How does a change in market cap affect a company's operational decisions?
It basically only affects the company's dealings with its own stock, not with operational concerns.  If the company were to offer more stock for sale, it would get less cash.  If it had a stock buy-back program, it could buy more shares for the same money.  If it was to offer to acquire another company in exchange for its own stock, the terms would be less attractive to the other company's owners.  Employee stock remuneration, stock options, and so forth would be affected, so there might be considerations and tax consequences for the company. In practical terms, it shouldn't.  Market cap changes every day (assuming public trading, of course) or even second-by-second, and focusing on investor sentiment toward your company's stock is not the wisest way to make strategic decisions. That being said, company execs do need to be mindful of unusual swings in their company's share prices because it can sometimes be an indicator of news/information of which they're unaware.  At the same time, you can't just disregard your shareholders, especially the big institutional players who may have large voting blocks with which to replace you if they feel you're not responsive to events.  They are the ones who make strategic decisions based on your company's share price, right? (grin) The issue around swings in market cap is more about public perception than reality, so it is important for companies to have a good public relations strategy ready to go that can address questions/concerns in case of some market event.  After all, consumers who hear that a company's share price has suddenly fallen by, say, 30% might be more hesitant to do business with that company because there's a (perhaps irrational) fear the company's not doing well and may not be around much longer. Investors are, by their very nature, emotional rather than rational.  Any kind of news can cause a stampede toward or away from a stock for no reason that an investment professional could ever explain.  That's why it's impossible to spend any real time focusing on market cap (leave that to your P.R. department to worry about). IF, as a company executive, you focus on doing the right things to make your company successful then any questions/concerns about market cap will resolve themselves. Good luck!
No, it is the same as it has always been. The market gives a valuation of a company based off its expected discounted cash flow.   Only problem we see is that many growth companies ($TSLA!!!) are being given the benefit of the doubt in regards to their expected growth and future profitability. **IF** Tesla does grow as many expect, then current share prices are definitely justifiable. But since when do we price things based on their ideal scenario? This market has lost its grip on risk-reward and risk tolerance. Does even a Tesla bull think that the company even has a &gt;10% chance at ever exceeding expectations in regards to near-future growth or profitability? And even those who are invested in the company admit there is a serious chance that Tesla fails to reach expectations for growth/margins.  Either way the market will cool soon. And negative cash flow companies with ultra-aggressive growth targets will be punished.  ---  If I wasn't poor/saving up to buy a house. I'd love to purchase 100 [January 2019 $50 Put Leaps at a cost of $0.55 each](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/option-chain/190118P00050000-tsla-put) (total cost $5,500).  A Tesla BK before January 18th 2019 would mean $50x100x100 - $5,500 = **$494,500** net profit WOW.  A reduction in market cap to $5 Billion and increase in outstanding shares to 200 million (currently at 167M) results in a net profit of **$244,500**  A reduction in market cap to $10 Billion with the same share dilution results in share price of $50 and thus a full loss of my $5,500. :( Your reasoning is backwards. As others have pointed out, you cannot just decide how much you charge irrespective of the market. Let me paraphrase a little economics 101 to underline why you also should not think like this: You can see a rental property like your house (the same reasoning is usually explained with the example of hotel rooms) as a series of perishable goods. Your house represents the potential sale of the January rent (which perishes once January is over), plus the February rent etc. Your approach was to compute the total costs (all fixed and variable costs of owning that house as well as costs associated to renting specifically) and average them over the time period so that you know how much to ask at least. Assuming that you are only looking to rent it out, not sell it or let a family member live there, you can't think like this. Most of those costs that you averaged are what economists call sunk costs. You have already incurred the mortgage costs and they are not affected by your decision to rent or not to rent. These costs are irrelevant to your decision making process. You only need to think about marginal costs: those additional costs that you have when you rent but not when you don't. Look at the market prices for renting similar properties in that region and compare them with your marginal costs. As long as they are higher than your marginal costs, rent it out. This does not mean that you are sure to make profits, but it means that you are sure to make less losses than in your only alternative of not renting. There are two types of credit checks. First is the hard pull which is typically done when you apply for a credit line. The lender will hard pull your file and make his/her decision based on that. This affects your score negatively. You might lose few points for one hard inquiry. Second type is soft pull, which is done as a background check. Typically done by credit card companies to send you a pre-approved offer, or renting an apartment etc. This does not affect your score. One thing to keep in mind is a company will not do a hard pull without your permission, where as they can do soft pulls without you even knowing.  Soft inquiries vs hard inquiries "It means that the company earned 15 cents per share in the most recently reported quarter. Share price may or not be affected, depending on how buyers and sellers value the company. Just because profits ""jumped,"" does not mean the shares will follow suit. An increase in profits may have already been priced into the stock, or the market expected the increase in profit to be even higher. As the shareholder, you don't actually get any of these profits into your hands, unless the company pays out a portion of these profits as a dividend." Take a look at apple.  It has no debt.  So the ev is basically mkt cap - cash.  Also remember market cap is the float * share price nothing else.  Obviously share price takes into account the assets of the firm into perpituituy but the way you phrased it, adding debt , didnt sound quite right to me.  We remove cash since someone buying a company isn't going to pay for your cash.  In the transaction cash is distributed to share holders then the company is sold. 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. Any time a large order it placed for Buy, the sell side starts increasing as the demand of Buy has gone up. [Vice Versa is also true]. Once this orders gets fulfilled, the demand drops and hence the Sell price should also lower. Depending on how much was the demand / supply without your order, the price fluctuation would vary. For examply if before your order, for this particular share the normal volume is around 100's of shares then you order would spike things up quite a bit. However if for other share the normal volume is around 100000's then your order would not have much impact. The literal answer to your question 'what determines the price of an ETF' is 'the market'; it is whatever price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept. But if the market price of an ETF share deviates significantly from its NAV, the per-share market value of the securities in its portfolio, then an Authorized Participant can make an arbitrage profit by a transaction (creation or redemption) that pushes the market price toward NAV. Thus as long as the markets are operating and the APs don't vanish in a puff of smoke we can expect price will track NAV. That reduces your question to: why does NAV = market value of the holdings underlying a bond ETF share decrease when the market interest rate rises?  Let's consider an example. I'll use US Treasuries because they have very active markets, are treated as risk-free (although that can be debated), and excluding special cases like TIPS and strips are almost perfectly fungible. And I use round numbers for convenience. Let's assume the current market interest rate is 2% and 'Spindoctor 10-year Treasury Fund' opens for business with $100m invested (via APs) in 10-year T-notes with 2% coupon at par and 1m shares issued that are worth $100 each. Now assume the interest rate goes up to 3% (this is an example NOT A PREDICTION); no one wants to pay par for a 2% bond when they can get 3% elsewhere, so its value goes down to about 0.9 of par (not exactly due to the way the arithmetic works but close enough) and Spindoctor shares similarly slide to $90. At this price an investor gets slightly over 2% (coupon*face/basis) plus approximately 1% amortized capital gain (slightly less due to time value) per year so it's competitive with a 3% coupon at par.  As you say new bonds are available that pay 3%. But our fund doesn't hold them; we hold old bonds with a face value of $100m but a market value of only $90m. If we sell those bonds now and buy 3% bonds to (try to) replace them, we only get $90m par value of 3% bonds, so now our fund is paying a competitive 3% but NAV is still only $90.  At the other extreme, say we hold the 2% bonds to maturity, paying out only 2% interest but letting our NAV increase as the remaining term (duration) and thus discount of the bonds decreases -- assuming the market interest rate doesn't change again, which for 10 years is probably unrealistic (ignoring 2009-2016!). At the end of 10 years the 2% bonds are redeemed at par and our NAV is back to $100 -- but from the investor's point of view they've forgone $10 in interest they could have received from an alternative investment over those 10 years, which is effectively an additional investment, so the original share price of $90 was correct.