Any advantage to exercising ISO's in company that is not yet public?
"Exercising an option early if you can't sell the underlying stock being purchased is generally not advisable. You're basically locking in the worst price you can possibly pay, plus you're losing the time value on your money (which is, admittedly fairly low right now, but still). Let's say you have a strike price of $50.  I get that you believe the stock to be worth more than $50.  Let's assume that that's probably, but not certainly right. Whether it's worth $51, $151, or $5,100 when your options are going to expire, you still get the profit of $1, $101, or $5,050 if you wait until expiration and exercise then.  By exercising now, you're giving up two things: The interest on the money you pay to exercise from now until expiration. The guarantee that you can't lose anything.    If you buy it now, you get all the upside above your strike, but have all the downside below it. If you buy it later (at expiration), you still have all the upside above your strike, but no downside - in the (assumed to be unlikely) event that it's worth less than the strike you can simply do nothing, instead of having something you bought at the strike that's worth less now and taking that loss.  By exercising early, you take on that loss risk, and give up the interest (or ""carry"" on the money you spend to exercise) for no additional updside. It's possible that there are tax benefits, as other posters mention, but the odds that ""starting the clock"" for LTCG is worth as much as the ""optionality"", or loss protection, plus the ""carry"", or interest that you're giving up is fairly unlikely." "As I recall from the documentation presented to me, any gain over the strike price from an ISO stock option counts as a long term capital gain (for tax purposes) if it's held from 2 years from the date of grant and 1 year from the date of exercise. If you're planning to take advantage of that tax treatment, exercising your options now will start that 1-year countdown clock now as well, and grant you a little more flexibility with regards to when you can sell in the future. Of course, no one's renewed the ""Bush tax cuts"" yet, so the long-term capital gains rate is going up, and eventually it seems they'll want to charge you Medicare on those gains as well (because they can... ), soo, the benefit of this tax treatment is being reduced... lovely time to be investing, innnit?" As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded.  When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible.  Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT.  That is an argument for buying early.  Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock.  This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate.  This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.
The main reason to exercise the shares sooner rather than later is that you have to hold the shares for 1 year to gain access to the long-term capital gains rate when you sell your shares. You do not want short-term capital gains rates to apply to these shares when you sell them. If the company is unable to go public and sells privately, you may not have any choice but to sell your shares immediately. If the company goes public you will simply have to hold your shares for a year after you buy them before selling to get the lower tax rate. GlobalTradeConnect is the first leading trade network company in the world, which brought together over million businesses to increase the levels and quality of trade. We are the uniqueB2B marketplace for ISO certified companies. There are many manufacturers and sellers are attracted to a business to business marketplace because of our website they might offer their product and services.Buyer is already looking for new products, we hope all our registered sellers will make more customer through our company website. The company may not permit a transfer of these options. If they do permit it, you simply give him the money and he has them issue the options in your name.  As a non-public company, they may have a condition where an exiting employee has to buy the shares or let them expire.  If non-employees are allowed to own shares, you give him the money to exercise the options and he takes possession of the stock and transfers it to you.  Either way, it seems you really need a lawyer to handle this. Whenever this kind of money is in motion, get a lawyer.  By the way, the options are his. You mean he must purchase the shares, correct? "A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to?   I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a ""call"" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares.   So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has.   I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees?  Each one of those is equivalent to a single share.  They just aren't called ""call options"". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place.  Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock.  They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons.  (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised.  In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised.  Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created.   Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time.  As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments.   This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling." "Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees ""share options"" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a ""strike price"" specified when the option is granted. Typically these ""vest"" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question." "The reason to go public is to get money. Not to be snarky, but your question is like asking, ""Why should a company try to sell its products, when if they just piled them up in a warehouse they wouldn't have to worry about shipping and customer complaints and collecting sales tax?"" The answer, of course, is because they want the money. Sure, there are disadvantages to going public, like more regulation, required financial disclosures, and having to answer to stockholders. That's the price you pay for accepting money from people. They're not going to give you money for nothing." Investopedia has a nice article on this here The Key benefit looks like better returns with lower capital. The disadvantage is few brokers offering that can be trusted. Potentially lower return due to margins / spreads. Higher leverage and can become an issue. I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read.