What is the difference between Protected-equity loan vs Equity loan?
In simple terms : Equity Loan is money borrowed from the bank to buy assets which can be houses , shares etc Protected equity loan is commonly used in shares where you have a portfolio of shares and you set the minimum value the portfolio can fall to . Anything less than there may result in a sell off of the share to protect you from further capital losses.  This is a very brief explaination , which does not fully cover what Equity Loan && Protected Equity Loan really mean
An accountant should be able to advise on the tax consequences of different classes of investments/assets/debts (e.g. RRSP, TFSA, mortgage). But I would not ask an accountant which specific securities to hold in these vehicles, or what asset allocation (in terms of geography, capitalization, or class (equity vs fixed income vs derivatives vs structured notes etc). An investment advisor would be better suited to matching your investments to your risk tolerance. Yes, an investment can be made in a company before IPO. The valuation process is similar as that done for arriving at IPO or for a normal listed company. The difference may be the premium perceived for the idea in question. This would differ from one investor to other. For example, whether Facebook will be able to grow at the rate and generate enough revenues and win against competition is all a mathematical model based on projections. There are quite a few times the projection would go wrong, and quite a few times it would go correct. An individual investor cannot generally borrow from banks to invest into a company (listed or otherwise) (or for any other purpose) if he does not have any collateral that can be kept as security by the bank. An individual can get a loan only if he has sufficient collateral. The exceptions being small personal loans depending on one's credit history. The Private Equity placement arm of banks or firms in the business of private equity invest in start-up and most of the time make an educated guess based on their experience. More than half of their investments into start-ups end up as wiped out. An occasional one or two companies are ones that they make a windfall gain on. "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 are discounting the cash used, the discount rate for cash should be whatever you determine is your risk premium over the risk free rate not the equity growth rate. if equity growth rate is above your determined required return the equity investment is wealth destroying and if it is above that then it is wealth increasing.   The difficulty I see is that the scenario is all wrong, what you are really after is a rent vs buy decision. Do I take this money and rent a place or do I buy a house? In either case you could invest the remainder after paying your rent/mortgage in the equity market no?  So what really matters is the difference in cost between renting and buying.   Let  (EGR)=equity growth rate  Rent = rent M = Mortgage payment  I = income  HA =  home value appreciation  Now the question is is renting or buying a better decision two scenarios, renting first  PMT =(I - rent)  I/y = (EGR)  N =Time horizon in years  FV= Gain from cf left after paying rent    then discount to present day at your required rate of return to find present value  now scenario for buying, this is more complicated because you are investing two different cf streams at different rates and have to calculate both and add them together.  1) CF 1 the mortgage payments buy you equity in the house which appreciates (hopefully) but can be extremely volatile. This is the cf stream scenario one doesnt have, when renting the rent payments poof disappear forever and you earn nothing on them 2) The income left after mortgage payment which can be invested at the market rate measured the same way as above. **This is extremely simplistic and doesnt take into account expected maintenance, property taxes and other costs intrinsic to the investment. It also doesnt take into account the lost down payment setting you well behind the renter.   TL DR: It is complicated but you determine the required return(discount rate) based on the perceived risk of the investment and your particular views  and it doesnt matter what expected growth rates are since any investment with an expected growth rate below your required rate is wealth destroying since you are paying for something which returns cash flows too small for its risk level. If you use growth rates as discount rates then all your investments will net to zero Private Equity is simply some type of an investment company, which is owned in a way not accessible to the public. ie: Warren Buffet runs Berkshire Hatheway, which is an investment company which itself is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This means that anyone can buy shares in the company, and own a small fraction of it. If Warren Buffet owned all the shares of Berkshire Hatheway, it would be a Private Equity company. Note that 'Equity' refers to the ownership of the company itself; a private investment company may simply buy Bonds (which are a form of Debt), in which case, they would not be technically considered a 'Private Equity' company. A Hedge Fund is a very broad term which I don't believe has significant meaning. Technically, it means something along the lines of an investment fund (either public or private) which attempts to hedge the risks of its portfolio, by carefully considering what type of investments it purchased. This refers back to the meaning of 'hedge', ie: 'hedging your bets'. In my opinion, 'Hedge Fund' is not meaningfully different from 'investment fund' or other similar terms. It is just the most popular way to refer to this type of industry at the present time.  You can see the trend of using the term 'investment fund' vs 'hedge fund' using this link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=hedge%20fund,investment%20fund Note that the high-point of the use of 'hedge fund' occurred on October 2008, right at the peak of the global financial crisis. The term evokes a certain image of 'high finance' / 'wall-street types' that may exploit various situations (such as tax legislation, or 'secret information') for their own gain. Without a clear definition, however, it is a term without much meaning. If you do a similar comparison between 'hedge fund' and 'private equity', you can see that the two correlate very closely; I believe the term 'private equity' is similarly misused to generally refer to 'investment bankers'. However in that case, 'private equity' has a more clear definition on its own merits. hmmm. I think it's because in both cases, you must pay for it up front, before the positions are closed out. You own nothing except the right to buy the stock re: the call, and the obligation to buy the stock re: the short.  You buy a call, but must borrow the stock, for which you must put some margin collateral and there is a cost to borrow. You pay for that, of course.  I wouldn't call it lending though. Sounds to me like this restriction is limited to banks as issuers of convertible debt, which may affect their compliance with capital requirements, but is unlikely to affect the overall market for convertible debt.  Also the restriction is limited to retail investors, and I think most convertible debt offerings are not aimed at retail investors, so this restriction seems pretty limited to me. "From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt.   Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house.  You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset.   This is what is known as ""good"" debt.   Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income.  An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt.   This is know as ""bad"" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always ""good"" debt because the house stands good for it though.  The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your ""good"" debt is ""bad"" debt (or no longer secured).  Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value.  It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down.    This is the problem with the term ""good"" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan.  Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the ""good"" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house.  Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay.   So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW.  Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, ""good"" ""bad"" ""unsecured"" ""secured"", I think that less debt is better than more debt.   There is definitely such a thing as too much ""good"" debt!"