How a company can afford to give away so many shares as part of its ESOP
This question is very open ended. But I'll try to answer parts of it. An employer can offer shares as part of a compensation package. Instead of paying cash the employer can use the money to buy up shares and give them to the employees. This is done to keep employees for longer periods of time and the employer may also want to create more insider ownership for a number of reasons. Another possibility is issuance of secondary offerings that are partially given to employees. Secondary offerings often lower the price of the shares in the market and create an incentive for employees to stay until the stock price rises. All of these conditions can be stipulated, look up golden handcuffs. Usually stock gifts are only given to a few high level employees and as part of a bonus package. It is very unusual to see a mature company regularly give away large amounts of stock, as this is a frowned upon practice. Start ups often pay their employees with stock up until the company is acquired or goes public. There are two sources for shares that employees buy through ESOPs. A company can simply buy the shares on the open market. The company must pay for the stock, but the employee then pays the company for the shares. If employees get a discount on the ESOP shares, the company would pay for that percentage directly. The company can choose to issue new shares. These new shares dilute the ownership of all the other current stockholders. While #2 is common when companies issue stock options, I'd be surprised to see it with an ESOP. In most cases, employees are limited in the amount of their salary they can devote towards the ESOP. If that limit is 10% and the discount that the employees get is 10%, the cost on a per-employee basis would only be 1% of that employees salary, which is a small expense. Companies theoretically have an infinite number of equity units at their disposal.  Issuance must be approved according to its founding contracts. If an equity is trading on an open market then the price of each unit issued in lieu of cash compensation is known.  Even if an equity doesn't trade openly, bidders can be solicited for a possible price or an appraisal.  This can be a risky route for the potentially compensated. Market capitalizations are frequently generally approximately equal to the sales of a company.  Salaries and wages are frequently generally two thirds of sales. It is indeed expensive for the average company to compensate with equity, thus so few do, usually restricting equity compensation to executives and exceptional laborers.  Besides, they frequently have enough cash to pay for compensation, avoiding transaction costs. For companies in growth industries such as technology or medicine, their situations are usually reversed: cash constrained yet equity abundant because of large investment and dearly priced equities.  For a company trading at a market capitalization multiplied by forty times the revenue, compensating with equity is inexpensive.
"There are many different methods for a corporation to get money, but they mostly fall into three categories: earnings, debt and equity.  Earnings would be just the corporation's accumulation of cash due to the operation of its business. Perhaps if cash was needed for a particular reason immediately, a business may consider selling a division or group of assets to another party, and using the proceeds for a different part of the business. Debt is money that (to put it simply) the corporation legally must repay to the lender, likely with periodic interest payments. Apart from the interest payments (if any) and the principal (original amount leant), the lender has no additional rights to the value of the company. There are, basically, 2 types of corporate debt: bank debt, and bonds.  Bank debt is just the corporation taking on a loan from a bank. Bonds are offered to the public - ie: you could potentially buy a ""Tesla Bond"", where you give Tesla $1k, and they give you a stated interest rate over time, and principal repayments according to a schedule. Which type of debt a corporation uses will depend mostly on the high cost of offering a public bond, the relationships with current banks, and the interest rates the corporation thinks it can get from either method. Equity [or, shares] is money that the corporation (to put it simply) likely does not have a legal obligation to repay, until the corporation is liquidated (sold at the end of its life) and all debt has already been repaid. But when the corporation is liquidated, the shareholders have a legal right to the entire value of the company, after those debts have been paid. So equity holders have higher risk than debt holders, but they also can share in higher reward. That is why stock prices are so volatile - the value of each share fluctuates based on the perceived value of the entire company.  Some equity may be offered with specific rules about dividend payments - maybe they are required [a 'preferred' share likely has a stated dividend rate almost like a bond, but also likely has a limited value it can ever receive back from the corporation], maybe they are at the discretion of the board of directors, maybe they will never happen. There are 2 broad ways for a corporation to get money from equity: a private offering, or a public offering. A private offering could be a small mom and pop store asking their neighbors to invest 5k so they can repair their business's roof, or it could be an 'Angel Investor' [think Shark Tank] contributing significant value and maybe even taking control of the company. Perhaps shares would be offered to all current shareholders first. A public offering would be one where shares would be offered up to the public on the stock exchange, so that anyone could subscribe to them. Why a corporation would use any of these different methods depends on the price it feels it could get from them, and also perhaps whether there are benefits to having different shareholders involved in the business [ie: an Angel investor would likely be involved in the business to protect his/her investment, and that leadership may be what the corporation actually needs, as much or more than money]. Whether a corporation chooses to gain cash from earnings, debt, or equity depends on many factors, including but not limited to: (1) what assets / earnings potential it currently has; (2) the cost of acquiring the cash [ie: the high cost of undergoing a public offering vs the lower cost of increasing a bank loan]; and (3) the ongoing costs of that cash to both the corporation and ultimately the other shareholders - ie: a 3% interest rate on debt vs a 6% dividend rate on preferred shares vs a 5% dividend rate on common shares [which would also share in the net value of the company with the other current shareholders].  In summary: Earnings would be generally preferred, but if the company needs cash immediately, that may not be suitable. Debt is generally cheap to acquire and interest rates are generally lower than required dividend rates. Equity is often expensive to acquire and maintain [either through dividend payments or by reduction of net value attributable to other current shareholders], but may be required if a new venture is risky. ie: a bank/bondholder may not want to lend money for a new tech idea because it is too risky to just get interest from - they want access to the potential earnings as well, through equity." "It's not my industry so I may be wrong, but I don't believe there are any transactions or companies that would provide a worthwhile comparable, hence my problem with the valuation attempt. For the same reasons you wouldn't use a P/E multiple or DDM model on a startup, you don't just pick tangential comparables and slap a value on it. If you're seriously advising companies, that shit will land you in court defending your valuation.  It's not a ""floor"" just because you know it's inaccurate.. it's irrelevant. Quite frankly, I don't think they released any value, let alone $1bn.  It's merely a PR move, with the hope that Tesla's technology will become the standard for all EVs.  At best, major companies decide to use some of their patents ""in good faith"" and leverage the infrastructure that Tesla has already put in place.   At worst, Tesla still did not give away $1bn in value. How much have they made off of licensing their patents? How much have others offered for their patents? How many companies are infringing, and how many lawsuits have they won from going after them? If you can't put a hard figure on any of those, or a solid rationale on how the patents are the only reason they'll be able to gain market share, then I don't see how we can conclude on $1bn given away." What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future. "I'll take a stab at this question and offer a disclosure: I recently got in RING (5.1), NEM (16.4), ASX:RIO (46.3), and FCX (8.2).  While I won't add to my positions at current prices, I may add other positions, or more to them if they fall further.  This is called catching a falling dagger and it's a high risk move. Cons (let's scare everyone away) Pros The ECB didn't engage in as much QE as the market hoped and look at how it reacted, especially commodities.  Consider that the ECB's actions were ""tighter"" than expected and the Fed plans to raise rates, or claims so.  Commodities should be falling off a cliff on that news. While most American/Western attention is on the latest news or entertainment, China has been seizing commodities around the globe like crazy, and the media have failed to mention that even with its market failing, China is still seizing commodities.  If China was truly panicked about its market, it would stop investing in other countries and commodities and just bail out its own country.  Yet, it's not doing that.  The whole ""China crisis"" is completely oversold in the West; China is saying one thing (""oh no""), but doing another (using its money to snap up cheap commodities). Capitalism works because hard times strengthen good companies.  You know how many bailouts ExxonMobil has received compared to Goldman Sachs?  You know who owns more real wealth?  Oil doesn't get bailed out, banks do, and banks can't innovate to save their lives, while oil innovates.  Hard times strengthen good companies.  This means that this harsh bust in commodities will separate the winners from the losers and history shows the winners do very well in the long run. Related to the above point: how many bailouts from tax payers do you think mining companies will get?  Zero.  At least you're investing in companies that don't steal your money through government confiscation. If you're like me, you can probably find at least 9 people out of 10 who think ""investing in miners is a VERY BAD idea.""  What do they think is a good idea?  ""Duh, Snapchat and Twitter, bruh!""  Then there's the old saying, ""Be greedy when everyone's fearful and fearful when everyone's greedy."" Finally, miners own hard assets.  Benjamin Graham used to point this out with the ""dead company"" strategy like finding a used cigarette with one more smoke.  You're getting assets cheap, while other investors are overpaying for stocks, hoping that the Fed unleashes moar QE!  Think strategy here: seize cheap assets, begin limiting the supply of these assets (if you're the saver and not borrowing), then watch as the price begins to rise for them because of low supply.  Remember, investors are part owners in companies - take more control to limit the supply.  Using Graham's analogy, stock pile those one-puff cigarettes for a day when there's a low supply of cigarettes. Many miners are in trouble now because they've borrowed too much and must sell at a low profit, or in some cases, must lose.  When you own assets debt free, you can cut the supply.  This will also help the Federal Reserve, who's been desperately trying to figure out how to raise inflation.  The new patriotic thing to do is stimulate the economy by sending inflation up, and limiting the supply here is key." The same reason a company would offer coupons. I'd guess they're just doing it as a way to entice people to do their investing with them. Since it is any ETF I doubt they are being compensated by the ETF companies, as is sometimes the case (iShares does this with Fidelity, for example). And they still get the commission on the sale. "BigCo is selling new shares and receives the money from Venturo. If Venturo is offering $250k for 25% of the company, then the valuation that they are agreeing on is a value of $1m for the company after the new investment is made.  If Jack is the sole owner of one million shares before the new investment, then BigCo sells 333,333 shares to Venturo for $250k.  The new total number of shares of BigCo is 1,333,333; Venturo holds 25%, and Jack holds 75%. The amount that Jack originally invested in the company is irrelevant.  At the moment of the sale, the Venturo and Jack agree that Jack's stake is worth $750k.  The value of Jack's stake may have gone up, but he owes no capital gains tax, because he hasn't realized any of his gains yet.  Jack hasn't sold any of his stake.  You might think that he has, because he used to hold 100% and now he holds 75%.  However, the difference is that the company is worth more than was before the sale.  So the value of his stake was unchanged immediately before and after the sale. Jack agrees to this because the company needs this additional capital in order to meet its potential. (See ""Why is stock dilution legal?"") For further explanation and another example of this, see the question ""If a startup receives investment money, does the startup founder/owner actually gain anything?"" Your other scenario, where Venturo purchases existing shares directly from Jack, is not practical in this situation.  If Jack sells his existing shares, you are correct that the company does not gain any additional capital.  An investor would not want to invest in the company this way, because the company is struggling and needs new capital." A broker will only get so many shares for any IPO. They will give their highest profit customers priority, but try to keep the smaller ones happy as well. So where my TWTR order today was for 1000 shares, I actually was granted 100.  In the dotcon* bubble of the late 90's, there were some stocks I saw as many as 1000 hit my account.  (*not a typo, this is the title of a book on that period, the making of a bubble and irrational doings on Wall Street. A share of stock is a small fraction of the ownership of the company. If you expect the company to eventually be of interest to someone who wants to engineer a merger or takeover, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay to help make that happen or keep it from happening. Which means it will almost always track the company's value to some degree, because the company itself will buy back shares when it can if they get too cheap, to protect itself from takeover. It may also start paying dividends at a later date. You may also value being able to vote on the company's actions. Including whether it should offer a dividend or reinvest that money in the company. Basically, you would want to own that share -- or not -- for the same reasons you would want to own a piece of that business. Because that's exactly what it is.