Is there any advantage to owning equity in a company compared to a royalty agreement?
Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble.   Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth.   The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake?  And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right.  You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend).  This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend.  As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes.  The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create.  Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E.  Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E.
Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective.  However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin.  Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales).  The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap. "The quickest way to approach this question is to first understand that it compares flows vs. levels. Market size is usually stated as an annual or other period figure, e.g. ""The market size of refrigerators will be $10mn in 2019.""  This is a flow figure. Market capitalization is a level figure at any given point in time, e.g. ""The market cap of the company was $20 million at the end of its last fiscal quarter."" Confusion sometimes occurs when levels and flows are used loosely for comparisons.  It is common for media to make statements such as ""Joe Billionaire is worth more than the GDP of Roselandia.""  That is comparing a current level (net worth) with an annual flow (GDP). With this in mind, there are a variety of conditions where a company's equity market value will exceed its market size.  The most extreme example is an innovating, development-stage enterprise, say, a biotech company, developing a new market for a new product; the current market size may be nil while the enterprise is worth something greater. The primary reason however for situations where a company's equity market cap is greater than its market size is usually that the financial market expects the enterprise (and oftentimes its market, though this isn't necessary) to grow substantially over time and hence the discounted value of the company may be greater than the current or near future market size. A final example:  US annual GDP (which comprises of much more than corporate incomes and profits) for 2014 was about $17.4tn while the nation's total equity market value in 2014 was $25.1tn, both according to the World Bank.  That latter figure also doesn't include the trillions of corporate debts these companies have issued so the total market cap of US, Inc. is substantially greater than $25.1tn." "A dividend is one method of returning value to shareholders, some companies pay richer dividends than others; some companies don't typically pay a dividend.  Understand that shareholders are owners of a company.  When you buy a stock you now own a portion (albeit an extremely small portion) of that company. It is up to you to determine whether holding stock in a company is worth the risk inherent to equity investing over simply holding treasury notes or some other comparable no risk investment like bank savings or CDs.   Investing isn't really intended to change your current life.  A common phrase is ""investing in tomorrow.""  It's about holding on to money so you'll have it for tomorrow.  It's about putting your money to work for you today, so you'll have it tomorrow.  It's all about the future, not your current life." "The key difference I've found between a stock split and a stock dividend – of the exact same stock and class, as opposed to a spin-off – seems to be from the company's own accounting perspective.  There doesn't appear to be any actual transfer of value to the shareholder with either kind of transaction; i.e. in theory, each transaction would be immaterial to the value of your holdings. With respect to the company's accounting, a stock split affects the par value of the shares, whereas a stock dividend reduces the retained earnings account in order to increase paid-in or contributed capital. I found a good online source which explains the history behind this accounting difference: McGraw-Hill - Intermediate Accounting eBook, 6/e - Chapter 18 - Stock Dividends and Splits. Small quote: [...]   Besides being based on fallacious reasoning, accounting for stock   dividends by artificially reclassifying “earned” capital as “invested”   capital conflicts with the reporting objective of reporting   shareholders' equity by source. Despite these limitations, this   outdated accounting standard still applies. Since neither the corporation nor its shareholders apparently benefits   from stock dividends, why do companies declare them?23 Occasionally, a   company tries to give shareholders the illusion that they are   receiving a real dividend. Another reason is merely to enable the corporation to take advantage   of the accepted accounting practice of capitalizing retained earnings.   Specifically, a company might wish to reduce an existing balance in   retained earnings—otherwise available for cash dividends—so it can   reinvest the earned assets represented by that balance without   carrying a large balance in retained earnings. [...] There's a lot more on that page, before and after, worth reading. From another book: Google Books - Comparative Income Taxation, a Structural Analysis - page 314 - Stock Dividends. Small quote: The distribution of dividends in the form of stock or ""bonus"" shares   to existing shareholders typically involves a transfer for corporate   law purposes of retained earnings into stated capital.   It can been [sic] viewed as a deemed distribution of a cash   dividend to the shareholders followed by a corresponding contribution   to capital or as solely as an event at the corporate level which has   no effect on the shareholders whose economic interest in the   corporation is unchanged by the receipt of additional shares. The   systems have taken varied approaches to the stock dividend problem.    The treatment is in part a function of the rules dealing with   distributions of stated capital. [emphases above are mine] [... continues w/descriptions of different countries' tax treatments of the kinds of stock dividends. Includes U.S., Sweden, Japan,   Netherlands, Canada, Australia, U.K., France, Germany. ...] As far as why a corporation might want to capitalize earnings and reduce the equity otherwise available for dividends, I can only imagine that, ignoring taxes for a moment, that it may have something to do with capital ratios that need to be maintained for financing or regulatory purposes?  Yet, I remain curious. If I discover more on this then I'll update my answer. Additional resources:" "I write software myself and was involved in a couple of start ups.  One failed, another was wildly successful, but I did not receive much in compensation. The former I received stock, but since it failed, it was worthless anyway.  There should be compensation for your time in addition to equity in a company.   Any agreement needs be in writing.  In the later situation I was told to expect about a 17%/year bonus, but nothing could be guaranteed.  Translation:  ""It will never happen.""  It didn't, but I meet my lovely wife there so I have that for a bonus. Agreements need to address the bad things can happen.  What happens if one of you is no longer interested in continuing?  What happens if one of you die, or addicted to something?  What happens if one of you gets thrown in jail or disabled?  Right now you are full of optimism and hope, but bad things happen.  Cover those things while you still like each other. It might be enough to have a good salary, and some stock options.  You man not be interested in running the day to day business. Most of all good luck, I wish you all the best!" "Umm, it depends on the transaction but a lot of transactions get done on a ""cash free / debt free"" basis.  Meaning, I'll pay you 5x EBITDA (or $500) and you deliver the company without any cash or debt subject to a ""standard"" amount of working capital.  Ultimately, you're confusing enterprise value and equity value.  The two companies may have different purchase prices (equity values) but they should have very similar enterprise values (given the hypothetical scenario you put together)." As it stands equity contracts in startups are by default structured differently. The standard equity is shares or convertible notes.  Having equity that's structured in the way you propose is a bad idea for both sides. VC don't like equity that's not done with standard equity contracts. If the lawyer of the VC has to review your equity document and understand how the exact terms work that makes it more complicated to invest money into the startup. On your end it might not be fair because a company doesn't need to make any income to be successful. Various companies manage to reduce their tax burden to next to nothing by clever accounting that results in having no taxable income. Uber brought the uber.com domain name with 2% equity at the beginning, so there are certainly deals that get made with equity. There are also other kinds of deals where domain names don't get sold for a one-time payment but with regular payment for 8 years where the domain names goes back to the seller if the company folds or otherwise doesn't want to pay anyone. I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share.