What is the valuation of a company based on?
"The textbook answer would be ""assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit"".  A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing);  or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more." "There is no such thing as a correct value. There are different ways to calculate (read: guess) an anticipated value, but neither of them is the ""correct"" one. Last not least this depends on your interpretation of the term ""correct"" in that context.  Why do you think paid Facebook such a huge amount for WhatsApp? Surely not, because it was the ""correct"" value." It's safe to say that for mature companies, with profits that have been steady, and steadily growing, that a multiple of earnings can come into play. It's not identical between companies or even industries, but for consumer staples, for instance, you'll see a clustering around a certain P/E.  On the other hand, there are companies like FaceBook, 18 months ago, trading at 20, now at 70 with a 110 P/E. Did the guys valuing the stock simply get it wrong then or is it wrong now?  Contrast this with KO (Coca-cola) a 20 P/E and 3.2% dividend, PG (Proctor and Gamble) 21 P/E, 3% dividend.  Funny though, a $1M valuation for $50K in profit may be Shark ridiculous, but a $1B valuation on a $50M company with great prospects, i.e. a pipeline of new products in growing markets, is a steal.  Disclosure I have no positions in the mentioned stocks.
Except they aren't a publicly traded company so their stock price is based on investment valuation.   Uber's value may or may not increase due to his resignation, but this sub is so full of armchair experts getting upvoted for half-truths that sound logical. One of the guys that started Rovio got investment from his wealthy uncle's company. They surely want to sell some of their 60% ownership, but claim they will be sticking around. With Rovio's pitch to re-emerge as a film studio (or that was one idea I read and Angry Birds was a hit), I wonder if this valuation matches what other film studios would be valued or are they just riding the wave of ridiculous tech valuations. You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index).  Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index. 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. P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued. However what actually appears to happen is that the 100k is invested into the company to fund some growth plan. So is it actually the case that E's company is worth 400k only AFTER the transaction? Is the 100k added to the balance sheet as cash and would the other 300k be listed as an IP asset? The investor gets 25% of the shares of the company and pays $100k for them, so Owner's Equity increases by $100k, and the company gets $100k more in cash. The $400k number is an implicit calculation: if 25% of the company is worth $100k, 100% of the company is worth $400k. It's not on the books: the investor is just commenting that they feel that they are being over-charged. One aspect of this - no matter which valuation method you choose - is that there are limited shares available to buy. Other people already know those valuation methods and have decided to buy those shares, paying higher than the previous person to notice this and take a risk. So this means that even after you have calculated the company's assets and future growth, you will be possibly buying shares that are way more expensive and overvalued than they will be in the future. You have to consider that, or you may be stuck with a loss for decades. And during that time, the company will get new management or their industry will change, completely undermining whatever fundamentals you originally considered. "To add to @keshlam's answer slightly a stock's price is made up of several components: the only one of these that is known even remotely accurately at any time is the book value on the day that the accounts are prepared. Even  completed cashflows after the books have been prepared contain some slight unknowns as they may be reversed if stock is returned, for example, or reduced by unforeseen costs.  Future cashflows are based on (amongst other things) how many sales you expect to make in the future for all time. Exercise for the reader: how many iPhone 22s will apple sell in 2029? Even known future cashflows have some risk attached to them; customers may not pay for goods, a supplier may go into liquidation and so need to change its invoicing strategy etc.. Estimating the risk on future cashflows is highly subjective and depends greatly on what the analyst expects the exact economic state of the world will be in the future. Investors have the choice of investing in a risk free instrument (this is usually taken as being modelled by the 10 year US treasury bond) that is guaranteed to give them a return. To invest in anything riskier than the risk free instrument they must be paid a premium over the risk free return that they would get from that. The risk premium is related to how likely they think it is that they will not receive a return higher than that rate. Calculation of that premium is highly subjective; if I know the management of the company well I will be inclined to think that the investment is far less risky (or perhaps riskier...) than someone who does not, for example. Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no ""right"" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation."