What are the key facts to research before buying shares of a company?
"I have my ""safe"" money in index funds but like to dabble in individual stocks. My criteria and thought process are usually like this, let's use SBUX as an example: Understand what the company does. Also paraphrased as ""buy what you know"". A profitable/growing business doesn't need to be complicated. Open stores. Sell coffee. For SBUX, my decision process literally started inside a store: ""Rocky, why are you standing in line to overpay for coffee? Wow, look at all these people! Hmmm. I wonder if this is a good stock to buy?"" Check out their fundamentals. Are they profitable? P.E.ratio, book value, and PEG are helpful, and I tend to use them as a gauge for whether I think the stock is overpriced or not. I compare those values to others in the industry. SBUX right now has a PE of ~30, which looks about average for its peers (PEP, KKD, GMCR). So far so good. Does it pay a dividend? This isn't necessarily good or bad, just useful to know. I like dividend-paying stocks, even if it means the stock price might not grow as aggressively. Also, a company that pays a dividend is naturally confident in its ability to turn a profit and generate cash. So it's a safer pick, in my opinion. SBUX pays a dividend, a small one, but that's a plus for me. Am I willing to watch the stock? With my index funds, I buy and forget. With my stocks, I keep an eye on the situation, read the news, and have to make a buy/sell decision regularly. With SBUX, I don't watch all that closely, I just keep up with the news. IMO, it's still a buy based on all the above criteria. And I feel less silly now standing in line to overpay for coffee."
"Discussing individual stocks is discouraged here, so I'll make my answer somewhat generic. Keep in mind, some companies go public in a way that takes the shares that are held by the investment VCs (venture capitalists) and cashes them out of their positions, i.e. most if not all shares are made public. In that case, the day after IPO, the original investors have their money, and, short of the risk of being sued for fraud, could not care less what the stock does.  Other companies float a small portion up front, and retain the rest. This is a way of creating a market and valuing the company, but not floating so many shares the market has trouble absorbing it. This stock has a ""Shares Outstanding"" of 2.74B but has only floated 757.21M. The nearly 2 billion shares held by the original investors certainly impact their wallets with how this IPO went.  See the key statistics for the details." "Firstly you have to know exactly what you are asking here.  What you have if you ""own"" bitcoins is a private key that allows you to make a change to the blockchain that can assign a piece of information from yourself to the next person. Nothing more nothing less.  The fact that this small piece of information is considered to have a market value, is a matter of opinion, and is analagous to owning a domain name. A domain name is an entry in a register, that has equal weight to all other entries, but the market determines if that information (eg: CocaCola.com) has any more value than say another less well know domain. Bitcoin is the same - an entry in a register, and the market decides which entry is more valuable than another.  So what exactly are you wanting to declare to FinCEN? Are you willing to declare the ownership of private key? Of course not. So what then? An uncrackable private key can be generated at will by anyone, without even needing to ""own"" or transact in bitcoins, and that same private key would be equally valid on any of the 1000's of other bitcoin clones. The point I want to make is that owning a private key in itself is not valuable. Therefore you do not need, nor would anyone advise notifying FinCEN of that fact. To put this into context, every time you connect to online banking, your computer secretly generates a new random private key to secure your communications with the bank. Theoretically that same private key could also be used to sign a bitcoin transaction. Do you need to declare every private key your computer generates? No. Secondly, if you are using any of the latest generation of HD wallets, your private key changes with every single transaction. Are you seriously saying that you want to take it on your shoulders to inform FinCEN every time you move information (bitcoin amounts) around even in your own wallets? The fact is FinCEN could never ""discover"" your ownership of bitcoins (or any of the 1000s of alt coins) other than by you informing them of this fact.  You may want to carefully consider the personal implications of starting down this road especially as all FinCEN would need to do is subpoena your bitcoin private key to steal your so-called funds, as they have done recently to other more prominent persons in the community. EDIT to clarify the points raised in comments. You do not own the private key to the bitcoins stored on a foreign exchange, nor can you discover it. The exchange owns the private key. You therefore do not either technically have control over the coins (MtGox is a very good example here - they went out of business because they allowed their private keys to be used by some other party who was able to siphon off the coins). Your balance is only yours when you own the private keys and the ability to spend. Any other situation you can neither recover the bitcoin to sell (to pay for any taxes due). So you do not either have the legal right nor the technical right to consider those coins in your possession.  For those who do not understand the technical or legal implications of private key ownership, please do not speculate about what ""owning"" bitcoin actually means, or how ownership can be discovered. Holding Bitcoin is not illegal, and the US government who until recently were the single largest holder of Bitcoin demonstrate simply by this fact alone that there is nothing untoward here." "I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that.  :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly ""enter"" the stock market.  Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors.  The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say ""I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone."" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company.  No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors.  But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor.  The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme.  The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be ""worth"" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399.  But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it.  You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing.  But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets.  The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets.  In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money.  However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues.  This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable.  I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend.  Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company." Yes, it's possible. However, it's not likely, at least not for most people. Earning a million is not that difficult, but when you talk about billions that's an entirely different story. I think the key point that you're missing is leverage. It's common knowledge that Warren Buffett likes to have a huge cash warchest at his disposal and does not soak himself in debt. However, in his early years Buffett did not get to where he's at by investing only his own money. He ran what was basically a hedge fund and leveraged other peoples' money in the market. This magnified his returns quite substantially. If you look at Buffett's investments, you'll notice that he had a handful of HUGE wins in his portfolio and many more just mediocre success stories. Not everything he invested in turned to gold, but his portfolio was rocketed by the large wins that continued to compound over many years because he held them for so long. Also, consider the fact that Buffett's wealth is largely measured in Berkshire stock. This stock is a reflection of anticipated future earnings by the company. There's no way that alone could turn   $10k in 1950 into $50B today... could   it? Why not? Take the two founders of Google for example, they became billionaires in short order when Google had it's IPO and basically started in a garage with very little cash. Of course, they didn't do this by buying and selling shares. There are many paths to earnings enormous sums of money like the people you're talking about, but one characteristic that the richest people in society seem to have in common is that they all own their own companies. Yes, it's true (from a BB perspective).  This isn't the 80's where M&amp;A's are the money makers.  This isn't the 90's where IPO's are the cash cows.  Going forward the new products, especially the OTC derivatives market and FI are going to be where a lot of resources are pooled and where revenues are generated.  Ask yourself the question, why do you want to go into equity research as opposed to another product? Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa. "The recommendation is not to make the investment. In general, a company does not have to sell their shares to you or allow you to become an investor, because, as you have stated, it is a private company not quoted on the stock market.   If everyone were trustworthy, you could buy the tools for $11000 -- so that you own the tools -- and sign a lease of the tools to the company whereby they pay you $X/month.  The lease should be reviewed by a lawyer before it is signed, and perhaps give the buyer the right to demand back the tools at any time.  However, even this arrangement is very risky, because the ""company"" could simply steal or damage the tools and disappear.   It is not an investment that I would make, because it sounds too good to be true.  $2800/mo steady cash flow for $11,000 invested.  No, I don't think so.   The following information may also be useful, either to you, or future readers: If you still want to make this investment, then you should know that: The offering for sale of shares by companies located in the USA is subject to a wild array of complex laws.  This is true in many other countries as well.  These laws,  called securities laws or regulations,  can require certain disclosures, require that investors have a high net worth so that they can afford to lose the money or conduct their own investigations and legal actions, or require that the investors know the company founders personally, and can prohibit or limit resale by the buyer/investor.  Promoters who say you can still invest and are ignoring or disobeying the securities laws are being at least negligent, but more likely are dishonest and probably criminal.  Even if you trust in the investment, can you trust negligent managers to do a good job executing that investment? What about dishonest managers?  What about criminals and thieves?" A cautionary tale:  About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies.   I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups.  And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive).  I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company.  Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like.  AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%.  I wasn't too worried.  6 months later the cash was down 50%.  Worrying a little.  After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid.  Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.