Would cross holding make market capitalization apparently more?
I started to work out, step by step, why this doesn't work, but the scenario is too convoluted to make that helpful.  Basically, you're making mistakes in some or all of the following spots: Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm.   Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase.
"In addition to the answers provided above, the weight the Dow uses to determine the index is not the market capitalization of the company involved. That means that companies like Google and Apple with very high share prices and no particular inclination to split could adversely effect the Dow, turning it into essentially the ""Apple and Google and then some other companies"" Industrial Average. The highest share price Dow company right now, IIRC, is IBM. Both Google and Apple would have three times the influence on the Index as IBM does now." I don't see that this follows. Capital commitments require that one assess the ability to unwind as information changes - market frictions.  Thats why private equity demands a premium.    HFT is not investing - it is far closer to market making.  In that regard it is a social good.  What is of a concern is that they are far less supervised than a market maker.  They provide liquidity the way bankers provide loans - when it is not essential.  The old adage of an umbrella when it is sunny but take them back at the sign of rain.  If there are requirements to commit capital and maintain orderly markets with some oversight on their ability to maintain their capital ratios, a shadow market maker, then they should get to enjoy making a spread in exchange for keeping those spreads relatively tight. "This is a good question and my answer below, being the first rationale that crossed my mind, is far from fleshed-out. It's just a reply based on many books on the historical cycles of markets and it's something I've discussed at work (I work in finance).   Historically we can observe that periods of financial ""booms"" entailing high valuations of public equities tend to lead to lower returns. It's a fairly simplistic notion, but if you're paying more now for something - when it's potentially close to a high water mark - then you're returns in the short term are likely to be somewhat stunted. Returns from the underlying companies have a hard time keeping up with high valuations such that investors aren't likely to see a bountiful return in the short run." Investopedia has a nice article on this here The Key benefit looks like better returns with lower capital. The disadvantage is few brokers offering that can be trusted. Potentially lower return due to margins / spreads. Higher leverage and can become an issue. Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds.  MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't.  MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc. In my original question, I  was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear. Yes, the larger number of ETFs will have a greater chance of enhancing the effect you observe. It's beyond a simple discussion, but the bottom line is that by carving out the different market segments your rebalancing will have greater impact. Is this a time of day effect by using, e.g. closing prices, in markets that close at different times?  If so, you can mitigate this by looking at returns over longer periods (weekly, monthly or quarterly).  If the cross-listed equities are showing consistently different returns at the exact same time, then you should be more concerned in figuring out how to trade the arbitrage rather than estimating a beta. Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research.  High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else.  Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served. "As a common shareholder, why would I want to approve an increase in the number of authorized shares?"" Because it could increase the value of your existing shares. Companies sell new shares to raise capital, and they use capital to (among other things) expand. If Whole Foods issues new shares and uses the capital to opens new stores, then profit could increase enough to offset the dilution effect, and your stock price will go up. You should ask yourself:  What areas is is your company of choice planning on expanding into? Will they do well there? Are there better ways for the company to raise capital (debt, cash in hand, cut expenses elsewhere, etc)? If you think that the management has a good plan for expanding, then authorizing new shares makes good sense for you personally." No, there is no real advantage. The discrepancies in how they track the index will (generally) be so small that this provides very, very limited diversification, while increasing the complexity of your investments. Everything would depend on whether the calculation is being done using the company's all-time high intraday trading price or all-time high closing price. Further, I've seen calculations using non-public pricing data, such as bid-offer numbers from market makers, although this wouldn't be kosher. The likelihood is that you're seeing numbers that were calculated using different points in time. For the record, I think Apple has overtaken Microsoft's all-time highest market cap with a figure somewhere north of $700 billion (nominal).  Here's an interesting article link on the subject of highest-ever valuations: comparison of highest market caps ever I am not a structured products expert, just relaying what's in the article, but I'd imagine it includes a larger equity tranche in the structured product, thereby giving more cushion against losses to the actual debt investors in the tranches above it in the payment water fall. Yea good points and they definitely should not be overlooked. The whole point of the EV calculation is to get the analyst to look at what the true underlying business is and what one is really paying for when buying securities in a company. Market Cap can be misleading for many reasons and get real annoyed when people say things like, I own XYZ company because its cash account is greater than its market cap.... It depends completely on the current order book for that security.  There is literally no telling how that buy order would move the price of a stock in general.