How long can a company keep the money raised from IPO of its stocks?
Is it correct that there is no limit on the length of the time that the company can keep the money raised from IPO of its stocks, unlike for the debt of the company where there is a limit? Yes that is correct, there is no limit. But a company can buy back its shares any time it wants. Anyone else can also buy shares on the market whenever they want. Yes, that is correct. There is no limit.  An initial public offering of common stock by a company means that these shares remain outstanding for as long as the company wishes. The exceptions are through corporate actions, most commonly either You realize that most of the money raised through the IPO process doesn't go into the company's bank account? Those shares were shares that were held by the investors and original owners and it's those prior pre-IPO shareholders that got their money back along with a tidy profit.  The cash on its books was there before the IPO, and after. The IPO process was more about a change in stock owners ship than anything else.   Edit - as the SEC disclosure mentioned in comments below states, the Facebook IPO raised $6.7B for facebook's use, the rest of the transaction was from the investors selling their shares. Mark Zuckerberg still owns more than 55% of shares outstanding. The $6.7B is still about 10% of the company value. Nothing to ignore, but clearly, 'most' of the money from the IPO didn't go to the company.
"Why only long term investments? What do they care if I buy and sell   shares in a company in the same year? Simple, your actually investing when you hold it for a long term. If you hold a stock for a week or a month there is very little that can happen to change the price, in a perfect market the value of a company should stay the same from yesterday to today so long as there is no news(a perfect market cannot exist). When you hold a stock for a long term you really are investing in the company and saying ""this company will grow"". Short term investing is mostly speculation and speculation causes securities to be incorrectly valued. So when a retail investor puts money into something like Facebook for example they can easily be burned by speculation whether its to the upside or downside. If the goal is to get me to invest my money, then why not give apply   capital gains tax to my savings account at my local bank? Or a CD   account? I believe your gains on these accounts are taxed... Not sure at what rate. If the goal is to help the overall health of business, how does it do   that? During an IPO, the business certainly raises money, but after   that I'm just buying and selling shares with other private   shareholders. Why does the government give me an incentive to do this   (and then hold onto it for at least a year)? There are many reasons why a company cares about its market price: A companies market cap is calculated by price * shares outstanding. A market cap is basically what the market is saying your company is worth. A company can offer more shares or sell shares they currently hold in order to raise even more capital. A company can offer shares instead of cash when buying out another company. It can pay for many things with shares. Many executives and top level employees are payed with stock options, so they defiantly want to see there price higher. these are some basic reasons but there are more and they can be more complex." The original investors and founders own them. Think about it this way - When you hear that an IPO priced at $10 opened at $50, is that 'good or 'bad'? Of course, it depends who you are. If you are the guy that got them at $10, you're happy. If you are the founder of the company, you are thinking the banker you paid to determine a market price for the IPO failed. Big. He blew it, basically as you just sold your company for 20% of the perceived value. But, instead of selling all the shares, just sell, say, 5%. Now, the IPO opening price is just a way to understand the true value of your company while keeping 95% of the upside once the market settles down to a regular trading pattern. You can slowly sell these shares into the market or you can use them as cash to take over other companies by buying with these shares instead of actual cash.  Either way, the publicly traded shares should trade based on the total value of the company and the fraction they represent. What prevents a company from doing secondary public stock offerings on regular basis? The primary goal of a company doing secondary public offering is to raise more funds, that can be utilized for funding the business. If no funding is needed [i.e. company has sufficient funds, or no expansion plans], this funding creates a drag and existing shareholder including promoters loose value. For example with the current 100 invested, the company is able to generate say 125 [25 as profit]. If additional 100 is taken as secondary public offering, then with 200, the company should mark around 250, else it looses value. So if the company took additional 100 and did not / is not able to deploy in market, on 200 they still make 25 as profit, its bad. There are other reasons, i.e. to fight off hostile acquisition or dilute some of promoters shares etc. Thus the reasons for company to do a secondary PO are few and doing it often reduces the value for primary share holders as well as minority share holders. I didn't say only the IPO I just said public offerings. Trades between secondary investors would be taxed at a higher level. I also understand the difference between loaning money to a company and investing in equity.  Personally I think that loans are underused in today's investment world because people are too focused on getting the most out of the few big winners. This should all be covered in your stock grant documentation, or the employee stock program of which your grant is a part.   Find those docs and it should specify how or when you can sale your shares, and how the money is paid to you.  Generally, vested shares are yours until you take action.  If instead you have options, then be aware these need to be exercised before they become shares.  There is generally a limited time period on how long you can wait to exercise.  In the US, 10 years is common. Unvested shares will almost certainly expire upon your departure of the company.  Whether your Merrill Lynch account will show this, or show them as never existing, I can't say.  But either way, there is nothing you can or should do. "I'm not the OP, but I'm happy to give a brief overview.  Basically, pre-JOBS act there were a lot of limits on who could make an equity investment in a non-public company (i.e. a startup or even a hedge fund). There were some loopholes, but basically you had to be an 'accredited investor'. An accredited investor was someone who either has made $200,000+ ($300,000+ for married people) for the past two years and expects to make that much again in the current year. Alternately, they could have a net worth of $1 million, excluding the value of their primary residence. There was also a limit of 500 investors for a non-public company before the company had to become public (they didn't really have to IPO, but they did have to file their financials with the SEC, so the effect was basically the same). Finally, non-public companies were prohibited from seeking investment through advertising basically. They couldn't take out an ad in a paper or event send a mass email and say, ""Hey, we're looking to raise a $1 million funding round, contact us if you're interested!""  Okay, now after the JOBS Act.  The JOBS Act changed a) the number and type of investors who could make equity investments in a non-public company b) the regulation of advertising for investments.  Post-JOBS private companies could have 2,000 shareholders and 500 of those could be unaccredited (e.g. regular people like you and I). The change in the number of shareholders isn't really that important because it's just shareholders of record, but that's another post for another day. There are still some requirements for unaccredited shareholder, which I don't remember off the top of my head. I think you have to have income of at least $40k. They also changed the solicitation ban, so it's possible that you might see an ad in the WSJ someday for a startup company, venture capital fund, hedge fund, etc.  There are some other things it changed, but IMO those are the two most important." You have to wait for three (business) days. That's the time it takes for the settlement to complete and for the money to get to your account. If you don't wait - brokers will still allow you to buy a new stock, but may limit your ability to sell it until the previous sale is settled. Here's a FAQ from Schwab on the issue. "In an IPO the seller is the Company selling new shares. Some of the IPOs also include something called ""secondary"" sales which are existing holders selling at the same time at the IPO price.  But that is a but more unusual.  And as someone noted, the $68 is the price paid for the people who bought at the IPO (the aggregate group usually called the syndicate). The $85 is the price that it is trading at once there is trading in the open market.  People that are able to get into the syndicate to buy the stock at $68 sometimes quickly sell if the price is much higher when trading starts. This is called ""flipping"" the stock.  Hedge funds do this much more often than institutional buyers like Fidelity." Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares. "Yes, you could buy a stock on the day of its IPO. I'm a college student, and I wonder if I can buy stock from a company   right after it finishes its IPO? Yes, you can. However, unless you are friends or family of an employee, chances are you'll be paying a higher price than you think as there is generally a fair bit of hype on most  IPOs that allows some people to ""flip them"" which means someone is buying at a higher price. If I am not allowed to buy its stocks immediately after they go on   sell, how long do I have to wait? Generally I'd wait until the hype dies down as if you look at most historical IPOs the stock could be bought cheaper later but that's just my perspective. And also who are allowed to buy the stocks at the first minute they   are on sell? Anyone but keep in mind that while an IPO may be priced at $x, the initial trades may be a few times that value and the stock may come down over time. Facebook could be an example to consider of a company that had an IPO at one price and then came down for a little while on its chart over the past couple of years." **Lock-up period**  A lock-up period, also known as a lock in, lock out, or locked up period, is a predetermined amount of time following an initial public offering where large shareholders, such as company executives and investors representing considerable ownership, are restricted from selling their shares. Generally, a lock-up period is a condition of exercising an employee stock option. Depending on the company, the IPO lock-up period typically lasts between 90–180 days before these shareholders are allowed the right, but not the obligation, to exercise the option.  Lockups are designed to prevent insiders from liquidating assets too quickly after a company goes public.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24 "Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis.  On sale your basis is likely defaulted to ""average price"" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage,  and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days.   Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis.  I think I have the link at the example:  http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601" "You were probably not given stock, but stock options.  Those options have a strike price and you can do some more research on them if needed.  Lets assume that you were given 5K shares at a strike of 20, and they vest 20% per year.  Assume the same thing in your second year and you are going to leave in year three. You would have 2K shares from your year 1 grant, and 1K shares from your year 2 grant, so 2K total. If you leave no more shares would be vested. If you leave you have one of two options: To complicate matters subsequent grants may have different strike prices, so perhaps year two grant is at $22 per share.  However, in pre-public companies that is not likely the case. For a bit of history, I worked at a pre-ipo company and we were all going to get rich.  I was given generous grants, but decided to leave.  I really wanted to buy my options but simply didn't have the money.  Shortly after I left the company folded, so the money would have been thrown away anyway.  When a company is private the motivate their employees with tales of riches, but they are not required to disclose financial data.  This company did a very good job of convincing employees that all was fine, when it wasn't. Also I received options in a publicly traded company.  Myself and other employees received options that were ""underwater"" or worth far less than the strike price.  You could let them expire so one did not owe money, but they were worthless. Hopefully that answers your question." Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company.  Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future).  From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off.  That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend).  And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important.  A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners.  But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value. "There's a significant difference between ""discount"" and ""surcharge"". For starters - legal difference. If you have a list price of $X - that's the price you're committed to sell regardless of the payment method. So it doesn't matter if I pay with cash or credit - I'll pay $X. However, it costs you more when I pay with credit - so you want to pass that cost on me. You charge me surcharge - an addition to the price. In some States in the US and in some other countries - that is against the law. You cannot add on top of the listed price any amount regardless of the payment method. However, you can say that the list price is $X, which includes the assumed credit card surcharge of $Y. And then you give discount of $Y to anyone not paying with credit card. The list price is still $X, regardless of the payment method. You don't have to give the discount, the discount is your cost of doing business. But that would be legal in some places (not all!) that forbid credit card surcharge. So the main difference from legal perspective is that you're not allowed to add to the list price, but you're allowed to discount from it. Regarding taxes - exemption/deduction is not a penalty for negative. Exemption/deduction is an implementation of a social policy. For example, it is for the public benefit for everyone to own a house. So the Congress comes up with a deduction of mortgage interest. However, you're not penalized if you don't own a house by paying higher taxes. Your tax rate doesn't change. You just don't get to deduct something that you might be able to deduct had you owned a house with a mortgage. This is, again - a discount of a list price, not a surcharge. You're not penalized if you don't have a house or don't have a mortgage, but if you do - you get a break. The author you're quoting claims that bottom line would be the same as if you considered the absence of a deduction as a penalty. But that's not true, because even if you do have a mortgage you may not be able to deduct it because your income is too high, the mortgage is for too much, or your mortgage is not on the primary residence. So mere existence of the mortgage doesn't directly correlate to the existence of the deduction. Similarly with credit card surcharges - you may get a cash discount, but you may get the similar amount of money back even if you use a credit card. Not as a cash discount but rather as rewards, cash-backs or points. However, if there's no cash discount, you won't be getting these if you're paying cash. So again - you're not penalized for having a credit card by not getting a discount, because you may still get it in a different way - and if you don't, you still may end up not getting it. So the quote is a rather simplistic and negative view and more of an opinion than stating a fact."