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."
I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value.  The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks.  In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns.  Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed.  Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors.  This has to be done by 6pm eastern.  This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day.  Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET.  Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with.  If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees. That's because they literally could not help you. It's not that they were just unwilling to. A hedge fund manager might be able to do it, because the person who bet on Facebook would be willing to let him borrow their shares.  An IPO in explain like I'm five:  A bank helps underwrite the shares pre offering. This means they buy the shares wholesale. They buy a large majority of the company in order to offer them to the public when the stock goes public. The bank does this for profit, the company does this become it helps raise their price. The bank that underwrites the stock is legally prohibited from short selling that stock for ***at least***  30 days before the IPO. This is to prevent the bank from trying to commit fraud by selling stock out the front door and betting against it out the back.   ***  So, now let's jump forward to the day of the IPO. The bank is offering stock to everyone who wants to buy it (other banks who will cut it up and sell it to more people). In order to short the stock someone must be willing to let you borrow their shares. Only the bank that underwrote it prohibited from short selling. It's possible but hard. The underwriter has the majority of the shares for the first thirty days anyways. They're just going to release enough of them to raise volume on the ticker symbol (volume is the amount of people buying and selling). The others the underwriter sold to are unwilling to let someone borrow their stock because they want to ride the price hike and shares are in short supply. So while it's possible to short shares, it's very hard. The underwriters limit the supply of shares to prevent that from happening. The underwriters can't just let you short their own shares because they are legally prohibited from it.   Basically, you're left with the fact that the only person who has enough supply to let you short, is prohibited by law from letting you do it. I'm sure Morgan Stanley would have been happy to let their customers short Facebook (as long as you did it through them) to hedge their bets. But they can't. Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio. Let me answer by parts: When a company gives dividends, the share price drops by the dividend amount.  Not always by that exact amount for many different reasons (e.g. there are transaction costs if you reinvest, dividend taxes, etc). I have tested that empirically. Now, if all the shareholders choose to reinvest their dividends, will the share price go back up to what it was prior to the dividend? That is an interesting question. The final theoretical price of the company does not need to be that. When a company distributes dividends its liquidity diminish, there is an impact on the balance sheet of the company. If all investors go to the secondary market and reinvest the dividends in the shares, that does not restore the cash in the balance sheet of the company, hence the theoretical real value of the company is different before the dividends. Of course, in practice there is not such a thing as one theoretical value. In reality, if everybody reinvest the dividend, that will put upward pressure over the price of the company and, depending on the depth of the offers, meaning how many orders will counterbalance the upward pressure at the moment, the final price will be determined, which can be higher or lower than before, not necessarily equal. I ask because some efts like SPY automatically reinvest dividends. So what is the effect of this reinvestment on the stock price? Let us see the mechanics of these purchases. When a non distributing ETF receives cash from the dividends of the companies, it takes that cash and reinvest it in the whole basket of stocks that compose the index, not just in the companies that provided the dividends. The net effect of that is a small leverage effect. Let us say you bought one unit of SPY, and during the whole year the shares pay 2% of dividends that are reinvested. At the end of that year, it will be equivalent to having 1.02 units of SPY. In simplest terms, when a company creates new shares and sells them, it's true that existing shareholders now own a smaller percentage of the company.  However, as the company is now more valuable (since it made money by selling the new shares), the real dollar value of the previous shares is unchanged. That said, the decision to issue new shares can be interpreted by investors as a signal of the company's strategy and thereby alter the market price;  this may well affect the real dollar value of the previous shares.  But the simple act of creating new shares does not alter the value in and of itself. "The company gets the proceeds from the sales of shares on the open market. If a company is selling 1,000,000 shares at $12/share then they will receive $12,000,000 from the underwriter minus some fees that the underwriter will collect. The part that ties into valuation is to consider what percentage is the company selling of itself that is coming from its own holdings. If the company is putting out 10% of its shares in the IPO from treasury holdings on a $10B valuation then it will get $1B minus the fees I'd suspect. Where I worked in late 1990s/early 2000s had an IPO where the underwriter did a bridge loan and the IPO so that the company didn't get all the money raised but did get enough to run operations for a while before ending operations. Public Offering notes that after an IPO other offerings would be called ""seasoned equity offering"" that may or may not be dilutive as they could come from new or existing shares." The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income. Most businesses want to grow, and there are a variety of ways to raise the money needed to hire new employees and otherwise invest in the business to increase the rate of that growth. You as a stock holder should hope that management is choosing the least expensive option for growth. Some of the options are debt, selling equity to venture capitalists, or selling equity on the open market (going public). If they choose debt, they pay interest on that debt. If they choose to sell equity to venture capitalists, then your shares get diluted, but hopefully the growth makes up for some of that dilution. If they choose to go public, dilution is still a concern, but the terms are usually a little more favorable for the company selling because the market is so liquid.  In the US, current regulations for publicly traded companies cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1M/year, so that's the rule of thumb for considering whether going public makes sense when calculating the cost of fundraising, but as mentioned, regulations make it less advantageous for executives who choose to sell their shares after the company goes public. (They can't sell when good spot prices appear.) Going public is often considered the next step for a company that has grown past the initial venture funding phase, but if cash-flow is good, plenty of companies decide to just reinvest profits and skip the equity markets altogether.