What's the most correct way to calculate market cap for multi-class companies?
From their 10-K pulled directly from Edgar:  As of October 22, 2015, there were 291,327,781 shares of Alphabet   Inc.’s (the successor issuer pursuant to Rule 12g-3(a) under the   Exchange Act as of October 2, 2015) (Alphabet) Class A common stock   outstanding, 50,893,362 shares of Alphabet's Class B common stock   outstanding, and 345,504,021 Alphabet's Class C capital stock   outstanding. From here just do the math. The shares outstanding are listed on the first page of the 10-Q and 10-K reports. Edit: I believe Class B shares in this instance are not traded on the market and therefore would not be included. "Some companies issue multiple classes of shares.  Each share may have different ratios applied to ownership rights and voting rights.  Some shares classes are not traded on any exchange at all.  Some share classes have limited or no voting rights.   Voting rights ratios are not used when calculating market cap but the market typically puts a premium on shares with voting rights. Total market cap must include ALL classes of shares, listed or not, weighted according to thee ratios involved in the company's ownership structure.  Some are 1:1, but in the case of Berkshire Hathaway, Class B shares are set at an ownership level of 1/1500 of the Class A shares. In terms of Alphabet Inc, the following classes of shares exist as at 4 Dec 2015: When determining market cap, you should also be mindful of other classes of securities issued by the company, such as convertible debt instruments and stock options.  This is usually referred to as ""Fully Diluted"" assuming all such instruments are converted."
Go to bankrate dot com. They will have a lot of metrics there that might give you an idea and rate each category. Capitalization and profitability metrics. May not be as granular as what you are looking for though. Enterprise Value is supposed to be the price you would be willing to pay to acquire the company. Typically, companies are delivered debt-free and cash-free, so the cash on the balance sheet at the time of the transaction is distributed to the original owners. So, for instance, a company like Apple would have a lower EV than Market Value because the cash on the balance sheet is not going to be included in an acquisition.  And you are right, there are plenty of instances where you see Enterprise Value lower than Market Value (Cap).   If you are solely looking at equity valuation (equity investing), then use market cap. If you are looking at firm valuation for M&amp;A, then EV is more important. "Complex matter that doesn't boil down to a formula.   The quant aspect could be assessed by calculating WACCs under various funding scenarii and trying to minimize, but it is just one dimension of it.  The quali aspects can vary widely depending on the company, ownership structure, tax environment and business needs and it really can't be covered even superficially in a reddit comment...  Few examples from the top of my mind to give you a sense of it:  - shareholders might be able to issue equity but want to avoid dilution, so debt is preferred in the end despite cost. Or convertible debt under the right scenario.  - company has recurring funding needs and thinks that establishing a status on debt market is worth paying a premium to ensure they can ""tap"" it whenever hey need to.  - adding debt is a way to leverage and enhance ROI/IRR for certain types of stakeholders (think LBOs)  - etc etc etc  Takes time and a lot of experience/work to be able to figure out what's best and there isn't always a clear answer.  Source: pro buy side credit investor with experience and sizeable AuMs." "Market caps is just the share price, multiplied by the number of shares. It doesn't represent any value (if people decide to pay more or less for the shares, the market cap goes up or down). It does represent what people think the company is worth.  NAV sounds very much like book value. It basically says ""how much cash would we end up with if we sold everything the company owns, paid back all the debt, and closed down the business? "" Since closing down the business is rarely a good idea, this underestimates the value of the business enormously. Take a hairdresser who owns nothing but a pair of scissors, but has a huge number of repeat customers, charges $200 for a haircut, and makes tons of money every year. The business has a huge value, but NAV = price of one pair of used scissors." 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. In market cap weighted index there is fairly heavy concentration in the largest stocks. The top 10 stocks typically account for about 20% of the S&P 500 index.  In Equal Weight this bias towards large caps is removed. The Market Cap method would be good when large stocks drive the markets. However if the markets are getting driven by Mid Caps and Small caps, the equal weight wins. Historically most big companies start out small and grow big fast in a short span of time. Thus if we were to do Market cap one would have purchased smaller number of shares of the said company as its cap/weight would have been small and when it becomes big we would have purchased the shares at a higher price. However if we were to do equal weight, then as the company grows big one would have more share at a cheaper price and would result in better returns. There is a nice article on this, also gives the comparision of the returns over a period of 10 years, where equal weight index has done good. It does not mean that it would continue. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/08/index-debate.asp#axzz1RRDCnFre Sure let's say we're starting with the equity value of a public company. Fully diluted shares times market price. We add debt and subtract all cash to give us enterprise value. Calculate a multiple on that. Look what we did up there, we subtracted out all cash. The DCF approach assumes we have an operating level of cash when it calculates a value. You're saying that the DCF spits out an enterprise value. It cannot be an enterprise value if the DCF approach assumes we hold cash. We would have to subtract out an operating level of cash from the DCF concluded value to compare it apples to apples to the cashless enterprise values we derived from the market approach multiples. The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio  For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.) "The quickest way to approach this question is to first understand that it compares flows vs. levels. Market size is usually stated as an annual or other period figure, e.g. ""The market size of refrigerators will be $10mn in 2019.""  This is a flow figure. Market capitalization is a level figure at any given point in time, e.g. ""The market cap of the company was $20 million at the end of its last fiscal quarter."" Confusion sometimes occurs when levels and flows are used loosely for comparisons.  It is common for media to make statements such as ""Joe Billionaire is worth more than the GDP of Roselandia.""  That is comparing a current level (net worth) with an annual flow (GDP). With this in mind, there are a variety of conditions where a company's equity market value will exceed its market size.  The most extreme example is an innovating, development-stage enterprise, say, a biotech company, developing a new market for a new product; the current market size may be nil while the enterprise is worth something greater. The primary reason however for situations where a company's equity market cap is greater than its market size is usually that the financial market expects the enterprise (and oftentimes its market, though this isn't necessary) to grow substantially over time and hence the discounted value of the company may be greater than the current or near future market size. A final example:  US annual GDP (which comprises of much more than corporate incomes and profits) for 2014 was about $17.4tn while the nation's total equity market value in 2014 was $25.1tn, both according to the World Bank.  That latter figure also doesn't include the trillions of corporate debts these companies have issued so the total market cap of US, Inc. is substantially greater than $25.1tn." Adding assets (equity) and liabilities (debt) never gives you anything useful. The value of a company is its assets (including equity) minus its liabilities (including debt). However this is a purely theoretical calculation. In the real world things are much more complicated, and this isn't going to give you a good idea of much a company's shares are worth in the real world "Your company actually will most likely use some sort of options pricing model, either a binomial tree or black-scholes to determine the value for their accounting and, subsequently, for their issuance and realization.  First, market value of equity will be determined. Given you're private (although ""pre-IPO could mean public tomorrow,""), this will likely revolve around a DCF and/or market approaches.  Equity value will then be compared to a cap table to create an equity waterfall, where the different classes of stock and the different options will be valued along tranches. Keep in mind there might be liquidation preferences that would make options essentially further out of the money.  As such, your formulae above do not quite work. However, as an employee, it might be difficult to determine the necessary inputs to determine value.  To estimate it, however, look for three key pieces of information:  1. Current equity value  2. Option strike price  3. Maturity for Options  If the strike is close to the current equity value, and the maturity is long enough, and you expect the company to grow, then it would look like the options have more value than not.   Equity value can be derived from enterprise value, or by directly determining it via a DCF or guideline multiples.   Reliable forecasts should come from looking at the industry, listening to what management is saying, and then your own information as an insider." "Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers.  This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact.  How you use those answers to estimate a ""price"" is up to you.  You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify.   There is no ""right"" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock." "A bit strange but okay.  The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings.   Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says ""the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years"" - that just seems like an absurd timeline.  Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated.  And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a ""liquidation value"". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity." For each class A share (GOOGL) there's a class C share (GOOG), hence the missing half in your calculation. The almost comes from the slightly higher market price of the class A shares (due to them having voting powers) over class C (which have no voting powers). There's also class B share which is owned by the founders (Larry, Sergei, Eric and perhaps some to Stanford University and others) and differs from class A by the voting power. These are not publicly traded. 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.