Why would a public company not initiate secondary stock offerings more often?
Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company.  Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future).  From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off.  That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend).  And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important.  A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners.  But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value. What prevents a company from doing secondary public stock offerings on regular basis? The primary goal of a company doing secondary public offering is to raise more funds, that can be utilized for funding the business. If no funding is needed [i.e. company has sufficient funds, or no expansion plans], this funding creates a drag and existing shareholder including promoters loose value. For example with the current 100 invested, the company is able to generate say 125 [25 as profit]. If additional 100 is taken as secondary public offering, then with 200, the company should mark around 250, else it looses value. So if the company took additional 100 and did not / is not able to deploy in market, on 200 they still make 25 as profit, its bad. There are other reasons, i.e. to fight off hostile acquisition or dilute some of promoters shares etc. Thus the reasons for company to do a secondary PO are few and doing it often reduces the value for primary share holders as well as minority share holders.
"The S&P 500 index is maintained by S&P Dow Jones Indices, a division of McGraw Hill Financial. Changes to the index are made periodically, as needed.  For Facebook, you'll find it mentioned in this December 11, 2013 press release (PDF).  Quote: New York, NY, December 11 , 2013 – S&P Dow Jones Indices will make the following changes to the S&P 100, S&P 500, MidCap 400   and S&P SmallCap 600 indices after the close of trading on Friday,   December 20: You can find out more about the S&P 500 index eligibility criteria from the S&P U.S. Indices methodology document (PDF).  See pages 5 and 6: Market Capitalization - [...] Liquidity - [...] Domicile - [...] Public Float - [...] Sector Classification - [...] Financial Viability - Usually measured as four consecutive quarters of positive as   reported earnings. [...] Treatment of IPOs - Initial public offerings should be seasoned for 6 to 12 months   before being considered for addition to an index. Eligible Securities - [...]   [...]   Changes to the U.S. indices other than the TMIX are made as needed,   with no annual or  semi-annual reconstitution. [...] LabCorp may have a smaller market cap than Facebook, but Facebook didn't meet all of the eligibility criteria – for instance, see the above note about ""Treatment of IPOs"" – until recently. Note also that ""Initial public offerings should be seasoned for 6 to 12 months"" implies somebody at S&P makes a decision as to the exact when. As such, I would say, no, there is no ""simple rule or formula"", just the methodology above as applied by the decision-makers at S&P." This seemed very unrealistic, I mean who would do that? But to my immense surprise the market price increased to 5.50$ in the following week! Why is that? This is strange. It seems that people mistakenly [?] believe that the company should be at 5.5 and currently available cheap. This looks like irrational behaviour. Most of the past 6 months the said stock in range bound to 4.5 to 5. The last time it hit around 5.5 was Feb. So this is definitely strange. If the company had set a price of 6.00$ in the rights offering, would the price have increased to 6$? Obviously the company thinks that their shares are worth that much but why did the market suddenly agree? Possibly yes, possible no. It can be answered. More often the rights issue are priced at slight discount to market price. Why did this happen? Obviously management thinks that the company is worth that much, but why did the market simply believe this statement without any additional information? I don't see any other information; if the new shares had some special privileges [in terms of voting rights, dividends, etc] then yes. However the announcements says the rights issues is for common shares. Can a company not bargain with a dying company for example and buy a   falling stock at lower than market value? Of course. If the shareholders agree to it. But why would they, if the market value is higher, agree to sell to someone who offers less? If there's a compelling reason - it can happen. It might happen during a hostile takeover, for example. In the case of buying the company for more than market value, are the   stocks bought for significantly more, or slightly more than the   current market value? Again, depends on how valuable the shareholders think the company is. If the shareholders think that the company has a potential which has not yet affected the stock price, they'll want a higher premium (and they'd think that, otherwise why would they hold the stock?). How much higher? Depends on the bargaining abilities of the sides. "It is very helpful to understand that Free File is not actually ""by"" the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS does indeed offer access to the program through their website, but Free File is actually a public-private partnership program operated and maintained by the Free File Alliance. Who is the Free File Alliance? Well, according to their members list: 1040NOW Corp., Drake Enterprises, ezTaxReturn.com, FileYourTaxes, Free Tax Returns, H&R Block, Intuit, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty Tax, OnLine Taxes, TaxACT, TaxHawk, and TaxSlayer. Why the income restriction? Well, that's part of the deal the IRS struck - the program is ""dedicated to helping 70 percent of American taxpayers prepare and e-file their federal tax returns"". Technically the member companies are offering their own software to handle tax preparation, and the rule is that 70% of American's must 'qualify' for at least one product, so this adjusted gross income limit changes periodically so that 70% of the population can use it. Why restrict it at all? This was part of the give and take involved in negotiation with the businesses involved. If the program was ""everyone files for free"", then it is presumed that many reputable businesses that make the program valuable would choose not to continue to participate. In other words, they want to be able to not give away their services for free to customers who are - at least by income definition - more than capable of paying them. The IRS has said it does not want to be in the tax prep software business, so they are not offering their own free software to do the job that private companies would otherwise charge for. However, there are other restrictions to being in the program - like the fact that no business in the program can offer ""refund anticipation loans"", offer commercial services more than a certain amount of times (so they can't hound you to upgrade), and so on. Some businesses were making a killing off these, though they are pretty much solely developed to be predatory on people with the lowest incomes (and education levels, and IQ, and with cognitive disabilities, and basically anyone they could sucker into paying what were effectively absurd rates for short term loans along with inflated filing/preparation fees). Finally, Free File was partly developed as an initiative to increase the amount of digitally filed taxes and reduce the paper-based burdens of accepting and processing turns. In other words: to cut government costs, not to be a government welfare program. Even if it were, one can generally obtain commercial software for $30-$100, so the benefit to those above gross income levels is pretty minor; yearly costs to file taxes with such software for those payers would be less than 0.001% of their yearly expenses. Compared to the benefits obtainable by households living below the poverty line, fighting to cover an extra 5-30% of the population at the potential expense of having the whole program be a failure probably seemed like a more than worthwhile trade-off." The process would look something like:  1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC  3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO   1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees In and of itself it wasn't. But could the ill will it left with the general investing public make people more wary of future IPOs and thus, lower their potential starting points?  Thereby leading to a drought of IPOs as companies don't see themselves getting as much. Your first scenario, involving shareholders in a private corp being limited by a contractual agreement, is common in practice. Frequent clauses include methods of valuing the shares if someone wants to sell, first right of refusal [you have to attempt to sell to the other shareholders, before you can sell to a 3rd party], and many others. These clauses are governed by contract law [ie: some clauses may be illegal in contract law, and therefore couldn't be applied here]. A Universal Shareholders' Agreement is just the same as the above, but applied to more people. You would never get an already public company to convert to a universal shareholders' agreement - because even 1 share voting 'no' would block it [due to corporate law limiting the power of a corporation from abusing minority shareholder value]. In practice, these agreements universally exist at the start of incorporation, or at least at the first moment shares become available. An example is the Canadian mega-construction company PCL*, which is employee-owned. When the original owner transferred the corporation to his employees, there was a USA in place which still today governs how the corporation operates.  In theory you could have a 'public company' where most shares are already owned by the founders, and 100% of remaining shares are owned by a specific group of individuals, in which case you may be able to get a USA signed. But it wouldn't really happen in practice.  *[Note that while PCL is broadly owned by a large group of employees, it is not a 'public company' because any random schmuck can't simply buy a share on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I assume most exchanges would prevent corporations from being listed if they had ownership restrictions like this]. The answer to this question is given by the fact that many public companies have people who are opposed to the company's aims or practices and who own their stock, often a single share, for the purposes of turning up to shareholder meetings and haranguing directors/asking awkward questions/disrupting proceedings, etc. If public companies could stop these campaigning shareholders from owning stock they would.