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.
A stock is an ownership interest in a company.  There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company.  Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company.  A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest.  You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond.  The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary.  If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount.  Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value.   Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return.  However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised. "The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade.  It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side.  But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as ""tip of the iceberg"" prices.  That is: The ""Bid: 13.20 x200"" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares.  Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices.  So the ""bid"" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment.  If you entered a ""market"" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The ""Ask: 13.27 x1,000"" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares.  Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices.  So the ""ask"" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment.  If you entered a ""market"" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges.  The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned.  In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock.  For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow).  For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction.    Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27.  If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called ""current"" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22.  And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.)  Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid." "We’re buying the home right over $200,000 so that means he will only need to put down (as a ‘gift’) roughly $7000. I'm with the others, don't call this a gift unless it is a gift.   I'd have him check with the bank that previously refused him a mortgage if putting both of you on a mortgage would allay their concerns.  Your cash flow would be paying the mortgage payment and if you failed to do so, then they could fall back on his.  That may make more sense to them, even if they would deny each of you a loan on your own.  This works for them because either of you is responsible for the whole loan.  It works for him because he was already willing to be responsible for the whole loan.  And your alternative plan makes you responsible for the whole loan, so this is just as good for you.   At what percentage would you suggest splitting ownership and future expenses? Typically a cash/financing partnership would be 50/50, but since it’s only a 3.5% down-payment instead of 20% is that still fair? Surprisingly enough, a 3.5% down-payment that accumulates is about half the equity of a 20% down-payment.  So your suggestion of a 25%-75% split makes sense if 20% would give a 50%-50% split.   I expected it to be considerably lower.  The way that I calculated it was to have his share increase by his equity share of the ""rent"" which I set to the principal plus interest payment for a thirty year loan.  With a 20% down-payment, this would give him 84% equity.  With 3.5%, about 40% equity.  I'm not sure why 84% equity should be the equivalent of a 50% share, but it may be a side effect of other expenses.  Perhaps taking property taxes out would reduce the equity share.   Note that if you increase the down-payment to 20%, your mortgage payment will drop substantially.  The difference in interest between 3.5% and 20% equity is a couple hundred dollars.  Also, you'll be able to eliminate any PMI payment at 20%.   It could be argued that if he pays a third of the monthly mortgage payment, that that would give him the same 50% equity stake on a 3.5% down-payment as he would get with a 20% down-payment.  The problem there is that then he is effectively subsidizing your monthly payment.  If he were to stop doing that for some reason, you'd have what is effectively a 50% increase in your rent.  It would be safer for you to handle the monthly payment while he handles the down-payment.   If you couldn't pay the mortgage, it sounds like he is in a position to buy out your equity, rent the property, and take over the mortgage payment.  If he stopped being able to pay his third of the mortgage, it's not evident that you'd be able to pick up the slack from him much less buy him out.  And it's unlikely that you'd find someone else willing to replace him under those terms.  But your brother could construct things such that in the face of tragedy, you'd inherit his equity in the house.  If you're making the entire mortgage payment, that's a stable situation.   He's not at risk because he could take over the mortgage if necessary.  You're not at risk because you inherit his equity share and can afford the monthly payment.  So even in the face of tragedy, things can go on.  And that's important, as otherwise you could lose your equity in the house." "I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced.  This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11.  The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. ""On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock."" Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock.  Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits.  However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016.  According to the IRS website ""When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received."" In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete.  Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement ""A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received"" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date.  However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016.  Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments.  To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes.  They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones." I have done this, and the reason is to make sure that I don't run out of money in my account to place the order if there is an unexpected upswing in price. Suppose I have $1000 in my account and I want to buy 10 shares of ABCD that are currently at $99.  If the price doesn't change, then I am all set, but if the price goes up to $101 then I don't have sufficient funds to make the purchase. By placing a limit order at $100 I can ensure that I have enough money to place the order. In general, it is a rather unlikely scenario that it could happen, but placing the limit order is easy to do and it gives me peace of mind. I don't know what you mean about bypassing the queue. "I think you need to realize that regardless of whether they are ""shady"" or not, owners/founders are by and large in it for themselves. You as an employee as just a resource - why should they divulge their finances to you? You won't offend them if you pry and ask for it, but they simply are not going to give you the straight up. They will give you a bare minimum or some song and dance that beats around the bush without actually telling you what you need to know. In regards to whether you should buy the restricted shares: why not? Startups are a gamble anyway. So simply decide how much you're willing to gamble, and spend that much buying some shares. I mean, you're already taking the gamble by accepting a lower salary in exchange for equity which, in all likelihood, will never be worth anything anyway." "In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% ""interests"" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: ""Common"" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. ""Preferred"" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect ""rolling over"" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the ""interest charge"" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its ""yield"" or ""APY"". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called ""junk status""." Do a share split.  Your initial 1 share each becomes 10 (or 100) shares each,  then you can sell/gift/etc shares as needed.