How are startup shares worth more than the total investment funding?
"What littleadv said is correct.  His worth is based on the presumed worth of the total company value (which is much greater than all investment dollars combined because of valuation growth)*. In other words, his ""worth"" is based on the potential return for his share of ownership at a rate based on the latest valuation of the company. He is worth $17.5 billion today, but the total funding for Facebook is only $2.4 billion? I don't understand this. In private companies, valuations typically come from either speculation/analysts or from investments.  Investment valuations are the better gauge, because actual money traded hands for a percentage ownership. However, just as with public companies on the stock market, there are (at least) two caveats. Just because someone else sold their shares at a given rate, doesn't mean that rate... In both cases, it's possible the value may be much lower or much higher.  Some high-value purchases surprise for how high they are, such as Microsoft's acquisition of Skype for $8.5 billion. The formula for one owner's ""worth"" based on a given acquisition is: Valuation = Acquisition amount / Acquisition percent Worth = Owner's percent × Valuation According to Wikipedia Zuckerberg owns 24%.  In January, Goldman Sach's invested $500 million at a $50 billion valuation. That is the latest investment and puts Zuckerberg's worth at $12 billion. However, some speculation places a Facebook IPO at a much higher valuation, such as as $100 billion.  I don't know what your reference is for $17 billion, but it puts their valuation at $70.8 billion, between the January Goldman valuation and current IPO speculation. * For instance, Eduardo Saverin originally invested $10,000, which, at his estimated 5% ownership, would now be worth $3-5 billion." The net worth is based on an estimate of how much he would get if he relinquished his stake.  The total funding is based on how much he has relinquished thus far. Suppose I have a candy jar with 100 candies.  I'm not sure how much these candies are worth, so I start off by selling 10% of the jar for $10.  Now I have 90 candies and $10, a total value of $100.  Then someone comes along offering $100 for another 10% (of the original jar, or 10 candies), which I accept.  Now I have 80 candies and $110.  Since I value each candy at $10 now, I calculate my worth as $910.  Then I do another deal selling 10% for $1000.  Now I have $1110 in cash and 70 candies valued at $100 each.  My total worth is now $8110 (cash + remaining candies), while the candy jar has only received $1110 in funding. Replace candies with equity in The Facebook, Inc. and you get the idea. He is worth $17.5 billion today Note that he is worth that dollar figure, but he doesn't have that many dollars. That's the worth of his stake in the company (number of shares he owns times the assumed value per share), i.e. assuming its total value being several hundreds of billions, as pundits assume. However, it is not a publicly traded company, so we don't really know much about its financials.
Taking into account that you are in Cyprus, a Euro country, you should not invest in USD as the USA and China are starting a currency war that will benefit the Euro. Meaning, if you buy USD today, they will be worth less in a couple of months. As for the way of investing your money. Look at it like a boat race, starting on the 1st of January and ending on the 31st of December each year. There are a lot of boats in the water. Some are small, some are big, some are whole fleets. Your objective is to choose the fastest boat at any time. If you invest all of your money in one small boat, that might sink before the end of the year, you are putting yourself at risk. Say: Startup Capital. If you invest all of your money in a medium sized boat, you still run the risk of it sinking. Say: Stock market stock. If you invest all of your money in a supertanker, the risk of it sinking is smaller, and the probability of it ending first in the race is also smaller. Say: a stock of a multinational. A fleet is limited by it's slowest boat, but it will surely reach the shore. Say: a fund. Now investing money is time consuming, and you may not have the money to create your own portfolio (your own fleet). So a fund should be your choice. However, there are a lot of funds out there, and not all funds perform the same.  Most funds are compared with their index. A 3 star Morningstar rated fund is performing on par with it's index for a time period. A 4 or 5 star rated fund is doing better than it's index. Most funds fluctuate between ratings. A 4 star rated fund can be mismanaged and in a number of months become a 2 star rated fund. Or the other way around. But it's not just luck. Depending on the money you have available, your best bet is to buy a number of star rated, managed funds. There are a lot of factors to keep into account. Currency is one. Geography, Sector... Don't buy for less than 1.000€ in one fund, and don't buy more than 10 funds. Stay away from Gold, unless you want to speculate (short term). Stay away from the USD (for now). And if you can prevent it, don't put all your eggs in one basket. "Each company has X shares valued at $Y/share. When deals like ""Dragon's Den"" in Canada and Britain or ""Shark Tank"" in the US are done, this is where the company is issuing shares valued at $z total to the investor so that the company has the funds to do whatever it was that they came to the show to get funding to do, though some deals may be loans or royalties instead of equity in the company. The total value of the shares may include intangible assets of course but part of the point is that the company is doing an ""equity financing"" where the company continues to operate. The shareholders of the company have their stake which may be rewarded when the company is acquired or starts paying dividends but that is a call for the management of the company to make. While there is a cash infusion into the company, usually there is more being done as the Dragon or Shark can also bring contacts and expertise to the company to help it grow. If the investor provides the entrepreneur with introductions or offers suggestions on corporate strategy this is more than just buying shares in the company. If you look at the updates that exist on ""Dragon's Den"" or ""Shark Tank"" at least in North America I've seen, you will see how there are more than a few non-monetary contributions that the Dragon or Shark can provide." As a start-up, the initial shares can be given at various price points. So essentially they can give someone a larger percentage based on the same amount earlier, and lesser percentage to someone else for the same amount. As its a start-up the valuations can be very tricy and what matters is that whether you believe the percentage you got for the amount is right or not.   It is very important to note that when you have been given an ownership in the company, how that is designated. Is it in absolute number of shares or is it in terms of percentage based on the existing shares. For example you maybe given 100 shares, without any qualification. Or you maybe given a 5% stake in the paid-up capital, that translates to 100 shares. It is always better to hold the shares in % of the total shares. Also read the contract, any dilution should require your approval. Normally start-ups once the valuation starts to go up, start creating more shares and sell these to private equity or create more shares and give it as a bonus to promoters. Hence in both cases your holding will keep getting diluted. There is a related quesiton If a startup can always issue new shares, what value is there to stocks/options? Disvestment activities tend to be misguided. In doing so, a fund/individual is not really taking money away from the companies in question (assuming they're not doing secondary offerings), and 'disvestment' doesn't imply that you're going to be using their products less (or boycotting them entirely), which would actually impact their financials. And in a convoluted way, disvestment could actually trigger further consolidation among coal companies, since it makes them cheaper and thus easier takeover targets.   Funds that have the ability to do so should make 2nd &amp; 3rd round VC investments in clean energy startups. It's been awfully difficult for clean energy startups to raise money lately, and funding those startups would have a lot more impact. "Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit.  I have a couple of questions, if that's alright.   Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio.  Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation?  Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the ""best time""?  Thank you so much for answering my questions." "BigCo is selling new shares and receives the money from Venturo. If Venturo is offering $250k for 25% of the company, then the valuation that they are agreeing on is a value of $1m for the company after the new investment is made.  If Jack is the sole owner of one million shares before the new investment, then BigCo sells 333,333 shares to Venturo for $250k.  The new total number of shares of BigCo is 1,333,333; Venturo holds 25%, and Jack holds 75%. The amount that Jack originally invested in the company is irrelevant.  At the moment of the sale, the Venturo and Jack agree that Jack's stake is worth $750k.  The value of Jack's stake may have gone up, but he owes no capital gains tax, because he hasn't realized any of his gains yet.  Jack hasn't sold any of his stake.  You might think that he has, because he used to hold 100% and now he holds 75%.  However, the difference is that the company is worth more than was before the sale.  So the value of his stake was unchanged immediately before and after the sale. Jack agrees to this because the company needs this additional capital in order to meet its potential. (See ""Why is stock dilution legal?"") For further explanation and another example of this, see the question ""If a startup receives investment money, does the startup founder/owner actually gain anything?"" Your other scenario, where Venturo purchases existing shares directly from Jack, is not practical in this situation.  If Jack sells his existing shares, you are correct that the company does not gain any additional capital.  An investor would not want to invest in the company this way, because the company is struggling and needs new capital." "Yes, I agree with you. Saying that the value of the stock will grow as the company grows and acquires more assets ... I don't see why. Okay, I'm a nice guy and I want to see other people do well, but what do I care how much money they're making if they're not giving any of it to ME?  Frankly I think it's like people who buy commemorative plates or beanie babies or other ""collectibles"" as an investment. As long as others are also buying them as an investment, and buying and reselling at a profit, the value will continue to go up. But one day people say, Wait, is this little stuffed toy really worth $10,000? and the balloon bursts. Confer Dutch tulips: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-dutch-tulip-bubble-of-1637/ As I see it, what gives a non-dividend-paying stock value is mostly the expectation that at some time in the future it will pay dividends. This is especially true of new start-up companies. As you mentioned, there's also the possibility of a takeover. It wouldn't have to be a hostile takeover, any takeover would do. At that point the buying company either buys the stock or exchanges it for shares of their own. In the first case you now have cash for your investment and in the second case you now have stock in a dividend-paying company -- or in another non-dividend-paying company and you start the cycle over." You could think of points 1 and 3 combined to be similar to buying shares and selling calls on a part of those shares. $50k is the net of the shares and calls sale (ie without point 3, the investor would pay more for the same stake). Look up convertible debt, and why it's used. It's basically used so that both parties get 'the best of both world's' from equity and debt financing.   Who is he selling his share to in point 2 back to the business or to outside investors?