value of guaranteeing a business loan
The guarantee's value to you is whatever you have to pay to get the guarantee, assuming that you don't decide it's too expensive and look for another guarantor or another solution entirely. How much are you willing to pay for this loan, not counting interest and closing costs? That's what it's worth. See past answers about the risks of co-signing for a realistic view of how much risk your guarantor would be accepting and why they should hold out for a very substantial reimbursement for this service. The standard goal of valuing anything is to seek the fair price for that thing in the open market. Depending on what is being valued, that may or may not be an easy task. eg: to value your home, get a real estate appraiser, who will look at recent market sales in your area, and adjust for nuances of your property. To value your loan guarantee, you would need to figure out what it is actually worth to the business, which may be difficult. In a perfect world, you would be able to ask the bank to tell you the interest rate you would have to pay, if the loan was not guaranteed. This would show you the value you are providing to the business by guaranteeing it. ie: if the interest would be $100k a year unguaranteed, but is only $40k a year guaranteed, you are saving the business $60k a year. If the loan is to last 5 years, that's a total of $300k. Of course, it is likely the bank simply won't offer you an unguaranteed loan at all. This makes the value quite difficult to determine, and highlights the underlying transaction you are considering:  You are taking on personal risk of loan default, to profit the business. If you truly can't find an equitable way to value the guarantee, consider whether you understand the true risk of what you are doing. If you are able to determine an appropriate value for the loan, consider whether increasing your equity is fair compensation. There are other methods of compensation available, such as having the company pay you directly, or decrease the amount of capital you need to invest for this new set of equity.  In the end, what is fair is what the other shareholders agree to. If you go to the shareholders with anything less than professional 3rd party advice (and stackexchange does not count as professional), then they may be wary of accepting your 'fee', no matter how reasonable. "You are confining the way you and the other co-founders are paid for guaranteeing the loan to capital shares. Trying to determine payments by equity distribution is hard. It is a practice that many small companies particularly the ones in their initial stage fall into. I always advise against trying to make payments with equity, weather it is for unpaid salary or for guaranteeing a loan such as your case. Instead of thinking about a super sophisticated algorithm to distribute the new shares between the cofounders and the new investors, given a set of constraints, which will most probably fail to make the satisfactory split, you should simply view the co-founders as debt lenders for the company and the shareholders as a capital contributor.  If the co-founders are treated as debt lenders, it will be much easier to determine the risk compensation for guaranteeing the loan because it is now assessed in monetary units and this compensation is equal to the risk premium you see fit ""taking into consideration the probability of default "". On the other hand, capital contributors will gain capital shares as a percentage of the total value of the company after adding SBA loan." 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.
Student homes are not like home loans. The housing bubble happened in large part because people didn't care about the size of the loan. They intended to flip their house in a couple years and sell it for a profit. You can't resell an education.   &gt; Certainly it is better than the current system which guarantees student loans to benefit the bankers.  That doesn't exist any more. For the last couple of years only the government can offer government-backed student loans. "There are many different methods for a corporation to get money, but they mostly fall into three categories: earnings, debt and equity.  Earnings would be just the corporation's accumulation of cash due to the operation of its business. Perhaps if cash was needed for a particular reason immediately, a business may consider selling a division or group of assets to another party, and using the proceeds for a different part of the business. Debt is money that (to put it simply) the corporation legally must repay to the lender, likely with periodic interest payments. Apart from the interest payments (if any) and the principal (original amount leant), the lender has no additional rights to the value of the company. There are, basically, 2 types of corporate debt: bank debt, and bonds.  Bank debt is just the corporation taking on a loan from a bank. Bonds are offered to the public - ie: you could potentially buy a ""Tesla Bond"", where you give Tesla $1k, and they give you a stated interest rate over time, and principal repayments according to a schedule. Which type of debt a corporation uses will depend mostly on the high cost of offering a public bond, the relationships with current banks, and the interest rates the corporation thinks it can get from either method. Equity [or, shares] is money that the corporation (to put it simply) likely does not have a legal obligation to repay, until the corporation is liquidated (sold at the end of its life) and all debt has already been repaid. But when the corporation is liquidated, the shareholders have a legal right to the entire value of the company, after those debts have been paid. So equity holders have higher risk than debt holders, but they also can share in higher reward. That is why stock prices are so volatile - the value of each share fluctuates based on the perceived value of the entire company.  Some equity may be offered with specific rules about dividend payments - maybe they are required [a 'preferred' share likely has a stated dividend rate almost like a bond, but also likely has a limited value it can ever receive back from the corporation], maybe they are at the discretion of the board of directors, maybe they will never happen. There are 2 broad ways for a corporation to get money from equity: a private offering, or a public offering. A private offering could be a small mom and pop store asking their neighbors to invest 5k so they can repair their business's roof, or it could be an 'Angel Investor' [think Shark Tank] contributing significant value and maybe even taking control of the company. Perhaps shares would be offered to all current shareholders first. A public offering would be one where shares would be offered up to the public on the stock exchange, so that anyone could subscribe to them. Why a corporation would use any of these different methods depends on the price it feels it could get from them, and also perhaps whether there are benefits to having different shareholders involved in the business [ie: an Angel investor would likely be involved in the business to protect his/her investment, and that leadership may be what the corporation actually needs, as much or more than money]. Whether a corporation chooses to gain cash from earnings, debt, or equity depends on many factors, including but not limited to: (1) what assets / earnings potential it currently has; (2) the cost of acquiring the cash [ie: the high cost of undergoing a public offering vs the lower cost of increasing a bank loan]; and (3) the ongoing costs of that cash to both the corporation and ultimately the other shareholders - ie: a 3% interest rate on debt vs a 6% dividend rate on preferred shares vs a 5% dividend rate on common shares [which would also share in the net value of the company with the other current shareholders].  In summary: Earnings would be generally preferred, but if the company needs cash immediately, that may not be suitable. Debt is generally cheap to acquire and interest rates are generally lower than required dividend rates. Equity is often expensive to acquire and maintain [either through dividend payments or by reduction of net value attributable to other current shareholders], but may be required if a new venture is risky. ie: a bank/bondholder may not want to lend money for a new tech idea because it is too risky to just get interest from - they want access to the potential earnings as well, through equity." "Most of those countries had debt that was well beyond prudent levels (~70% of GDP) before the crisis, levels such that any crisis would put them over the safe limit and into trouble. The only exception was Spain whose debt levels were still marginally dangerous. Greece was off the charts, which is why they left off the graph for Greece.  Second problem. On top of the high or marginal levels of government debt, the governments implicitly or explicitly guaranteed the banks, without limiting in any effective way their levels of leverage and risk (inb4 Basel II - a lot of paper that made no difference). Protip: if someone guarantees your debt, they should be able to oversee your level of risk, but the governments didn't.  As a result these banks, and their CEOs in particular, have a bet that goes ""heads I win, tails I win (and you the taxpayer lose)"". If the loans are paid off the CEOs rake in millions. If the loans go bad the government bails them out and the CEOs and other top executives - you guessed it - rake in millions. Of course when faced with these incentives the banks will lend too much.  This is not free market capitalism, it is crony capitalism. **Bailouts of private companies are not part of unfettered free market capitalism.**  The third problem is that the same governments cannot print money like the US can because the Euro is not owned by the individual governments.   The answer to excessive levels of government debt is for governments not to borrow too much and not to take on excessive unfunded liabilities such as pensions. This probably needs to be enforced by a constitutional amendment, so it can't be easily overruled.  The answer to governments getting dragged into bailing out insolvent banks and then going under themselves, is to allow the banks to go under and to guarantee only small deposits. Let shareholders, bond holders and large (&gt;$500k) lenders to the banks to lose their money. Second, hold bank executives and shareholders liable for the bank's debts. Eg executive salaries and other remuneration need to be clawed back up to a 5 year window. Shareholders should be liable (as they used to be) for debts up to an additional 100% of the par value of the shares. I can assure you this would concentrate minds wonderfully - as it did in the old days when Wall St investment banks were partnerships with each partner liable for all the debts of the firm.  Another alternative would be for governments to enforce limits on financial risk, but unfortunately they do not have the courage to do this, nor the morality to resist ""campaign contributions"" / bribes to look the other way.  If these steps were taken the issue of the Euro currency would not be a problem. However printing money (which requires having your own currency) is a solution if it comes to that although it comes at the expense of people who have saved and invested prudently. Printing money (keeping interest rates excessively low for years on end) subsidizes borrowers - the ones who created the problem - at the expense of savers. Clearly this creates terribly perverse incentives the next time around.  Anyone who thinks this problem is a result of unfettered free market capitalism is not paying attention." A rather good IRS paper on the topic states that a donation of a business' in-kind inventory would be  Under IRC 170(e)(1), however, the fair market value must be   reduced by the amount of gain that would not be long-term capital gain if the   property had been sold by the donor at the property's fair market value (determined   at the time of the contribution). Under this rule, deductions for donated inventory   are limited to the property's basis (generally its cost), where the fair market value   exceeds the basis.  There are references to IRC regulations in a narrative context you may find helpful: This paper goes on for 16 pages describing detailed exceptions and the political reasons for the exceptions (most of which are concerned with encouraging the donation of prepared food from restaurants/caterers to hunger charities by guaranteeing a value for something that would otherwise be trashed valueless); and a worked out example of fur coats that had a cost of goods of $200 and a market value of $1000. If it is a business loan, the borrower would be able to claim a deduction for any interest paid on the loan and the lender would include the interest earned as part of their taxable income. You need to be careful on what you do and don't include as income. If the repayments made to you by the borrower in a year is $10,000 but only $8,000 of that is interest and the other $2,000 is part of the principal being returned to the lender, then you would only claim $8,000 as your income and the borrower would only claim $8,000 as a business deduction. Of course if it is interest only, then you and the borrower would use the full $10,000. A financial institution is not obligated to offer you a loan. They will only offer you a loan if they believe that they will make money off you. They use all the info available in order to determine if offering you a loan is profitable.  In short, whether they offer you a loan, and the interest rate they charge for that loan, is based on a few things: How much does it cost the bank to borrow money? [aka: how much does the bank need to pay people who have savings accounts with them?]; How much does the bank need to spend in order to administer the loan? [ie: the loan officer's time, a little time for the IT guy who helps around the office, office space they are renting in order to allow the transaction to take place]; and How many people will 'default' and never be able to repay their loan? [ex: if 1 out of 100 people default on their loans, then every one of those 100 loans needs to be charged an extra 1% in order to recover the money the bank will lose on the person who defaults]. What we are mostly interested in here is #3: how likely are you to default? The bank determines that by determining your income, your assets, your current debts outstanding, your past history with payments (also called a credit score), and specifically to mortgages, how much the house is worth.  If you don't have a long credit history, and because you don't have a long income history, and because you are putting <10% down on the condo [20% is often a good % to strive for, and paying less than that can often imply you will need mandatory mortgage insurance, depending on jurisdiction] the bank is a little more uncertain about your likelihood to pay.  Banks don't like uncertainty, and they can deal with that uncertainty in two ways: (1) They can charge you a higher interest rate; OR (2) They can refuse you the loan. Now just because one bank refuses you a loan, doesn't mean all will - but being refused by one bank is probably a good indication that many / most institutions would refuse you, because they all use very similar analytical tools to determine your 'risk level'. If you are refused a loan, you can try again at another institution, or you can wait, save a larger down payment, and build your credit history by faithfully paying your credit card every month, paying your utilities, and making your car and rent payments on time. This will give the banks more comfort that you will have the ability to pay your mortgage every month, and a larger down payment will give them comfort that if the housing market dips, you won't owe more than the house is worth. My parting shot is this: If you are new in your career with no income history, be very careful about buying a property immediately, even if you get approved. A good rule of thumb is to only buy a property when you plan on living there for at least 5 years, or else you are likely to lose money overall, after factoring closing costs and maintenance fees. If you are refused a loan, that's probably a good sign that you aren't financially ready yet, but even if a bank approves you for a loan, you might not be ready yet either. I believe @Dilip addressed your question alread, I am going to focus on your second question: What are the criteria one should use for estimating the worth of the   situation? The criteria are:  I hope this helps. Generally if there are enough details, they would match this up with your loan account and pass appropriate credit. The worst that can happen is;   In either case, watch your Loan account statement and it should show you the credit. If this does not then ask the company and they should be able to trace it and rectify. Under no scenario you would lose money.