What does it mean for issuing corporations to “crank out expensive shares when markets are frothy … and issue debt when markets are cheap”?
crank out expensive shares when markets are frothy Corporations go public (sell their shares for the first time) in market conditions that have a lot of liquidity (a lot of people buying shares) and when they have to make the fewest concessions to appease an investing public. When people are greedy and looking to make money without using too much due diligence. Think Netscape's IPO in 1995 or Snapchat's IPO in 2017. They also issue more shares after already being public in similar circumstances. Think Tesla's 1 billion dollar dilution in 2017. Dilution results in the 1 share owning less of the company. So in a less euphoric investing environment, share prices go down in response to dilution. See Viggle's stock for an example, if you can find a chart. issue debt Non-financial companies create bonds and sell bonds. Why is that surprising to you? Cash is cash. This is called corporate bonds or corporate debt. You can buy Apple bonds right now if you want from the same brokers that let you buy stocks. mutual fund investor Bernstein is making a cynical assessment of the markets which carries a lot of truth. Dumping shares on your mom's 401k is a running gag amongst some financial professionals. Basically mutual fund investors are typically the least well researched or most gullible market participants to sell to, influenced by brand name more than company fundamentals, who will balk at the concept of reading a prospectus. Financial professionals and CFOs have more information than their investors and can gain extended advantages because of this. Just take the emotions out of it and make objective assessments.
"I wouldn't worry about ""it probably wouldn't be best time for withdrawal"" aspect too much.  With a bit of planning and organization, you could cash out investments held in one country and have them reinvested in another one in a matter of days (if not less), minimising your ""time out of the market"".  If the markets are cheap when you sell, the chances are you'll be able to buy in again at much the same price.  There's a small chance you miss out on the markets lurching upwards, but you might just as easily miss out on a fall and come out ahead.  Old saying: ""time in the market is more important than market timing"". Tax it's hard to discuss without mentioning specific countries.  e.g if you were resident in the UK you'd probably want to invest within an ""ISA"" tax-free wrapper; gains are tax free and there's no penalty for withdrawing when you leave.  No idea what equivalents there are around Europe. Interestingly there seems to be some recognition by the EU that this sort of thing is an issue for an increasingly mobile workforce; was recently some news of plans for a pan-European pension savings vehicle." "First note that CIBC issued these bonds with a zero coupon, so they do not pay any interest.  They were purchased by the market participants at a small premium, paying an average of 100.054 for a nominal value of 100.  This equates to a negative annual ""redemption"" yield of 0.009% - i.e., if held until maturity, then the holder will witness a negative annual return of 0.009%. You ask ""why does this make sense?"".  Clearly it makes no sense for a private individual to purchase these bonds since they will be better off simply holding cash.  To understand why there is a demand for these bonds we need to look elsewhere. The European bond market is currently suffering a dwindling supply owing to the ECBs bond buying programme (i.e., quantitative easing).  The ECB is purchasing EUR 80 billion per month of Eurozone sovereign debt.  This means that the quantity of high grade bonds available for purchase is shrinking fast. Against this backdrop we have all of those European institutions and financial corporations who are legally obliged to purchase bonds to be held as assets against their obligations.  These are mostly national and private pension funds as well as insurance companies and fund managers.   In this sort of environment, the price of high quality bonds is quickly bid up to the point where we see negative yields. In this environment companies like CIBC can borrow by issuing bonds with a zero coupon and the market is willing to pay a small premium over their nominal value. TL/DR The situation is further complicated by the subdued inflation outlook for the Eurozone, with a very real possibility of deflation.  Should a prolonged period of deflation materialise, then negative redemption yield bonds may provide a positive real return." "A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to?   I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a ""call"" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares.   So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has.   I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees?  Each one of those is equivalent to a single share.  They just aren't called ""call options"". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place.  Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock.  They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons.  (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised.  In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised.  Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created.   Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time.  As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments.   This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling." "&gt;As a legal matter, shareholders who purchase shares of stock in a  corporation own nothing more than that—shares of stock. Similarly, bondholders own only bonds, and executives with employment contracts own their contracts. None of these types of ownership give shareholders, bondholders or executives the right to control the firm. The right to control the firm’s assets and actions rests in the hands of its board of directors, and only when they act as a body and follow proper board procedures.  All this says is ""decisions are made by the board."" This is not news, and it doesn't mean that shareholders do not own the company. Shareholders elect the board, by the way.  &gt;An important consequence of this governance structure is that shareholders not only have no legal right to control the firm, they also have no legal right to help themselves to the corporation’s    assets.  Well, that's wrong.  &gt;In fact, the only time shareholders receive any funds directly from the corporation’s coffers is when they receive a dividend or the corporation repurchases their shares.  Or, you know, in the case of bankruptcy.  &gt;This only happens when the directors vote to declare a dividend or a corporate repurchase.  The same directors who were appointed by shareholders.  &gt;At law, a principal has a right to control her agent. But shareholders can’t exercise direct control over corporate directors.  I suppose this is true in the sense that shareholders cannot practice slavery. But shareholders can, again, vote on issues relating to the governance of the company.  &gt;It is thus wildly misleading to describe shareholders as the sole residual claimants in companies that aren’t actually in bankruptcy.  This is only true if you're retarded and don't know what ""residual"" means.  &gt;This idea is supported by modern options theory. In effect, bondholders own the right to access cash flow but have sold a call to shareholders, while shareholders own the right to access the cash flow but have sold a put to bondholders. Neither shareholders nor bondholders can claim an exclusive right to “own” the company’s cash flow, much less the company.  This is a made up explanation that doesn't mean anything. The real options model of corporate assets is that corporate debt is a risk-free bond with a short put option and equity is a call option. There is no ""deal,"" in actuality or in spirit, between debt and equity owners.  You can dismiss the article as ""shit.""" Having spent all of 3 minutes reading about this, my impression is insurers are going to have to have more money on hand to cover every line of business as independent silos, instead of keeping it all pooled together and being able to shift money around as needed between their lines of business.  In order to acquire this capital, they will take on more debt now; as the expectation is interest rates will rise in the future which would increase their cost of debt vs. acquiring the debt now when interest rates are low. "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!" In the case you mentioned, where a private company owners will take debt with the purpose of  buying out other owners, is this done through a share repurchases program (I understand private companies issue them, even though it's rare)? Thank you for the insights. Apple is currently the most valuable company in the world by market capitalisation and it has issued bonds for instance. Amazon have also issued bonds in the past as have Google. One of many reasons companies may issue bonds is to reduce their tax bill. If a company is a multinational it may have foreign earnings that would incur a tax bill if they were transferred to the holding company's jurisdiction. The company can however issue bonds backed by the foreign cash pile. It can then use the bond cash to pay dividends to shareholders. Ratings Agencies such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's exist to rate companies ability to make repayments on debt they issue. Investors can read their reports to help make a determination as to whether to invest in bond issues. Of course investors also need to determine whether they believe the Ratings Agencies assesments.