Should I accept shares as payment?
For one, the startup doesn't exist yet, so until March I will get nothing on hand, though I have enough reserves to bridge that time. I would not take this deal unless the start-up exists in some form.  If it's just not yet profitable, then there's a risk/reward to consider.  If it doesn't exist at all, then it cannot make a legal obligation to you and it's not worth taking the deal yet.  If everything else is an acceptable risk to you, then you should be asking the other party to create the company and formalize the agreement with you. As regards reserves, if you're really getting paid in shares instead of cash, then you may need them later.  Shares in a start-up likely are not easy to sell (if you're allowed to sell them at all), so it may be a while before a paycheck given what you've described. For a second, who pays the tax? This is my first non-university job so I don't exactly know, but usually the employer has to/does pay my taxes and some other stuff from my brutto-income (that's what I understood). If brutto=netto, where is the tax? This I cannot answer for Germany.  In the U.S. it would depend in part on how the company is organized.  It's likely that some or all of the tax will be deferred until you monetize your shares, but you should get some professional advice on that before you move forward.  As an example, it's likely that you'd get taxed (in part or in whole) on what we'd call capital gains (maybe Abgeltungsteuer in German?) that would only be assessed when you sell the shares. For third, shares are a risk. If I or any other in the startup screw really, my pay might be a lot less than expected. Of course, if it works out I'm rich(er). This is the inherent risk of a start-up, so there's no getting around the fact that there's a chance that the business may fail and your shares become worthless.  Up to you if you think the risk is acceptable.  Where you can mitigate risk is in ensuring that there's a well-written and enforceable set of documents that define what rights go with the shares, who controls the company, how profits will be distributed, etc.  Don't do this by spoken agreement only.  Get it all written down, and then get it checked by a lawyer representing your interests. I like the answer given by mikeazo. If paid in cash would you immediately buy the stock of the company? We all want to be the next Steve Jobs (or Woz), but the truth is that a Jobs comes along only once in a lifetime and chances are that you are not him.  We have seen this kind of question here before. Search the site for the answers given previously.
"I'm in the US, so there may be idiosyncrasies with UK taxes that I'm not familiar with, but here's how I've always treated stock I get as compensation.   Suppose the vested shares are worth X.  If I had X in cash, would I buy my company's stock as an investment?  Usually the answer is no, not because I think the stock will tank, but because there's better things I can do with that cash (pay off debt, unfortunately).  Therefore I sell the shares and use the cash for something else. You have stock options. So suppose the stock value is X but you can buy it for Y.  You can either: Therefore, the math is the same. If you had X in cash, would you buy your company's stock as an investment?  If so, then option 2 is best, because you can get X in stock for a lower cost. (Option 3 might be better if the gain on the stock will be taxed higher, but they're pretty much equivalent if there's no chance that the stock will drop below Y) If not, then option 4 is best since you will likely get more than X-Y from selling the options that by exercising them and selling the stock (since options have time value). If option 4 is not a possibility, then option 1 is best - you pocket X-Y as ""income"" and invest it however you see fit." Make sure to check the language describing the 'discount'. The company may be matching your contribution by 5% instead of a discount.  You will likely be taxed on the match as compensation and your benefit would net to less than 5%.   The next risk is that you've increased your exposure if your company does poorly.  In the worst case scenario you could lose your wages to a layoff and your portfolio to a falling share price.  Investing in other companies will diversify this risk. As for benefits, you get the 5% (less taxes) for free which isn't a bad thing in my book. Just don't put everything you own into the stock.  It should be part of your overall investing strategy. There are 2 basic ways to have someone buy partial ownership of your company: OR If they buy shares that you already own, then their shares will have the same rights as yours (same voting rights, same dividend rights, etc.). If they buy shares newly created from the company, they could be either identical shares to what you already own, or they could be a new class of shares [you may need to adjust the articles of incorporation if you did not plan ahead with multiple share classes]. You really need to talk to a lawyer & tax accountant about this. There are a lot of questions you need to consider here. For example: do you want to use the money in the business, or would you rather have it personally? Are you concerned about losing some control of how the business is run? What are the short term and long-term tax consequences of each method? What does your new partner want in terms of their share class? The answers to these questions will be highly valuable, and likely worth much more than the fees you will need to pay. At the very least, you will likely need a lawyer and accountant anyway to ensure the filings & taxes are done correctly, so better to involve them now, rather than later. There are many other situations to consider here, and an online forum is not the best place to get advice that might put you in a sticky legal situation later on. All shares of the same class are considered equal. Each class of shares may have a different preference in order of repayment.  After all company liabilities have been paid off [including bank debt, wages owing, taxes outstanding, etc etc.], the remaining cash value in a company is distributed to the shareholders. In general, there are 2 types of shares: Preferred shares, and Common shares.  Preferred shares generally have 3 characteristics: (1) they get a stated dividend rate every year, sometimes regardless of company performance; (2) they get paid out first on liquidation; and (3) they can only receive their stated value on liquidation - that is, $1M of preferred shares will be redeemed for at most $1M on liquidation, assuming the corporation has at least that much cash left. Common Shares generally have 4 characteristics: (1) their dividends are not guaranteed (or may be based on a calculation relative to company performance), (2) they can vote for members of the Board of Directors who ultimately hire the CEO and make similar high level business decisions; (3) they get paid last on liquidation; and (4) they get all value remaining in the company once everyone else has been paid. So it is not the order of share subscription that matters, it is the class. Once you know how much each class gets, based on the terms listed in that share subscription, you simply divide the total class payout by number of shares, and pay that much for each share a person holds. For companies organized other-than as corporations, ie: partnerships, the calculation of who-gets-what will be both simpler and more complex. Simpler in that, generally speaking, a partnership interest cannot be of a different 'class', like shares can, meaning all partners are equal relative to the size of their partnership interest. More complex in that, if the initiation of the company was done in an informal way, it could easily become a legal fight as to who contributed what to the company. The S&P is cap-weighted. So it's not as simple as buying 1 share of each of 500 stocks. (If it were, getting started might be doable, although adding to your position would take time and another large unit of money.) Can you do it? Sure? Do you have enough money to actually do it? I don't know. I'm happy to pay my .02-.03% to not worry about such things. A Company start with say $100. Lets say the max it can borrow from bank is $100 @ $10 a year as Interest. After a years say, On the $200 the company made a profit of $110. So it now has total $310 Option 1: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It further gave away the $100 back to shareholders as dividends. The Balance with company $100. It can again start the second year, borrow from Bank $100 @ 10 interest and restart.   Option 2: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It now has $200. It can now borrow $200 from Bank @ $20. After a year it makes a profit of $250. [Economics of scale result $30 more] Quite a few companies in growth phase use Option 2 as they can grow faster, achieve economies of scale, keep competition at bay, etc Now if I had a share of this company say 1 @ $1, by end of first year its value would be $2, at the end of year 2 it would be $3.3. Now there is someone else who wants to buy this share at end of year 1. I would say this share gives me 100% returns every year, so I will not sell at $2. Give me $3 at the end of first year. The buyer would think well, if I buy this at $3, first year I would notionally get $.3 and from then on $1 every year. Not bad. This is still better than other stocks and better than Bank CD etc ... So as long as the company is doing well and expected to do well in future its price keeps on increasing as there is someone who want to buy. Why would someone want to sell and not hold one: 1. Needs cash for buying house or other purposes, close to retirement etc 2. Is balancing the portfolio to make is less risk based 3. Quite a few similar reasons   Why would someone feel its right to buy: 1. Has cash and is young is open to small risk 2. Believes the value will still go up further 3. Quite a few similar reasons "As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (""ownership"") to people who buy stocks from it.  It's not ""ownership"" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way.  You own part of the company.  If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner.  In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing).  After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company.  The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock.  The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership.  If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings.  Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future.   What do the prospects look like for this industry?  A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific.  Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate?  Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive?  If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced.   So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a ""part owner"".  Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future." "Profit sharing adds complexity. I'd pitch it as a percentage of revenue to him. ""Profit"" is a term than can be abused. Sales are sales.   Somewhat related, if you're giving him 30% of all profit on all deals, you're basically selling 30% of your business for $80K. No surprise he's interested.   Think more about how you'll finance working capital. You need money to buy the pool supplies, pay for labor, etc. Ideally, you should float as little of this money as you can.   An incentive structure that rewards the salespeople should also be taken into consideration. Build that in somewhere. You want his reps to want to pitch your pools. They need some kind of incentive.   These are just thoughts off the top of my head. I don't completely understand the details, but maybe it'll help." One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea. Stuff I wish I had known, based on having done the following: Obtained employment at a startup that grants Incentive Stock Options (ISOs);  Early-exercised a portion of my options when fair market value was very close to my strike price to minimize AMT; made a section 83b) election and paid my AMT up front for that tax year. All this (the exercise and the AMT) was done out of pocket. I've never see EquityZen or Equidate mention anything about loans for your exercise. My understanding is they help you sell your shares once you actually own them. Stayed at said startup long enough to have my exercised portion of these ISOs vest and count as long term capital gains;  Tried to sell them on both EquityZen and Equidate with no success, due to not meeting their transaction minimums.  Initial contact with EquityZen was very friendly and helpful, and I even got a notice about a potential sale, but then they hired an intern to answer emails and I remember his responses being particularly dismissive, as if I was wasting their time by trying to sell such a small amount of stock. So that didn't go anywhere. Equidate was a little more friendly and was open to the option of pooling shares with other employees to make a sale in order to meet their minimum, but that never happened either.  My advice, if you're thinking about exercising and you're worried about liquidity on the secondary markets, would be to find out what the minimums would be for your specific company on these platforms before you plunk any cash down. Eventually brought my request for liquidity back to the company who helped connect me with an interested external buyer, and we completed the transaction that way. As for employer approval - there's really no reason or basis that your company wouldn't allow it (if you paid to exercise then the shares are yours to sell, though the company may have a right of first refusal). It's not really in the company's best interest to have their shares be illiquid on the secondary markets, since that sends a bad signal to potential investors and future employees. Shares often come associated with a set of rights, such as ability to vote in the outcome of the company. Some shares do not have this right, however. With your ability to vote in the outcome of the company, you could help dictate that the company paid dividends at a point in time. Or many other varieties of outcomes. Also, if there were any liquidity events due to demand of the shares, this is typically at a much higher price than the shares are now when the company is private/closely held. "The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid).  If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of ""bearer"" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded.  On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money.  You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight.  I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...)  I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were ""too big to fail"" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. ""Heads we win, tails you lose"", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant." Typically, as an individual, you can't just decide you want to lend out some securities. There is a lot of legalities that must take place in order to engage in such a transaction. It's a regulated industry and the contractual obligations that exist between borrower and seller are taken care of ahead of time by the broker with their client, prior to any actual transaction taking place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_lending I say typically, becuase I'm guessing that if you are a large enough client and own a substantial block of shares (I really mean a lot) you may be in the unique position of being able to lend out. I'm not sure what the logistics of this would look like, but I think the brokerage house would approach you and negotiate a borrowing rate. In that situation, you may negotiate lending to the the brokerage house and not necessarily directly to the borrower. If it changes, should get new bids. That will prevent making stupid irrelevant changes. Leaving a contract open ended so contractors can come back for more money over and over and over just isn't smart and is an open call for corruption. There are been many tests about invest all the money immediately and average it out during a period of time.  The results favor to invest the lump sum immediately, so your money starts to work and produce income with dividends. Cash don't produce any income.