In what ways can a public company ask for money?
"There are many different methods for a corporation to get money, but they mostly fall into three categories: earnings, debt and equity.  Earnings would be just the corporation's accumulation of cash due to the operation of its business. Perhaps if cash was needed for a particular reason immediately, a business may consider selling a division or group of assets to another party, and using the proceeds for a different part of the business. Debt is money that (to put it simply) the corporation legally must repay to the lender, likely with periodic interest payments. Apart from the interest payments (if any) and the principal (original amount leant), the lender has no additional rights to the value of the company. There are, basically, 2 types of corporate debt: bank debt, and bonds.  Bank debt is just the corporation taking on a loan from a bank. Bonds are offered to the public - ie: you could potentially buy a ""Tesla Bond"", where you give Tesla $1k, and they give you a stated interest rate over time, and principal repayments according to a schedule. Which type of debt a corporation uses will depend mostly on the high cost of offering a public bond, the relationships with current banks, and the interest rates the corporation thinks it can get from either method. Equity [or, shares] is money that the corporation (to put it simply) likely does not have a legal obligation to repay, until the corporation is liquidated (sold at the end of its life) and all debt has already been repaid. But when the corporation is liquidated, the shareholders have a legal right to the entire value of the company, after those debts have been paid. So equity holders have higher risk than debt holders, but they also can share in higher reward. That is why stock prices are so volatile - the value of each share fluctuates based on the perceived value of the entire company.  Some equity may be offered with specific rules about dividend payments - maybe they are required [a 'preferred' share likely has a stated dividend rate almost like a bond, but also likely has a limited value it can ever receive back from the corporation], maybe they are at the discretion of the board of directors, maybe they will never happen. There are 2 broad ways for a corporation to get money from equity: a private offering, or a public offering. A private offering could be a small mom and pop store asking their neighbors to invest 5k so they can repair their business's roof, or it could be an 'Angel Investor' [think Shark Tank] contributing significant value and maybe even taking control of the company. Perhaps shares would be offered to all current shareholders first. A public offering would be one where shares would be offered up to the public on the stock exchange, so that anyone could subscribe to them. Why a corporation would use any of these different methods depends on the price it feels it could get from them, and also perhaps whether there are benefits to having different shareholders involved in the business [ie: an Angel investor would likely be involved in the business to protect his/her investment, and that leadership may be what the corporation actually needs, as much or more than money]. Whether a corporation chooses to gain cash from earnings, debt, or equity depends on many factors, including but not limited to: (1) what assets / earnings potential it currently has; (2) the cost of acquiring the cash [ie: the high cost of undergoing a public offering vs the lower cost of increasing a bank loan]; and (3) the ongoing costs of that cash to both the corporation and ultimately the other shareholders - ie: a 3% interest rate on debt vs a 6% dividend rate on preferred shares vs a 5% dividend rate on common shares [which would also share in the net value of the company with the other current shareholders].  In summary: Earnings would be generally preferred, but if the company needs cash immediately, that may not be suitable. Debt is generally cheap to acquire and interest rates are generally lower than required dividend rates. Equity is often expensive to acquire and maintain [either through dividend payments or by reduction of net value attributable to other current shareholders], but may be required if a new venture is risky. ie: a bank/bondholder may not want to lend money for a new tech idea because it is too risky to just get interest from - they want access to the potential earnings as well, through equity."
"That's incredible! I'm a second-year college student taking Macro-Economics class, a lot of these technical things are all news to me.   Thank you for the wealth of information!   1) That's an interesting thought. Does that basically translate to ""less tax on poor/wealthy (since there are a lot more of them in numbers) to promote entrepreneurship?   2) Someone pointed that very thing out. Rich using money to grow their own wealth. But wouldn't that mean as a byproduct, jobs will be made? I probably made another dangerous assumption here.   3) I don't think I understand this one at all. What is compensation? Will you rephrase it for me?  4) I hear that ""effective,"" tax rate can be very misleading to the general public. (I learned how to calculate the average tax rate a few weeks ago and understood what the folks were talking about!) I did hear from my professor and the educational videos he had shown us that the capital  tax is one of the highest among the other OECD nations. My question for that would be, why can't we just close loop-holes instead of choosing to slash capital tax? I feel like the majority will be more than okay with closing the loopholes.  5) I think citizens of the country aligning with the county's companies without asking questions is a terrible, and a dangerous idea. (Asian Depression in the mid 90's really showcased it for me, since our family was practically evicted from Korea) Major conglomerates held all the power and the federal government was really just a puppet. I think it's in each company's best interest to further their own agenda, and that agenda usually means bad for the majority. Let me know if I'm way off base here but ""one person's spending is another's income."" So using that logic, the company can't make money unless I spend money. So we have a conflict of interest here, because as a consumer, I want to get the best deals, be thrifty. Company wants to charge me as much as they can, to maximize profits.   Thank you in advance for your time." The company doesn't necessarily have to go public. They can also be worth money if the company is acquired. Also keep in mind that even if the company does eventually go public, your shares can essentially be wiped out by a round of pre-IPO funding that gives the company a low valuation. You could ask: The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets. I believe we already do? We have subsidies and stuff to entice companies to move to certain cities for example. Also the defense companies are still businesses in the end. I used to work at one for what it's worth.  But sure if it somehow makes a difference instead of businesses we can fund infrastructure projects, public transportation, education, or really anything else that benefits society in a more direct way. Is it correct that there is no limit on the length of the time that the company can keep the money raised from IPO of its stocks, unlike for the debt of the company where there is a limit? Yes that is correct, there is no limit. But a company can buy back its shares any time it wants. Anyone else can also buy shares on the market whenever they want. Companies theoretically have an infinite number of equity units at their disposal.  Issuance must be approved according to its founding contracts. If an equity is trading on an open market then the price of each unit issued in lieu of cash compensation is known.  Even if an equity doesn't trade openly, bidders can be solicited for a possible price or an appraisal.  This can be a risky route for the potentially compensated. Market capitalizations are frequently generally approximately equal to the sales of a company.  Salaries and wages are frequently generally two thirds of sales. It is indeed expensive for the average company to compensate with equity, thus so few do, usually restricting equity compensation to executives and exceptional laborers.  Besides, they frequently have enough cash to pay for compensation, avoiding transaction costs. For companies in growth industries such as technology or medicine, their situations are usually reversed: cash constrained yet equity abundant because of large investment and dearly priced equities.  For a company trading at a market capitalization multiplied by forty times the revenue, compensating with equity is inexpensive. "I heard today while listening to an accounting podcast that a balance sheet... can be used to determine if a company has enough money to pay its employees.  The ""money"" that you're looking at is specifically cash on the balance sheet. The cash flows document mentioned is just a more-finance-related document that explains how we ended at cash on the balance sheet.   ...even looking for a job This is critical, that i don't believe many people look at when searching for a job. Using the ratios listed below can (and many others), one can determine if the business they are applying for will be around in the next five years.   Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one good)? My favorite example of a high cash company is Nintendo. Rolling at 570 Billion USD IN CASH ALONE is astonishing. Using the ratios we can see how well they are doing.  Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one bad)? Tesla is a good example of the later on being cash poor.   Walk me though how to understand such a document? *Note: This question is highly complex and will take months of reading to fully comprehend the components that make up the financial statements. I would recommend that this question be posted completely separate." Generally these are public companies set up to do some particular thing and get revenue from use.  And yes, the elected representatives signed the municpalities on to these things.   If you co-sign a loan, sooner or later you may have to pay up.