What is the valuation of a company based on?
"The textbook answer would be ""assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit"".  A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing);  or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more." "There is no such thing as a correct value. There are different ways to calculate (read: guess) an anticipated value, but neither of them is the ""correct"" one. Last not least this depends on your interpretation of the term ""correct"" in that context.  Why do you think paid Facebook such a huge amount for WhatsApp? Surely not, because it was the ""correct"" value." It's safe to say that for mature companies, with profits that have been steady, and steadily growing, that a multiple of earnings can come into play. It's not identical between companies or even industries, but for consumer staples, for instance, you'll see a clustering around a certain P/E.  On the other hand, there are companies like FaceBook, 18 months ago, trading at 20, now at 70 with a 110 P/E. Did the guys valuing the stock simply get it wrong then or is it wrong now?  Contrast this with KO (Coca-cola) a 20 P/E and 3.2% dividend, PG (Proctor and Gamble) 21 P/E, 3% dividend.  Funny though, a $1M valuation for $50K in profit may be Shark ridiculous, but a $1B valuation on a $50M company with great prospects, i.e. a pipeline of new products in growing markets, is a steal.  Disclosure I have no positions in the mentioned stocks.
Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company.  Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another Thank you very much for this thoughtful response.  In my opinion the judges care more about the why behind your valuation rather than a how.  Anyone can use a formula, but it takes so much more to understand why to use the formula.    Personally, the 'why' is going to be the toughest part for me understand and wrap my head around.  Once again thank you for the advice and the tip. "I think the key concept here is future value.  The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities.  For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom.  I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers  ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual  Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously.  A definition I like to use for market cap is ""the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company""... so let's dissect that a little.  The term ""present value"" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year.  A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later.  The ""all future earnings"" part is exactly what it sounds like.  So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that ""the market"" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars)." "You can think of the situation as a kind of Nash equilibrium.  If ""the market"" values stock based on the value of the company, then from an individual point of view it makes sense to value stock the same way. As an illustration, imagine that stock prices were associated with the amount of precipitation at the company's location, rather than the assets of the company.  In this imaginary stock market, it would not benefit you to buy and sell stock according to the company's value.  Instead, you would profit most from buying and selling according to the weather, like everyone else.  (Whether this system — or the current one — would be stable in the long-term is another matter entirely.)" It's been awhile since my last finance course, so school me here:  What is the market cap of a company actually supposed to represent? I get that it's the stock price X the # of shares, but what is that actually representing? Revenues? PV of all future revenues? PV of future cash flows?  In any case, good write up. Valuation of tech stocks is quite the gambit, and you've done a good job of dissecting it for a layman. The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury   Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other. "When the VC is asking what your Pre-Money Valuation is, he's asking what percentage of shares his $200,000 will buy. If you say your company is worth $800K, then after he puts the money in, it will be worth $1M, and he will own 20% of all shares – you'll still own the remainder. So when the VC is asking for a valuation, what he really wants to know is how much of your company he's going to own after he funds you.  Determining your pre-money valuation, then, is a question of negotiation: how much money will you need, how likely are you to require more money later (and thus dilute the VC's shares, or give up more of your own shares), how likely is your business to survive, and how much money will it make if it does survive? It isn't about the actual value of your business right now, as much as it is ""how much work has gone into this, and how successful can it be?"" The value is going to be a bit higher than you expect, because the work is already done and you can get to market faster than someone else who hasn't started yet. VCs are often looking for long shots – they'll invest in 10 companies, and expect 7 to fail, 2 to be barely-profitable, and the last one to make hilarious amounts of money. A VC doesn't necessarily want 51% of your company (you'll probably lose motivation if you're not in charge), but they'll want as much as they can get otherwise." Who determines company value at IPO? The Owners based on the advice from Lead Bankers and other Independent auditors who would determine the value of the company at the time of listing. At times instead of determining a fixed price a range is given [lower side and higher side]. The Market participants [FI / Institutional Investor Segments] then decide the price by bidding at an amount. There are multiple aspects in play that help stabalize the IPO and roles of various parties. A quick read of question with IPO tag is recommended Edits: Generally at a very broad level, one of the key purpose of the IPO is to either encash Owner equity [Owner wants some profits immediately] or Raise additional Capital. More often it is a mix of both. If the price is too low, one loose out on getting the true value, this would go to someone else. If the price is too high, then it may not attract enough buyers or even there are buyers, there is substantial -ve sentiment. This is not good for the company. Read the question From Facebook's perspective, was the fall in price after IPO actually an indication that it went well?  This puts determining the price of IPO more in the realm of art than science. There are various mechanism [Lead bankers, Institutional Investors, Underwriters] the a company would put in place to ensure the IPO is success and that itself would moderate the price to realistic level. More often the price is kept slightly lower to create a positive buzz about the stock. "I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means.  So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public.  That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores.  So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors.  Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal.  And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus.  These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009.  Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care.  So clearly since ""Common Stock"" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split.  Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split.  Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus.  Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though." Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe. If you look at the value as a composite, as Graham seems to, then look at its constituent parts (which you can get off any financials sheet they file with the SEC): For example, if you have a fictitious company with: Compared to the US GDP (~$15T) you have approximately: Now, scale those numbers to a region with a GDP of, say, $500B (like Belgium), the resultant numbers would be: Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing.  A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula. Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors.  If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who  could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value  Hope it helps P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price.  You take share price divided by annual earnings per share.  You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share.  It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy.  It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth.   A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4.  A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400.  By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other.  One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss).  Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy.  Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk. I think you're looking for the public float: Public float or the unqualified term may also refer to the number of   outstanding shares in the hands of public investors as opposed to   company officers, directors, or controlling-interest investors.   Assuming the insider held shares are not traded, these shares are the   publicly traded ones. The float is calculated by subtracting   restricted shares from outstanding shares. As mentioned, Treasury stock is probably the most narrow definition of restricted stock (not publicly traded), but shares held by corporate officers or majority investors are often included in the definition as well. In any case, the balance sheet is indeed a good place to start.