How does a high share price benefit a company when it is raising funds?
"In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of ""shares"" of equity in the company. Usually, these ""shares"" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of ""controlling interests"". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For ""private"" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For ""public"" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares. Second, the price of a stock is based on its demand in the market, and a key component of that is scarcity; the fewer shares of a company that are available, the more they'll cost. When a company issues more stock, there's more shares available, so people can get all they want and the demand drops, taking the share price with it. When there's more shares, each share (being a smaller percentage of the company) earns less in dividends as well, which figures into several key metrics for determining whether to buy or sell stock, like earnings per share and price/earnings ratio. Now, you also asked about ""dilution"". That's pretty straightforward. By adding more shares of stock to the overall pool, you increase that denominator; each share becomes a smaller percentage of the company. The ""privately-held"" stocks are reduced in the same way. The problem with simply adding stocks to the open market, getting their initial purchase price, is that a larger overall percentage of the company is now on the open market, meaning the ""controlling interests"" have less control of their company. If at any time the majority of shares are not owned by the controlling interests, then even if they all agree to vote a certain way (for instance, whether or not to merge assets with another company) another entity could buy all the public shares (or convince all existing public shareholders of their point of view) and overrule them. There are various ways to avoid this. The most common is to issue multiple types of stock. Typically, ""common"" stock carries equal voting rights and equal shares of profits. ""Preferred stock"" typically trades a higher share of earnings for no voting rights. A company may therefore keep all the ""common"" stock in private hands and offer only preferred stock on the market. There are other ways to ""class"" stocks, most of which have a similar tradeoff between earnings percentage and voting percentage (typically by balancing these two you normalize the price of stocks; if one stock had better dividends and more voting weight than another, the other stock would be near-worthless), but companies may create and issue ""superstock"" to controlling interests to guarantee both profits and control. You'll never see a ""superstock"" on the open market; where they exist, they are very closely held. But, if a company issues ""superstock"", the market will see that and the price of their publicly-available ""common stock"" will depreciate sharply. Another common way to increase market cap without diluting shares is simply to create more shares than you issue publicly; the remainder goes to the current controlling interests. When Facebook solicited outside investment (before it went public), that's basically what happened; the original founders were issued additional shares to maintain controlling interests (though not as significant), balancing the issue of new shares to the investors. The ""ideal"" form of this is a ""stock split""; the company simply multiplies the number of shares it has outstanding by X, and issues X-1 additional shares to each current holder of one share. This effectively divides the price of one share by X, lowering the barrier to purchase a share and thus hopefully driving up demand for the shares overall by making it easier for the average Joe Investor to get their foot in the door. However, issuing shares to controlling interests increases the total number of shares available, decreasing the market value of public shares that much more and reducing the amount of money the company can make from the stock offering." A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%.  While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out Well, if one share cost $100 and the company needs to raise $10000, then the company will issue 100 shares for that price.  Right? However, say there's 100 shares out there now, then each share holder owns 1/100th of the company. Now the company will remain the same, but it's shared between 200 shareholders after the issuing of new shares.  That means each share holder now owns 1/200th of the company.  And hence only gets 1/200th of their earnings etc. "Share price is based on demand.  Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price.  So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount.  A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price ""may"" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore ""may"" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course."
The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes.  While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context?  One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company.  How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example?  Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes.  However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example. Typically in a developed / developing economy if there is high overall inflation, then it means everything will rise including property/real estate. The cost of funds is low [too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation] which means more companies borrow money cheaply and more business florish and hence the stock market should also go up.   So if you are looking at a situation where industry is doing badly and the inflation is high, then it means there are larger issues. The best bet would be Gold and parking the funds into other currency. "If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down).  If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not ""stealing"", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it." Another benefit of holding shares longer was just pointed out in another question: donating appreciated shares to a nonprofit may avoid the capital gains tax on those shares, which is a bigger savings the more those shares have gone up since purchase. The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its   expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or   two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can   sell it and make more money than dividends. The purpose is to go public but also to generate more wealth. The real money comes when market values you at a price more than your cash flow. If a company brings in $1000 of cash flow, then that is what the employees and owners have to distribute among themselves. But if they are likely to increase to $2000 next and $4000 next year and they go public then the stock will do well. In this case, the promoters and employees with options/RSUs will benefit as well. The increased visibility is also very useful. Look at Google or FB. They didn't need the IPO proceed when they went public. They had enough cash from their business but then they would only have $1-10 billion a year. But due to the IPO their investors and employees have a huge net worth.  Basically, with just a small % of shares in the public you can value the company at a high price valuing in the future cash flows (with a discount rate etc.). So instead of realizing the profit over the next 15 years, you get to enjoy it right away. There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good. In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity.  In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares.  If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive.  Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason.  Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important.  If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same. After a company goes public, if it wants to raise more money, then it does this by secondary public offering or rights issue. In subscription rights issue gives the right to existing share holders to buy new shares at equal proportion. So if every one buys, they maintain the same percentage of ownership. Generally the pricing is at discount to current market price. Not sure why the price is high, unless the price for this stock fell sharply recently. "In some cases, when a company purchases a minor stake, they often intend to increase the size of the stake over time. As a reference, note that Coca Cola has increased their stake in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) over time. It also adds some ""support"" to the price because these investors may be willing to step in and purchase the stock if there is any distress or poor performance. Finally, its generally a good ""tell"" that the stock has good things going for it and may be subject to additional interest from large investors." "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!" "First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's ""goal"" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be.  Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk].  Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say ""this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest"". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market.  Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings." Companies are expected to make a profit, otherwise there is no point to their existence and no motivation for investment. That profit comes back to shareholders as growth and/or dividend. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to turn back into investment to facilitate increased future earnings, it increases shareholder equity and share price. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to pay out in dividend, it makes the shares more attractive to investors which pushes the price up. Either way, shares go up. Share prices drop when companies lose money, or there are market disturbances affecting all companies (recessions), or when individual companies fail. Averaged over all companies over the long term (decades), stocks can be reasonably expected to go up. Whatever the supply of labor and demand for labor set.   If tomorrow suddenly the American economy took off, unemployment dropped to almost 0, Walmart would have to start raising wages in order to fill cashier slots. Does this mean that suddenly Walmart employees are giving more to Walmart? No, of course not, it just means the supply and demand of labor had radically changed. Hey desquinbnt &amp; pontsone, I had an explanation written up about Share and Bond evaluation and in which, one share evaluation technique utilizes the P/E ratio - hence I explained it. Have a read, if you'd want me to go more in depth, let me know! :)  http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/09/introduction-to-bonds-and-share-valuation/