Maintaining “Woman Owned Business” while taking on investor
To qualify as a woman owned business, a woman or group of women must own shares worth 51% of the business. If your investor was a woman, the entire 5% could come from her share of the company without affecting the 51% ownership requirement. Could you find a woman to add as an investor? If you each had your shares diluted 5%, She would be down to 48.45% ownership, and you would be down to 46.55% ownership. The only way for you to get back to a 51% female ownership situation would be to give a 2.55% ownership stake (from your share) to a wife, sister, mom, girlfriend, or any other woman who you think should benefit from this arrangement. This would still put you down at 44% (effectively taking the whole 5% from you) but by giving some of your share to someone else, it does require your partner to make some of the sacrifice, while still benefiting someone you care about (if you have someone you would like to give that benefit to). In summary, this is what it would look like: In addition to finding another woman investor, you have an equitable option that is not unreasonable: ask your partner to buy out 3% worth of shares from you (which then gives her 54%, allowing you to then sell 5% to an investor and have it not dilute her below 51%: .54 * .95 = .513).   That keeps you whole but also keeps your woman-owned-business status.
From a quick google, apparently 5% of government contracts need to go to women- or minority-owned small businesses, with another 18% going to small businesses more generally.   If your company was bumped, it was b/c they were on the bubble in terms of quality/price, and inevitably the only reason were able to contract in years prior was b/c of the rules discriminating against large businesses over small businesses.  The more concerning take away in all of this, is how on earth is it a struggle to hit the 5% target without any sort of affirmative action intervention.  A bit of an eye-opener on the extent of systemic racism / inequality of opportunity that exists today.  We really should be doing more to support minority owned businesses, and more importantly addressing the apparently inequity in opportunity in our business culture. If the implication is that she destroyed Yahoo, I have written in this piece that she has saved Yahoo from the inevitable painful death. Search and online advertisement business is a monopolistic business dominated by google (https://goo.gl/MTEvFp). Yahoo never had a real chance in the market to survive on its own. Marissa did an excellent job at Yahoo to stabilize the business and shift it away from Jerry Yang's misguided investments and bets (https://goo.gl/ufmYsw). I am certain that Marissa will make a great CEO for Uber, and help Uber survive the current severe head-winds the company is facing. Really? That's unfortunate.  I've read stories of guys that buy companies that are basically failing, restart them so to speak with a new vision, and make a kill doing it. That's something that sounds really awesome to do.  Otherwise, it's basically just like playing the stock market, but in a different version it seems like. &gt; Women have to be represented in the global economy or it'll cost the world a shit ton of $ later on.  Demonstrate how women are NOT represented in the global economy, and how this lack of representation will cost the world money later.  &gt; There's a bunch of underbanked women around the world due to laws and Everex allows them to get microloans and/or execute deals in a micro finance fashion.  Great for Everex, but I can't help but notice the practice is a bit discriminatory against men, is it not? "No, an entrepreneur actually adds value, whereas stock ownership does not. Buying stocks is akin to gambling, except with different rules and an average positive return over time, whereas normal casino gambling always has a net negative result on average.  To put it shortly:  If it doesn't make a difference whether its you or John from across the corner doing the action, then its basically a speculation with ""investment"" as an alias. You're merely the purse.  If you are involved in the running of the project, taking decisions, organizing, putting your time and creativity in, then you're an entrepreneur.  In this case, its clear to see that different persons will have different results, so they matter as persons and not just as purses.  Note that if you buy enough stock to actually have a say in the running of the company, then you're crossing the threshold there." "Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit.  I have a couple of questions, if that's alright.   Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio.  Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation?  Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the ""best time""?  Thank you so much for answering my questions." First of all, I've raised VC money before so I have experience in this area. The other commenter who said they'll only cause trouble is wrong, as a general statement. Some may, but that just means you've chosen your investors poorly. Choosing an investor is a very important decision and you should choose someone who you think will be able truly add value to your business, rather than just someone who is willing to write a check. Cultural alignment is important, and having a shared set of goals and timelines for the business is important.   That said, no one here is going to be able to tell you how to structure your deal because it varies so much based on the business. In general I think it's a good idea to only take money when you need it and have a solid plan for how you're going to use it. Every time you take money you're diluting your ownership and reducing your long-term upside. Keep in mind that, as the other commenter said, if you take a deal now that means that you maintain 51% and then you take more money in the future, that 51% will be diluted further. That said with more investors in the mix you still are likely to be the largest shareholder, but again, that depends on how the deals are structured.   My advice: seek out as much advice from as many sources as you can. And hire a good law firm to handle your financing transaction because their advice is invaluable as you negotiate terms. Finally, you should have more conditions than just retaining 51% ownership -- there are a lot of terms that get baked into these deals that have an impact on the long-term upside. Learn those terms. Do a bunch of googling and a bunch of reading. And ask for more advice. :) It is just marketing and market segmentation.  We could all shop at WalMart, but some people prefer wider aisles and mood music so they shop at Macys.  Other people are fine shopping at Target or online. Women face no different challenges.  The challenges in investing depend on who you are, where you are in life and what your goals are.  I think it is fine to target a certain demographic over another, but they are just trying to make a niche. I prefer to not think about worst case scenarios, and I view all financial advisors with a healthy skepticism, regardless of gender. Yes, it is possible. But why would someone take full responsibility, if you're the one enjoying the profits? You'll have to pay your administrator a lot, and probably also develop a profit sharing plan to encourage success. What you're looking, essentially is to be a passive shareholder, and not participate in any management decisions at all. Depending on your location, it will pose additional disadvantages for you (for example, in the US, that would force you to structure your business as a C-Corp, vs more advantageous S-Corp). Depends on the type of company and hes smart enough to contribute particular gender roles to the success of particular companies. It is absolutely not rocket science. It is however a blanket statement to state that women run companies make him the most money. Avoiding tobacco, etc is fairly standard for a fund claiming ethical investing, though it varies. The hard one on your list is loans.  You might want to check out Islamic mutual funds. Charging interest is against Sharia law.  For example: http://www.saturna.com/amana/index.shtml From their about page: Our Funds favor companies with low price-to-earnings multiples, strong   balance sheets, and proven businesses. They follow a value-oriented   approach consistent with Islamic finance principles. Generally, these   principles require that investors avoid interest and investments in   businesses such as liquor, pornography, gambling, and banks. The Funds   avoid bonds and other conventional fixed-income securities. So, it looks like it's got your list covered.  (Not a recommendation, btw. I know nothing about Amana's performance.) Edit: A little more detail of their philosophy from Amana's growth fund page: Generally, Islamic principles require that investors share in profit   and loss, that they receive no usury or interest, and that they do not   invest in a business that is prohibited by Islamic principles. Some of   the businesses not permitted are liquor, wine, casinos, pornography,   insurance, gambling, pork processing, and interest-based banks or   finance associations. The Growth Fund does not make any investments that pay interest. In   accordance with Islamic principles, the Fund shall not purchase   conventional bonds, debentures, or other interest-paying obligations   of indebtedness. Islamic principles discourage speculation, and the   Fund tends to hold investments for several years. Less so today, but there was a time that women played a smaller role in the household finances, letting the husband manage the family money. Women often found themselves in a frightening situation when the husband died.  Still, despite those who protest to the contrary, men and women tend to think differently, how they problem solve, how they view risk. An advisor who understands these differences and listens to the client of either sex, will better serve them. There is a fundemental misunderstanding:   the business and the owner are not the same entity.  You said:   I give the business $25,000 and take 50% of the business. No you can give the owner of the business 25K, and now he has 25K and 50% of a 50K business.   That 25K sits in Mr. Smith's bank account, not Acme Widget's account.   A more simple example is when you buy a car.  The money goes to the car dealership, it does not get put into the car's glove box. You may be thinking of an investor in a business.  He could pump $$ into the business as operating capital for a share of the business.  In that case, it would be a bit unfair to get 50% of the business for a 25K.  However, the owner may be interested in doing such a deal because value of the investor can add more than just $$ to the business.  Having a celebrity investor might do more good for the business than the actual dollars. Another situation is that the owner might be desperate.  Without a influx of cash the whole business might end. There are guidelines to business evaluation, but valuing them is not an easy thing. "&gt; she makes some very good points to the whole ""Startup"" mentality.  The 'fight' here is for responsibility.  Ahoyhere is challenging people to be responsible for themselves, and to 'take the blame' if they have nothing to show for it when or if their vc startup employer goes bust (or, gets wildly successful and they don't share in the success.)    People don't want that.  They want to tell themselves they're justified for being bitter after being screwed.  They want to know that 'hard work always pays off', which is obviously false." The good debt/bad debt paradigm only applies if you are considering this as a pure investment situation and not factoring in: A house is something you live in and a car is something you use for transportation. These are not substitutes for each other! While you can live in your car in a pinch, you can't take your house to the shops. Looking at the car, I will simplify it to 3 options: You can now make a list of pros and cons for each one and decide the value you place on each of them. E.g. public transport will add 5h travel time per week @ $X per hour (how much you value your leisure time), an expensive car will make me feel good and I value that at $Y. For each option, put all the benefits together - this is the value of that option to you. Then put all of the costs together - this is what the option costs you. Then make a decision on which is the best value for you.  Once you have decided which option is best for you then you can consider how you will fund it.