what's the difference between money raised in an ipo and its valuation?
A company generally sells a portion of its ownership in an IPO, with  existing investors retaining some ownership.  In your example, they believe that the entire company is worth $25MM, so in order to raise $3MM it is issuing stock representing 12% of the ownership stake (3/25), which dilutes some or all of the existing stockholders' claims.
Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company.  Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another The net worth is based on an estimate of how much he would get if he relinquished his stake.  The total funding is based on how much he has relinquished thus far. Suppose I have a candy jar with 100 candies.  I'm not sure how much these candies are worth, so I start off by selling 10% of the jar for $10.  Now I have 90 candies and $10, a total value of $100.  Then someone comes along offering $100 for another 10% (of the original jar, or 10 candies), which I accept.  Now I have 80 candies and $110.  Since I value each candy at $10 now, I calculate my worth as $910.  Then I do another deal selling 10% for $1000.  Now I have $1110 in cash and 70 candies valued at $100 each.  My total worth is now $8110 (cash + remaining candies), while the candy jar has only received $1110 in funding. Replace candies with equity in The Facebook, Inc. and you get the idea. "Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit.  I have a couple of questions, if that's alright.   Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio.  Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation?  Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the ""best time""?  Thank you so much for answering my questions." "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." Valuations are literally 100% driven by retail investors who 20 years ago were literally peasants and are not grounded in reality. I'm working at a small IB in China over the summer. The IPO I'm working on is a small cnc machining company. Some of its competitors are literally trading at 100x EBITDA, growing sales at literally 5%. Nobody who is in a management position has any inkling of how finance works(not to say they're not smart, just that they have no experience). It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price.  Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap.  Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price. "Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the ""value"" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash.   The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company.  That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you.  You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future.  If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want." "Many thanks for thedetailed  response, appreciate it. But I am still not clear on the distinction between a public company and the equity holders. Isn't a public company = shareholders + equity holders? Or do you mean ""company"" = shareholders+equity holders + debt holders?" "Should be titled, ""Facebook IPO: Could Mark Zuckerberg _Be Worth_ $24 Billion?""  They are reportedly looking to float only 10% of shares, at $10 billion, valuing the company at $100 billion. That doesn't mean Zuckerberg gets a paycheck of $24B on that day.   While I think it's crazy that all these companies are getting such high valuations, I really want to see Facebook's financials. I also wonder how much worse Facebook will get with unnecessary shit when their goal is to meet their next quarter earnings." "There are no ""rules"" about how the price should act after an IPO, so there are no guarantee that a ""pop"" would appear at the opening day. But when an IPO is done, it's typically underpriced. On average, the shares are 10% up at the end of the first day after the IPO (I don't have the source that, I just remember that from some finance course). Also, after the IPO, the underwriter can be asked to support the trading of the share for a certain period of time. That is the so called stabilizing agent. They have few obligations like: This price support in often done by a repurchase of some of the shares of poorly performing IPO. EDIT: Informations about the overallotment pool. When the IPO is done, a certain number of client buy the shares issued by the company. The underwriter, with the clients, can decide to create an overallotment pool, where the clients would get a little more shares (hence ""overallotment""), but this time the shares are not issued by the company but by the underwriter. To put it another way, the underwriter oversell and becomes short by a certain number of shares (limited to 15% of the IPO). In exchange for the risk taken by this overallotment, the underwriter gets a greenshoe option from the clients, that will allows the underwriter to buy back the oversold shares, at the price of the IPO, from the clients. The idea behind this option is to avoid a market exposure for the underwriter. So, after the IPO: If the price goes down, the underwriter buys back on the market the overshorted shares and makes a profits. If the price goes up, the company exercise the greenshoe option buy the shares at the IPO prices (throught the overallotment pool, that is, the additional shares that the clients wanted ) to avoid suffering a loss." When a stock is going to become public there's a level of analysis required to figure out the range of IPO price that makes sense. For a company that's somewhat mature, and has a sector to compare it to, you can come up with a range that would be pretty close. For the recent linkedin, it's tougher to price a somewhat unique company, running at a loss, in a market rich with cash looking for the next great deal. If one gives this any thought, an opening price that's so far above the IPO price represents a failure of the underwriters to price it correctly. It means the original owners just sold theirvshares for far less than the market thought they were worth on day one. The day of IPO the stock opens similar to how any stock would open at 9:30, there are bids and asks and a price at which supply (the ask) and demand (bid) balance. For this IPO, it would appear that there were enough buyers to push the price to twice the anticipated open and it's maintained that level since.  It's possible to have a different system in which a Dutch auction is used to make the shares public, in theory this can work, it's just not used commonly. "To add to @keshlam's answer slightly a stock's price is made up of several components: the only one of these that is known even remotely accurately at any time is the book value on the day that the accounts are prepared. Even  completed cashflows after the books have been prepared contain some slight unknowns as they may be reversed if stock is returned, for example, or reduced by unforeseen costs.  Future cashflows are based on (amongst other things) how many sales you expect to make in the future for all time. Exercise for the reader: how many iPhone 22s will apple sell in 2029? Even known future cashflows have some risk attached to them; customers may not pay for goods, a supplier may go into liquidation and so need to change its invoicing strategy etc.. Estimating the risk on future cashflows is highly subjective and depends greatly on what the analyst expects the exact economic state of the world will be in the future. Investors have the choice of investing in a risk free instrument (this is usually taken as being modelled by the 10 year US treasury bond) that is guaranteed to give them a return. To invest in anything riskier than the risk free instrument they must be paid a premium over the risk free return that they would get from that. The risk premium is related to how likely they think it is that they will not receive a return higher than that rate. Calculation of that premium is highly subjective; if I know the management of the company well I will be inclined to think that the investment is far less risky (or perhaps riskier...) than someone who does not, for example. Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no ""right"" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation." "Working for a lot of startups, I have seen this cycle. Really it has little to do with making the IPO look good because of number of employees, and is more about making the IPO look good because of planning for the future. Many times an IPO is released, it will be valued at $1.00 (made up) and the market will soar and spike. Now stock shares are valued at $3.00. Great. Till after the dust settles a bit, and stocks are valued at $0.85.  This is ""normal"" and good.  It would be better if the stocks ended a little higher than their initial value, but... such is life.  Now the initial value of the stock is made up of basically the value of the company's assets, and employees are part of those assets and its earning power. They are also a liability, but that has less impact on initial value than assets. Sales right after IPO are based on how well a company will do. Part of that is growth. So it looks nicer to say: ""We have 500 employees and have been growing by 20% per month."" than to say ""We have 100 employees"". In other words, before IPO, employees may be hired to make the company look like it is growing. They may be hired because the budget is projected based on expected growth and expected valuation.  After IPO, you get a concrete number. You have your budget. It may be more than you thought, or it may be less. In our example, the real budget (from capital), is only 28% of the entire projected budget, and 85% of the initial value. It's time to make some budget cuts.  Also, normally, there is a period of adjustment, company wide, as a company goes from VC funding, ""here, have as much money as you want"", to ""real world"" funding, with stricter limits and less wiggle room." "Neither. Why would you have to classify startups as value or growth?  A startup is its own category.  You can find startups at ""classic"" valuations (price/book...  Etc) that would make investors' eyes water...   But that happens because many startups are early stage and so revenue or book value or other classic valuations don't quite suit." 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.