.  You can then sell the remainder of the grant for money at any time, even after you leave the company.  You only need the option/grant to vest to take advantage of it.  Valuing these at face value (current stock price) makes sense.  That's at least a reasonable guess of future value.   If you are absolutely sure that you will stay with the company until the IPO, then valuing the stock based on earnings can make sense.  A ten million dollar profit can justify a hundred million dollar IPO market capitalization easily.  Divide that by the number of shares outstanding and multiply by how many you get.  If anything, that gives you a conservative estimate.   I would still favor the big company offers though.  As I said, they are immediately tradeable while this offer is effectively contingent on the IPO.  If you leave before then, you get nothing.  If they delay the IPO, you're stuck.  You can't leave the company until then without sacrificing that portion of your compensation.  That seems a big commitment to make. Let's clarify some things. Companies allow for the public to purchase their shares through Initial Public Offering (IPO) (first-time) and Seasoned Public Offering (SPO) (all other times). They choose however many shares they want to issue depending on the amount of capital they want to raise. What this means is that the current owners give up some ownership % in exchange for cash (usually). In the course of IPOs and SPOs, it can happen that the public will not buy all shares if there is very little interest, but I would assume that the more probable scenario if very little interest is present is that the shares' value would take a big drop on their issuance date from the proposed IPO/SPO price. After those shares are bought by the public, they are traded on Exchanges which are a secondary and (mostly) do not affect the underlying company. The shares are exchanged from John Doe to Jane Doe as John Doe believes the market value for those shares will take a direction that Jane Doe believes in the opposite. Generally speaking, markets will find an equilibrium price where you can reasonably easily buy-sell securities as the price is not too far from what most participants in the market believe it should be. In cases where all participants agree on the direction (most often in case of a crash) it can be hard to find a party to make a trade with. Say a company just announced negative news with long-lasting effects on the business there will be a surge in sell orders with very few buyers. If you are willing to buy, you will likely very easily find a trading partner but if you are trying to sell instead then you will have to compete for the lowest price against all other sellers. All that to say that in such cases, while shares are technically sellable / purchasable, the end result can be that no shares are purchasable. "Yes, you could buy a stock on the day of its IPO. I'm a college student, and I wonder if I can buy stock from a company   right after it finishes its IPO? Yes, you can. However, unless you are friends or family of an employee, chances are you'll be paying a higher price than you think as there is generally a fair bit of hype on most  IPOs that allows some people to ""flip them"" which means someone is buying at a higher price. If I am not allowed to buy its stocks immediately after they go on   sell, how long do I have to wait? Generally I'd wait until the hype dies down as if you look at most historical IPOs the stock could be bought cheaper later but that's just my perspective. And also who are allowed to buy the stocks at the first minute they   are on sell? Anyone but keep in mind that while an IPO may be priced at $x, the initial trades may be a few times that value and the stock may come down over time. Facebook could be an example to consider of a company that had an IPO at one price and then came down for a little while on its chart over the past couple of years." &gt; Or are there multiple ways of buying a company?  Yes, there are, and it would depend on your contextual definition of what it means to buy a business.  If you were intending to acquire a company by being its majority shareholder (i.e. &gt;50% equity stake), then you would have to buy over its shares from existing shareholders at a negotiated price (read: not necessarily book value) to attain the desired shareholding.  However, buy a business could also refer to an asset purchase, where the target's fixed assets are bought by the acquirer, in which case the target equity might not necessarily be involved in the acquisition. There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants. "This information is clearly ""material"" (large impact) and ""non-public"" according to the statement of the problem.  Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such.  Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions." "Check your broker's IPO list. Adding a new stock to a stock exchange is called ""Initial Public Offering"" (IPO), and most brokers have a list of upcoming IPO's in which their clients can participate." 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. So in a sense, I can think of the employees / option-holders as another investor?   That makes sense - but many of the examples I'm finding online are still confusing me. Based on the example above, it seems like option-holders would be paying the same exercise price as the VC. Per [Andreesen Horowitz](https://a16z.com/2016/08/24/options-ownership/) this seems uncommon:   &gt; The exercise price of employee options — the price per share needed to actually own the shares — is often less than the original issue price paid by the most recent investor, who holds preferred stock.    In reality, would option-holders receive, say, 40% (using example above) for their $6m in exercise value due to receiving common stock, with the founder being diluted to even further? Should I invest money in the pre-IPO stocks soon to be offered by the   company that I work for? Is it wise to do this? What should I be thinking about? What are the   risks? The last time I was offered pre-IPO friends and family stock, I purchased half of my allotment, and had my parents purchase the other half. Since I had a 6-month blackout period, I had to hold my portion. My parents sold their portion one day after the IPO. The price went up dramatically for about a day and a half, then dived continuously. My portion ended up being worthless. My parents made a few bucks. Good for them. Not a huge deal either way, since my cost was relatively low. If I had a chance to do it again, I'd give it all to friends or family instead of splitting it, and have them sell quickly if they realized a profit. You might be luckier than I was. "Working for a lot of startups, I have seen this cycle. Really it has little to do with making the IPO look good because of number of employees, and is more about making the IPO look good because of planning for the future. Many times an IPO is released, it will be valued at $1.00 (made up) and the market will soar and spike. Now stock shares are valued at $3.00. Great. Till after the dust settles a bit, and stocks are valued at $0.85.  This is ""normal"" and good.  It would be better if the stocks ended a little higher than their initial value, but... such is life.  Now the initial value of the stock is made up of basically the value of the company's assets, and employees are part of those assets and its earning power. They are also a liability, but that has less impact on initial value than assets. Sales right after IPO are based on how well a company will do. Part of that is growth. So it looks nicer to say: ""We have 500 employees and have been growing by 20% per month."" than to say ""We have 100 employees"". In other words, before IPO, employees may be hired to make the company look like it is growing. They may be hired because the budget is projected based on expected growth and expected valuation.  After IPO, you get a concrete number. You have your budget. It may be more than you thought, or it may be less. In our example, the real budget (from capital), is only 28% of the entire projected budget, and 85% of the initial value. It's time to make some budget cuts.  Also, normally, there is a period of adjustment, company wide, as a company goes from VC funding, ""here, have as much money as you want"", to ""real world"" funding, with stricter limits and less wiggle room." You won't be paying any taxes for income generated in the US as long as you are not-resident in India. You pay US taxes. You can file a null return in India just in case (all zeroes). If you have any income in India - bank deposits in your name, house rental income and so on - that needs to be declared and tax needs to be paid in India.