What is a “Subscription Rights Offering” of a stock one owns?
After a company goes public, if it wants to raise more money, then it does this by secondary public offering or rights issue. In subscription rights issue gives the right to existing share holders to buy new shares at equal proportion. So if every one buys, they maintain the same percentage of ownership. Generally the pricing is at discount to current market price. Not sure why the price is high, unless the price for this stock fell sharply recently.
Unissued capital is only a token restriction. When a company is incorporated a maximum number of shares is specified in the legal documentation. Most companies will make this an extremely large number so they never face that limitation.  See here. You wouldn't necessarily expect the stock price to change. The reason a company issues new stock is as a way to raise capital. Although new stock is issued, the cash raised by the sale becomes an Asset on the company's balance sheet.  There's a good worked example in this Wikipedia article. Following a rights issue the Liabilities of the company will increase to account for the increase in owner's equity, but the Assets will also increase by the same amount with the cash received. Whether the stock price changes will depend upon what price the stock is issued at and on the market's opinions about the company's growth potential now it has new capital to invest.  If the new stock is issued at the same price as the current market price, there's no particular reason to expect the share price to change. Again Wikipedia has more detail. When new stock is issued it is usually offered to existing shareholders first, in proportion to their current holding.  If the shareholder decides to purchase the new stock in full then their position won't be diluted.  If they opt not to buy the new stock, they will now own a smaller percentage of the company as their stocks will make up a smaller part of the now larger number of shares. "The value of a stock ultimately is related to the valuation of a corporation.  As part of the valuation, you can estimate the cash flows (discounted to present time) of the expected cash flows from owning a share.  This stock value is the so-called ""fundamental"" value of a stock.  What you are really asking is, how is the stock's market price and the fundamental value related?  And by asking this, you have implicitly assumed they are not the same.   The reason that the fundamental value and market price can diverge is that simply, most shareholders will not continue holding the stock for the lifespan of a company (indeed some companies have been around for centuries).  This means that without dividends or buybacks or liquidations or mergers/acquisitions, a typical shareholder cannot reasonably expect to recoup their share of the company's equity. In this case, the chief price driver is the aggregate expectation of buyers and sellers in the marketplace, not fundamental evaluation of the company's balance sheet.   Now obviously some expectations are based on fundamentals and expert opinions can differ, but even when all the experts agree roughly on the numbers, it may be that the market price is quite a ways away from their estimates.  An interesting example is given in this survey of behavioral finance.  It concerns Palm, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 3Com.  When Palm went public, its shares went for such a high price, they were significantly higher than 3Com's shares.  This mispricing persisted for several weeks. Note that this facet of pricing is often given short shrift in standard explanations of the stock market.  It seems despite decades of academic research (and Nobel prizes being handed out to behavioral economists), the knowledge has been slow to trickle down to laymen, although any observant person will realize something is amiss with the standard explanations.   For example, before 2012, the last time Apple paid out dividends was 1995.  Are we really to believe that people were pumping up Apple's stock price from 1995 to 2012 because they were waiting for dividends, or hoping for a merger or liquidation?  It doesn't seem plausible to me, especially since after Apple announced dividends that year, Apple stock ended up taking a deep dive, despite Wall Street analysts stating the company was doing better than ever.  That the stock price reflects expectations of the future cash flows from the stock is a thinly-disguised form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and there's a lot of evidence contrary to the EMH (see references in the previously-linked survey).  If you believe what happened in Apple's case was just a rational re-evaluation of Apple stock, then I think you must be a hard-core EMH advocate. Basically (and this is elaborated at length in the survey above), fundamentals and market pricing can become decoupled.  This is because there are frictions in the marketplace making it difficult for people to take advantage of the mispricing.  In some cases, this can go on for extended periods of time, possibly even years.  Part of the friction is caused by strong beliefs by market participants which can often shift pressure to supply or demand.  Two  popular sayings on Wall Street are, ""It doesn't matter if you're right.  You have to be right at the right time.""  and ""It doesn't matter if you're right, if the market disagrees with you.""  They suggest that you can make the right decision with where to put your money, but being ""right"" isn't what drives prices.  The market does what it does, and it's subject to the whims of its participants." "Yeah, I sent an email about it 9 months ago:  ""I am interested in getting a plan for unlimited NYTimes.com access *without* a Smart Phone or Tablet app. Right now the only plans I see include either of those or both. I just wanted to express my consumer interest in such a plan, I hope you offer one in the future.""  They replied:  &gt;Thank you for contacting NYTimes.com.  &gt;You are correct. We currently offer a web &amp; smartphone subscription, a web &amp; tablet app subscription and an all digital access subscription. We do not currently have a web only subscription.  &gt;We appreciate your feedback and have passed it along to the appropriate department. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance to you." According to HMRC it seems that if you overpay, then at least part of the interest generated by that ISA is taxable (emphasis mine): If, by mistake, you put more than £10,680 into your ISAs in a tax year, the excess payments are invalid, and you are not entitled to any tax relief on investments purchased with the excess payments. You should not try to correct this mistake yourself. Instead, you should call the ISA Helpline and explain the problem to them. They will advise you what action you need to take. However, as AlexMuller pointed out, HMRC also states (in section 6.1 here) that the ISA Manager (ie. the bank/building society) should not allow you to overpay. Managers’ systems must ensure that ... no more than the cash ISA subscription limit can be subscribed to a cash ISA in a tax year and that no more than the overall subscription limit can be subscribed to a stocks and shares ISA in a tax year. As to what an individual ISA Manager would do should you attempt to over-pay, I imagine it would vary from Manager to Manager. ING Direct, for example, has the following policy (Taken from Section 12.5 here): ...f you send us a payment for an amount which would take you over the ISA investment limit under the ISA Regulations, we will send the excess above the investment limit,   or, if you sent us the payment by cheque, the whole of that payment, back to you. It might, but it also might not. The Board of Directors gets to decide whether and how much dividends are paid to stockholders. So this will vary from company to company and may change over time. I suggest you ask the person making the offer. That said: It looks like they offered you OPTIONS, not Shares. An option is just the right to buy stock at a given price in the future. It is extremely unlikely that you would be entitled to any dividends since you don't have an ownership stake, just a potential to be a shareholder. Matt Levine talked about a cute scam that this resembles, a kind of extended short squeeze. You manipulate up the stock of a company, so that it's obviously way above the fundamental value. Word will get out. Then the shorts come in. But the value remains stubbornly high. All the stock is held by a few insiders, but they didn't manipulate the stock price to do a pump and dump. They did it to milk the shorts on borrow cost. "Recently, I asked about what the company valuation is and how many   shares does my 4% represent.CFO told me that there is no point to talk   about ""shares"" or ""stock"" since the company is not public. Is it   right? No, it is wrong. Shares and stocks exist regardless of how they can be traded. Once a company is formed, there are stocks that belong to the owners in the proportion of the ownership. They may not exist physically, but they do exist on paper. As an owner of 5% of the company, you own 5% of the company stocks. I asked if my investor portion equity will be subjected under a   vesting schedule, CFO said yes. That doesn't make sense to me, because   I bought those 4%? Aren't those supposed to be fully vested? I agree   to my employee equity to be vested. Doesn't make sense to me either, since your money is already in their pocket. But I'm not sure if its illegal. If that's what is written in the signed contract - then may be its possible to have that situation. But it doesn't make much sense, because these shares are granted to you in return to your money, not some potential future work (as the 1% employee's portion). You already gave the money, so why wouldn't they be vested? Best to read the contract upon which you gave them your money, I really hope you have at least that and not just gave them a check...." "By issuing additional equity. In this case, the pie isn't ""fixed,"" it's getting bigger. Now, to avoid lawsuits and other potential issues (some of which may be unavoidable), the owner will likely need to subscribe for additional equity himself.  Example:  100 shares outstanding. 51 to owner, 49 to 2 others.  That 49 will have to equal 20%, as none of their shares are being sold (likely). This means total shares will need to be increased to 245.  Subtract 49 from that number: 196  Marcus gets half of that at a determined price. 98  Owner must increase his stake from 51 to 98 shares. To do so, he'll need to contribute additional cash for the same price Marcus gets in on. That could be expensive."