What is market capitalization? [duplicate]
Market Capitalization is the equity value of a company. It measures the total value of the shares available for trade in public markets if they were immediately sold at the last traded market price. Some people think it is a measure of a company's net worth, but it can be a misleading for a number of reasons. Share price will be biased toward recent earnings and the Earnings Per Share (EPS) metric. The most recent market price only reflects the lowest price one market participant is willing to sell for and the highest price another market participant is willing to buy for, though in a liquid market it does generally reflect the current consensus. In an imperfect market (for example with a large institutional purchase or sale) prices can diverge widely from the consensus price and when multiplied by outstanding shares, can show a very distorted market capitalization. It is also a misleading number when comparing two companies' market capitalization because while some companies raise the money they need by selling shares on the markets, others might prefer debt financing from private lenders or sell bonds on the market, or some other capital structure. Some companies sell preferred shares or non-voting shares along with the traditional shares that exist. All of these factors have to be considered when valuing a company. Large-cap companies tend to have lower but more stable growth than small cap companies which are still expanding into new markets because of their smaller size. Market capitalization is one way to represent the value of the company. So if a company has 10 million shares, which are each worth $100, then the company's market capitalization is 1 billion. Large cap companies tend to be larger and more stable. Small cap companies are smaller, which indicates higher volatility. So if you want more aggressive investments then you may want to invest in small cap companies while if you lean on the side of caution then big cap companies may be your friend. "Market Capitalization is the value the market attributes to the company shares calculated by multiplying the current trading price of these shares by the total amount of shares outstanding. So a company with 100 shares trading at $10 has a market cap of $1000. It is technically not the same as the value of a company (in the sense of how much someone would need to pay to acquire the company), Enterprise value is what you want to determine the net value of a company which is calculated as the market capitalization + company debt (as the acquirer has to take on this debt) - company cash (as the acquirer can pocket this for itself). The exact boundary for when a company belongs to a certain ""cap"" is up for debate. For a ""large cap""  a market capitalization of $10 billion+ is usually considered the cutoff (with $100+ billion behemoths being called ""mega caps""). Anything between $10 billion and ~$1 billion is considered ""mid cap"", from ~$1billion to ~$200 million it's called a ""small cap"" and below $200 million is ""nano cap"".  Worth noting that these boundaries change quite dramatically over time as the overall average market capitalization increases as companies grow, for example in the 80s a company with a market cap of $1 billion would be considered ""large cap"". The market ""determines"" what the market cap of company should be based (usually but certainly not always!) on the historical and expected profit a company makes, for a simple example let's say that our $1000 market cap company makes $100 a year,  this means that this company's earnings per share is $1. If the company grows to make $200 a year you can reasonably expect the share price to rise from $10 to ~$20 with the corresponding increase in market cap. (this is all extremely simplified of course)." Market Capitalization is the product of the current share price (the last time someone sold a share of the stock, how much?) times the number of outstanding shares of stock, summed up over all of the stock categories. Assuming the efficient market hypothesis and a liquid market, this gives the current total value of the companies' assets (both tangible and intangible). Both the EMH and perfect liquidity may not hold at all times. Beyond those theoretical problems, in practice, someone trying to buy or sell the company at that price is going to be in for a surprise; the fact that someone wants to sell that many stocks, or buy that many stocks, will move the price of the company stock.
It means $400m expected revenue, likely spread out over multiple years as it gets implemented, and not entirely guaranteed to happen as they still need to fulfill the contract. The impact on the stock price is complex - it should be positive, but nowhere close to a $400m increase in market cap. If the company is expected to routinely win such contracts, it may have no significant effect on the stock price, as it's already priced in - say, if analysts expect the company to win 1.2b contracts in this fiscal year, and now they've done 1/3 of that, as expected. "At any given moment, one can tally the numbers used for NAV. It's math, and little more. The Market Cap, which as you understand is a result of share value. Share value (stock price) is what the market will pay today for the shares. It's not only based on NAV today, but on future expectations. And expectations aren't the same for each of us. Which is why there are always sellers for the buyers of a stock, and vice-versa.  From your question, we agree that NAV can be measured, it's the result of adding up things that are all known. (For now, let's ignore things such as ""goodwill."") Rarely is a stock price simply equal to the NAV divided by the number of shares. Often, it's quite higher. The simplest way to look at it is that the stock price not only reflects the NAV, but investors' expectations looking into the future.  If you look for two companies with identical NAV per share but quite different share prices, you'll see that the companies differ in that one might be a high growth company, the other, a solid one but with a market that's not in such a growth mode." "It's either equal weighted or market cap weighted,  not both. This one appears to be equal weighted.  "" S&amp;P Pharmaceuticals Select Industry Index (SPSIPH) is an equal-weighted index that draws constituents from the GICS sub-industries that contain companies involved in pharmaceutical related activities. Liquidity and market capitalization screens are applied to the indices to ensure investability""  http://www.amex.com/amextrader/tdrInfo/data/axNotices/2006/valert2006-17.html" "Buying pressure is when there are more buy orders than sell orders outstanding.  Just because someone wants to buy a stock doesn't mean there's a seller ready to fill that order.  When there's buying pressure, stock prices rise.  When there's selling pressure, stock prices fall. There can be high volume where buying and selling are roughly equal, in which case share prices wouldn't move much. The market makers who actually fill buy and sell orders for stock will raise share prices in the face of buying pressure and lower them in the face of selling pressure.  That's because they get to keep the margin between what they bought shares from a seller for and what they can sell them to a new buyer for.  Here's an explanation from InvestorPlace.com about ""buying pressure"": Buying pressure can basically be defined as increasingly higher demand for a particular stock's shares. This demand for shares exceeds the supply and causes the price to rise. ... The strength or weakness of a stock determines how much buying or selling interest will be required to break support and resistance areas. I hope this helps!" In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity. Buying pressure means there are more interested buyers than there are ready sellers putting upward pressure on prices. That might include institutional buyers who are slowly executing buy orders because they still want the best prices possible without clearing out the market. Buying pressure doesn't have to be related to volume at all. If everyone who owns shares think they are going to be worth far more than recent market prices, they will not offer them for sale. That means there is more demand to buy than there is a supply of shares to be bought. That condition can exist regardless of trading volume. "Market cap is the current value of a company's equity and is defined as the current share price multiplied by the number of shares. Please check also ""enterprise value"" for another definition of a company`s total value (enterprise value = market cap adjusted for net nebt). Regarding the second part of your question: Issuing new shares usually does not affect market cap in a significant way because the newly issued shares often result in lower share prices and dilution of the existing share holders shares." The difference between the two numbers is that the market size of a particular product is expressed as an annual number ($10 million per year, in your example).  The market cap of a stock, on the other hand, is a long-term valuation of the company. "You are comparing two things that are not comparable.  The ""market size"" would be the total annual revenue in one market, in this year.  The ""market caps"" of a company is the number of shares multiplied by the share price. This should be equal to the total profit that the company is going to make through its life time, taking into account that you would get interest on an investment, so future profits have to be counted less accordingly.  So if the ""market size"" is ten million dollars, and a company has four million revenue in that market with one million profit, and everyone thinks that company will continue making that profit for the next fifty years, then surely one million a year for the next 50 years is worth more than ten million.  That's if the market stands still. If the ""market size"" is ten million, and we expect that market size to double for the next three years, then the market size is still ten million, but a company having a 40% share of a market growing at that speed is going to be worth a lot more!" "Lots of questions: In general, no. Market Capitalization and Equity represent 2 different things.  Equity first, the equity of a firm is the value of the assets (what it owns) less its liabilities (what it owes) and consists (broadly) of two components - share capital (what the firm gets when it sells to investors as part of an IPO or subsequent share issue) and retained earnings (what the firm has as a result of making profits and not paying them out as dividends). This is the theoretical liquidation value of the firm - what it is worth if it stops trading, sells all its assets and pays all its debts. Market Capitalization is the current value of the future cash flow of the firm as perceived by the market - the value today of all the dividends that the firm will pay in the future for as long as it exists. This is the theoretical going concern value of the firm - what it is worth as a functioning business. In general, Market Capitalization is bigger than Equity - if it isn't the firm is worth more as scrap than as an operating business. Um ... no. If you don't have any shares then you are by definition not an owner. Having shares is what makes you an owner. What I think you mean is, is it possible for the owner(s) of a private company to sell all of its shares when it goes public? The answer is yes. It is uncommon for a start-up owner to do this but it is standard practice for ""corporate raiders"" who buy failing companies, take them private, restructure them and then take them public again - they have done their job and they are not interested in maintaining an ownership stake. Nope. See above and below. Not at all, equity is an accounting construct and market capitalization is about market sentiment. Consider the following hypothetical firm: It has $1m in equity, it makes $4m in profit and will do for the foreseeable future, it pays all of that $4m out as dividends - if we work on a simple ROI of 10% then this firm is worth $40m dollars - way more than its equity." I think you're over complicating it! There is the market maker in the pure sense as what chilldontkill said - a bookie, a middleman. They are just the brokers in between the buyers and sellers, and they simply make profit off of the spread differential.  But market maker is also used to refer to large, high volume buyers and sellers that can influence the price because they control a larger % of volume. These only really exist on low volume products, and they slowly ween out the larger the volume. On higher volume products, I like to refer to them as institutions - that is, well informed, large pockets - whether is be central banks, clearing houses, hedge funds, boutique firms. These are the people who are generally in the know and they often bet against eachother.hope this helps ... Quote driven markets are the predecessors to the modern securities market. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous.  Today, the average investor can open up a web page, type in a security, and buy at the narrowest spread permitted by regulators with anyone else who wants to take the other side. Before the lines between market maker and speculator became blurred to indistinction, a market maker was one who was contractually obligated to an exchange to provide a bid and ask for a given security on said exchange even though at heart a market maker is still simply a trader despite the obligation.  A market maker would simultaneously buy a large amount of securities privately and short the same amount to have no directional bias, exposure to the direction of the security, and commence to making the market.  The market maker would estimate its cost basis for the security based upon those initial trades and provide a bid and ask appropriate for the given level of volume.  If volumes were high, the spread would be low and vice versa. Market makers who survived crashes and spikes would forgo the potential profit in always providing a steady price and spread, ie increased volume otherwise known as revenue, to maintain no directional bias.  In other words, if there were suddenly many buyers and no sellers, hitting the market maker's ask, the MM would raise the ask rapidly in proportion to the increased exposure while leaving the bid somewhere below the cost basis.  Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly.  This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis.  Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers.  This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical.  Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks.  The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader.  Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent.  With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen. The worst aspect of the quote driven market was that traders could not directly trade with each other, so all trades had to go between a market maker, specialist, etc.  While this may seem to have increased cost to a trader who could only trade with another trader by being arbitraged by a MM et al, paying more than what another trader was willing to sell, these costs were dwarfed by the potential absence of those market makers.  Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade, so the costs were momentarily infinite. In essence, a quote driven market protects market makers from the competition of traders.  While necessary in the days where paper receipts were carted from brokerage to brokerage, and the trader did not dedicate itself to round the clock trading, it has no place in a computerized market.  It is more costly to the trader to use such a market, explaining quote driven markets' rapid exit. "If you look at the biotech breakdown, you'll find a lot of NAs when it comes to P/E since there are many young biotech companies that have yet to make a profit.  Thus, there may be something to be said for how is the entire industry stat computed. Biotechnology can include pharmaceutical companies that can have big profits due to patents on drugs. As an example, look at Shire PLC which has a P/E of 1243 which is pretty high with a Market Capitalization of over a billion dollars, so this isn't a small company.  I wonder what dot-com companies would have looked like in 1998/1999 that could well be similar as some industries will have bubbles you do realize, right? The reason for pointing out the Market Capitalization is that this a way to measure the size of a company, as this is merely the sum of all the stock of the company.  There could be small companies that have low market capitalizations that could have high P/Es as they are relatively young and could be believed to have enough hype that there is a great deal of confidence in the stock.  For example, Amazon.com was public for years before turning a profit.  In being without profits, there is no P/E and thus it is worth understanding the limitations of a P/E as the computation just takes the previous year's earnings for a company divided by the current stock price.  If the expected growth rate is high enough this can be a way to justify a high P/E for a stock.  The question you asked about an industry having this is the derivation from a set of stocks.  If most of the stocks are high enough, then whatever mean or median one wants to use as the ""industry average"" will come from that." Any portfolio, even one composed of risk-free assets is subject to risk. That said, to short an equity without margin risk, puts can provide.  To replicate a short without excess margin, an at the money put should be used.  To take on less leverage, a deep in the money put can be used.  Puts are not available on equities deemed illiquid by regulation. A long/short portfolio can help mitigate variance risk, but then the problem becomes the risk of a lack of volatility since options decline in value over time and without a beneficial change in the underlying. Mint.com—Easy solution to provide insight into finances. Pros: Cons: