company market capitalization to total (annual) stock market capitalization
This depends. Quite a few stock exchanges / country report total capitalisation in terms of free float. I.E total shares that can be traded, ignoring the promoters shares. The market cap reported by company takes all shares. "Market cap is speculative value, M = P * W, where W is stock (or other way of owning) percentage of ownership, P - price of percentage of ownership. This could include ""outside of exchange"" deals. Some funds could buy ownership percentage directly via partial ownership deal. That ownership is not stock, but fixed-type which has value too. Stock market cap is speculative value, M2 = Q * D, where D is free stocks available freely, Q - price of stock, in other words Quote number (not price of ownership). Many stock types do NOT provide actual percentage of ownership, being just another type of bond with non-fixed coupon and non-fixed price. Though such stocks do not add to company's capitalization after sold to markets, it adds to market capitalization at the moment of selling via initial price."
For the constant growth problem, I don't see why the answer would be anything other than the stock price grown for 3 years at the cost of equity determined from CAPM. Someone can correct me if the dividend is relevant.  So:  rs = rf + beta x (market premium)  rs = 0.046 + 0.9 x (0.06) = 0.10  price now = $40.00  price after 3 years' growth = $40.00 x (1+0.10)^3 = $53.24  EDIT: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-dividend-yields-factored-into-beta  two conflicting answers so you'll just have to figure it out "1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes.  They are from two different perspectives.  Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy.  So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent.  One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia?  It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics.  However, that is not the issue here.  The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities.  The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly.  It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets.   Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets.  Hence, the short-term nature in its definition.  They are more focused on the money itself.     Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch.  Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development.   Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market.  In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves.  The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money.   So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters.  The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market.  After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it.  That money flows between traders.  Facebook got its money at the ""beginning"" of the process." "Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio.  With rental properties, the ""Cap Rate"" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate.  Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio." No, it is the same as it has always been. The market gives a valuation of a company based off its expected discounted cash flow.   Only problem we see is that many growth companies ($TSLA!!!) are being given the benefit of the doubt in regards to their expected growth and future profitability. **IF** Tesla does grow as many expect, then current share prices are definitely justifiable. But since when do we price things based on their ideal scenario? This market has lost its grip on risk-reward and risk tolerance. Does even a Tesla bull think that the company even has a &gt;10% chance at ever exceeding expectations in regards to near-future growth or profitability? And even those who are invested in the company admit there is a serious chance that Tesla fails to reach expectations for growth/margins.  Either way the market will cool soon. And negative cash flow companies with ultra-aggressive growth targets will be punished.  ---  If I wasn't poor/saving up to buy a house. I'd love to purchase 100 [January 2019 $50 Put Leaps at a cost of $0.55 each](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/option-chain/190118P00050000-tsla-put) (total cost $5,500).  A Tesla BK before January 18th 2019 would mean $50x100x100 - $5,500 = **$494,500** net profit WOW.  A reduction in market cap to $5 Billion and increase in outstanding shares to 200 million (currently at 167M) results in a net profit of **$244,500**  A reduction in market cap to $10 Billion with the same share dilution results in share price of $50 and thus a full loss of my $5,500. :( "You are comparing ""market caps"" and ""enterprise value"".  If the company has four billion dollars cash in the bank, then the value would be four billion plus whatever the business itself is worth as a business. If the business itself is only worth 400 million, then you would have 4.4bn market caps and 400 million enterprise value. The ""enterprise value"" is basically how much the business would be worth if it had no cash or no debt.  These numbers would be a very unusual situation. It could happen for example if a big company has sold 90% of its business for cash. When you buy a share of the company, you get a tiny share of the business and you own a tiny share of the cash. This stock will very likely keep its value, but won't make much money.  On the other hand, more common would be a company where the business is worth 4bn, but the company has also 4bn debt. So it is worth exactly zero. Market caps close to zero, but enterprise value $4bn, because you ignore the debt in the enterprise value.  Edit: Sorry, got the ""enterprise value"" totally wrong, read millions instead of billions: Your numbers would mean that you have a huge, huge company with close to 440bn debt. Most likely someone made a mistake here. A ""normal"" situation would be say a company with a business that is worth $500 million, but they have $100 million debt, so market caps = $400 million but enterprise value = $500 million.  PS. Yahoo has the same nonsense numbers on their UK site, and for other companies (I just checked Marks and Spencer's which apparently has an enterprise value of 800 billion pound with a totally ridiculous P/E ratio." "You'll generally get a number close to market cap of a mature company if you divide profits (or more accurately its free cash flow to equity) by the cost of equity which is usually something like ~7%.    The value is meant to represent the amount of cash you'd need to generate investment income off it matching the company you're looking at. Imagine it as asking ""How much money do I need to put into the bank so that my interest income would match the profits of the company I'm looking at"". Except replace the bank with the market and other forms of investments that generate higher returns of course and that value would be lower." First read mhoran's answer, Then this -  If the company sold nothing but refrigerators, and had 40% market share, that's $4M/yr in sales. If they have a 30% profit margin, $1.2M in profit each year. A P/E of 10 would give a stock value totaling $12M, more than the market size. The numbers are related, of course, but one isn't the maximum of the other. No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public.  However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital. As I recall, the gain for ISOs is considered ordinary income, and capital losses can only negate up to $3000 of this each year.  If you exercised and held the stock, you have ordinary income to the exercise price, and cap gain above that, if you hold the stock for two years.  EDIT - as noted below, this answer works for USians who found this question, but not for the OP who is Canadian, or at least asked a question at it relates to Canada's tax code. Treat each transaction as separate, with its own principal, its own gain, and its own number of days.  Then the total annualized return is just a weighted average of each annualized return, with the weighting related to the number of shares in that transaction. "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." cash isn't part of changes in working capital calculation - dont include it in current assets.   *edit - Also to answer a question you didn't ask, subtracting cash doesn't skew the multiples.  If cash really is that excess, the market cap will reflect a large cash position, thus adding it all back into EV.  Think of apple as a good example.  If they theoretically would dividend out all the cash, market cap would drop and so would EV. "The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say ""growth"".  If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth.  The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling ""final goods"" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP.  The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run.  It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute.   Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms.  Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm.  Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the ""technicalities"" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about ""growth"" in the market, what they really mean is ""return"".  That is, how much does your investment earn for you.  This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing.  It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy.  The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits.  One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business.  However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible.  Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends.  Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy?  Yes.  Well, sort of.  The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments.  Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level.  If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment.  If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment.  The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent.  The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population.  I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets.  This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return.  However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption.  If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return.  It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population." If you want to see a more academic version of this look up Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC).   It's a formula that tells you how much it costs for a company to raise $1 of capital whether it be through issuing bonds or stocks.   One thing you learn is that there are times that if you take on loans (even if you don't need it) you can raise shareholder value and therefore the total company netvalue. The thought process is (as it states in the article above) that a company can issue debt for cheaper than issue shares and it will have extra cash which it can use to get a better return than its net effective interest rate.   I tried to give an example but I only ended up rehashing what it says in the article. Anyhow look up WACC and you'll understand the fundamentals. "which means the current total is $548,100. Is that correct? Yep Unfortunately the ""current"" GM stock is different than the GM stock of 1989.  GM went bankrupt in 2011.  It's original stock changed to Motors Liquidation Company (MTLQQ) and is essentially worthless today.  There was no conversion from the old stock to the new stock. What do I do with these certificates? Can I bring them to my bank, or do I need to open an account with a stock company like Fidelity? See here for some instructions on cashing them in (or at least registering them electronically).  I've never dealt with physical stocks, but I presume that a broker is going to charge you something for registering them vs. direct registration, though I have no idea how much that would be. I read somewhere that I only have to pay taxes when I cash out these stocks. But are these rules any different because I inherited the stocks? You will pay capital gains tax on the increase in value from the time your father died to the time you sell the shares.  If that time is more than one year (and the stock has gone up in value) you will pay a 15% tax on the total increase.  If you have held them less than one year, they will be short-term capital gains which will count as regular income, and you will pay whatever your marginal tax rate is. If you sell the stock at a loss, then you'll be able to deduct some or all of that loss from your income, and may be able to carry forward losses for a few years as well. I did not catch that the stock you mention was GM stock.  GM went bankrupt in 2011, so it's likely that the stock you own is worthless.  I have edited the first answer appropriately but left the other two since they apply more generally.  In your case the best you get is a tax deduction for the loss in value from the date your father died."