How much will a stock be worth after a merger?
"For the first and last questions, I can do this multiple ways.  For the middle question, I'll just make up values.  If you want different ones, you will have to redo the math.   I am going to assume that you participate in the merger exchange, swapping your share for their offer.   If you own one share, it depends how they handle fractional shares.  Your original one share of ABC can be worth either one share of XYZ or 1.05 shares of XYZ.  If you get one share, you typically get an additional $.80 cash to make up for the fractional share.   You might ask why you don't just get $20 cash and one share of XYZ.  Consider the case where you own twenty shares of ABC.  Then you'd own twenty-one shares of XYZ and $384.  No need for fractional shares.   Beyond all this though, the share value of XYZ is not set autocratically.  The shares might be worth $16, $40, or $2 after the merger.  If both stocks are perfectly valued and the market is aware of that value, then it will depend partially on the number of shares of each.   For example, if we assume there are 10,000 shares of ABC and 50,000 shares of XYZ (including the shares paid for ABC), then their initial market values are $320,000 for ABC and $800,000 for XYZ.  XYZ is paying $360,000, so its value drops to $440,000.  But it is gaining ABC, which is worth $320,000.  Net value now is $760,000 or $15.20 per share.   This has assumed that the shares transferred from XYZ to the shareholders of ABC were already included in the market value.  This may mean that the stock price was previously $20 or so with almost 40,000 shares in circulation.  Then they issued new shares, diluting the value down to $16.  We could start at 50,000 shares at $16 and end up with 60,000 to 60,050 shares at $13.332 to $13.333 per share.  Then XYZ is really only paying $326,658.31 for ABC.  That's a premium of only $6,658.31 for ABC and gives a final stock value of $13.222 per share.   The problem though is that in reality, there is no equivalent of perfect value.  So I say again that the market value might be $15.20 (the theoretic answer that best fits the question given the example quantities of shares), $13, $20, or something else.  It will depend on how the market perceives the deal.  Is the combined company worth more or less than the sum of its parts?   And beyond this, you will have $19.20 to $20 in cash in addition to your XYZ share (or 1.05 shares).  Assuming 1.05 shares, that would be $15.96 plus the $19.20--that's $35.16 total in theory or anything from $19.20 up in practice.  With the givens, the only thing of which you can be sure is the $19.20 cash.  The value of the stock is up in the air.   If XYZ is only privately traded, this is still true.  The stock is worth the price that someone will pay for it.  The ""someone"" is just more limited with privately traded stocks." It depends.  If you accept the offer, then your stock will cease existing.  If you reject the offer, then you will become a minority shareholder.  Depending on the circumstances, you could be in the case where it becomes illegal to trade your shares.  That can happen if the firm ceases to be a public company.  In that case, you would discount the cash flows of future dividends to determine worth because there would be no market for it. If the firm remained public and also was listed for trading, then you could sell your shares although the terms and conditions in the market would depend on how the controlling firm managed the original firm. If this is a one to one share exchange with added cash to make up the difference in value, you're getting 1 share of XYZ plus $19.20 in cash for each share of ABC.   They calculated the per share price they're offering ($36) and subtracted the value of XYZ share at the time of the offer ($16.80) to get the cash part ($19.20).   The value of XYZ after is subject to investor reaction.  Nobody can accurately predict stock values.  If you see the price dropping, owners of XYZ are selling because they feel that they no longer wish to own XYZ.  If XYZ is rising, investors feel like the merger is a positive move and they are buying (or the company is buying back shares). Bottom line is the cash is a sure thing, the stock is not.  You called it a merger, but it's actually a takeover.  My advice is to evaluate both stocks, see if you wish to continue owning XYZ, and determine whether you'd rather sell ABC or take the offer.  The value of ABC afterwards, if you decline the offer, is something that I cannot advise you on.
Well, you won't be double taxed based on what you described. Partners are taxed on income, typically distributions. Your gain in the partnership is not income. However, you were essentially given some money which you elected to invest in the partnership, so you need to pay tax on that money. The question becomes, are you being double taxed in another way? Your question doesn't explain how you invested, but pretty much the options are either a payroll deduction (some amount taken out of X paychecks or a bonus) or some other payment to you that was not treated as a payroll deduction. Given that you got a 1099, that suggests the latter. However, if the money was taken out as a payroll deduction - you've already paid taxes (via your W2)! So, I'd double check on that. Regarding why the numbers don't exactly match up - Your shares in the partnership likely transacted before the partnership valuation. Let's illustrate with an example. Say the partnership is currently worth $1000 with 100 outstanding shares. You put up $1000 and get 100 shares. Partnership is now worth $2000 with 200 outstanding shares. However, after a good year for the firm, it's valuation sets the firm's worth at $3000. Your gain is $1500 not $1000. You can also see if what happened was the firm's valuation went down, your gain would be less than your initial investment. If instead your shares transacted immediately after the valuation, then your gain and your cost to acquire the shares would be the same. So again, I'd suggest double checking on this - if your shares transacted after the valuation, there needs to be an explanation for the difference in your gain. For reference: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/incorporation-and-legal-structures/partnership-taxes.html And https://www.irs.gov/publications/p541/ar02.html Here you learn the purpose of the gain boxes on your K1 - tracking your capital basis should the partnership sell. Essentially, when the partnership is sold, you as a partner get some money. That money is then taxed. How much you pay will depend on what you received versus what the company was worth and whether your gain was long term or short term. This link doesn't go into that detail, but should give you a thread to pull. I'd also suggest reading more about partnerships and K1 and not just the IRS publications. Don't get me wrong, they're a good source of information, just also dense and sometimes tough to understand. Good luck and congrats. One answer in four days tells you this is a niche, else there should be many replies by now.  The bible is McMillan on Options Note - I link to the 1996 edition which starts at 39 cents, the latest revision will set you back $30 used. The word bible says it all, it offers a great course in options, everything you need to know. You don't get a special account for option trading. You just apply to your regular broker, so depending what you wish to do, the amount starts at   You sell calls against stock you own in your IRA. You see, selling covered calls always runs the risk of having your stock called away, and you'd have a gain, I'd hope. By doing this within the IRA, you avoid that.  Options can be, but are not always, speculative. Covered calls just change the shape of your return curve. i.e. you lower your cost by the option premium, but create a fixed maximum gain. I've created covered calls on the purchase of a stock or after holding a while depending on the stock. Here's the one I have now: MU 1000 shares bought at $8700, sold the $7.50 call (jan12) for $3000.  Now, this means my cost is $5700, but I have to let it go for $7500, a 32% return if called. (This was bought in mid 2010, BTW.) On the flip side, a drop of up to 35% over the time will still keep me at break even. The call seemed overpriced when I sold it. Stock is still at $7.20, so I'm close to maximum gain. This whole deal was less risky than just owning one risky stock. I just wrote a post on this trade Micron Covered Call, using today's numbers for those actually looking to understand this as new position. (The article was updated after the expiration. The trade resulted in a 42% profit after 491 days of holding the position, with the stock called away.) On the other hand, buying calls, lots of them, during the tech bubble was the best and worst thing I did. One set of trades' value increased by a factor of 50, and in a few weeks blew up on me, ended at 'only' triple. I left the bubble much better off than I went in, but the peak was beautiful, I'd give my little toe to have stayed right there. From 99Q2 to 00Q2, net worth was up by 3X our gross salary. Half of that (i.e. 1.5X) was gone after the crash. For many, they left the bubble far far worse than before it started. I purposely set things up so no more than a certain amount was at risk at any given time, knowing a burst would come, just not when. If nothing else, it was a learning experience.   You sell calls against stock you own in your IRA. You see, selling covered calls always runs the risk of having your stock called away, and you'd have a gain, I'd hope. By doing this within the IRA, you avoid that.  Options can be, but are not always, speculative. Covered calls just change the shape of your return curve. i.e. you lower your cost by the option premium, but create a fixed maximum gain. I've created covered calls on the purchase of a stock or after holding a while depending on the stock. Here's the one I have now: MU 1000 shares bought at $8700, sold the $7.50 call (jan12) for $3000.  Now, this means my cost is $5700, but I have to let it go for $7500, a 32% return if called. (This was bought in mid 2010, BTW.) On the flip side, a drop of up to 35% over the time will still keep me at break even. The call seemed overpriced when I sold it. Stock is still at $7.20, so I'm close to maximum gain. This whole deal was less risky than just owning one risky stock. I just wrote a post on this trade Micron Covered Call, using today's numbers for those actually looking to understand this as new position. (The article was updated after the expiration. The trade resulted in a 42% profit after 491 days of holding the position, with the stock called away.) On the other hand, buying calls, lots of them, during the tech bubble was the best and worst thing I did. One set of trades' value increased by a factor of 50, and in a few weeks blew up on me, ended at 'only' triple. I left the bubble much better off than I went in, but the peak was beautiful, I'd give my little toe to have stayed right there. From 99Q2 to 00Q2, net worth was up by 3X our gross salary. Half of that (i.e. 1.5X) was gone after the crash. For many, they left the bubble far far worse than before it started. I purposely set things up so no more than a certain amount was at risk at any given time, knowing a burst would come, just not when. If nothing else, it was a learning experience. @victor has the most descriptive and basic idea on how this is done.  The only thing I would add is that one benefit to real estate is that you can control how much the property is worth.  By increasing rents and making the property one of the best in the neighborhood, you increase the value. As for the comment that this is the type of investing that caused the 1929 stock market crash, there are many other aspects that are overlooked.  Taking equity out of real estate has been happening long before and after the depression.  People do it all the time by taking out home equity loans, just not everyone uses it to purchase another investment. "From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when   comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings   ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies   that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between   equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then   superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity   investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not   have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not   sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the   market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception   of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued.   Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and   costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare   returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation   (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for   the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the   capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the   outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy   to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making   a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective   estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the   market value of these components. For example, in many professional   valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the   numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should,   therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used   to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and   including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting   period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions   (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or   significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the   reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be   calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital   employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic   multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the   weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is   determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and   debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under ""Technical Considerations"" there and you will see that the ""access to data on cash and debts"" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum." "Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like ""normalized"" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA" "There were a lot of these articles before Facebook went public. The Economist thought that Facebook would go public at $28-35 a share. Their article on the Facebook IPO [urged caution and pointed out red flags](http://www.economist.com/node/21554532).  The articles on Reddit just before Facebook went public were about General Motors pulling its advertising from Facebook. I think that reddit's consensus was ""overvalued""." If you look at the value as a composite, as Graham seems to, then look at its constituent parts (which you can get off any financials sheet they file with the SEC): For example, if you have a fictitious company with: Compared to the US GDP (~$15T) you have approximately: Now, scale those numbers to a region with a GDP of, say, $500B (like Belgium), the resultant numbers would be: He did not go into specifics but he said that a usual case would probably be around $10 to $20 million. And that they make the deal in a matter of days. The deal usually closes after extensive due diligence between them and another law firm.