Effect of company issued options on share price
The answer to your question as asked is no.  Call options, even those issued by the company, cannot create new shares unless they are employee stock options. Company-issued warrants, on the other hand, can create new shares. "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."
"Share sales & purchases are accounted only on the balance sheet & cash flow statement although their effects are seen on the income statement. Remember, the balance sheet is like a snapshot in time of all accrued accounts; it's like looking at a glass of water and noting the level.  The cash flow and income statements are like looking at the amount of water, ""actually"" and ""imaginary"" respectively, pumped in and out of the glass. So, when a corporation starts, it sells shares to whomever.  The amount of cash received is accounted for in the investing section of the cash flow statement under the subheading ""issuance (retirement) of stock"" or the like, so when shares are sold, it is ""issuance""; when a company buys back their shares, it's called ""retirement"", as cash inflows and outflows respectively. If you had a balance sheet before the shares were sold, you'd see under the ""equity"" heading a subheading common stock with a nominal (irrelevant) par value (this is usually something obnoxiously low like $0.01 per share used for ease of counting the shares from the Dollar amount in the account) under the subaccount almost always called ""common stock"".  If you looked at the balance sheet after the sale, you'd see the number of shares in a note to the side. When shares trade publicly, the corporation usually has very little to do with it unless if they are selling or buying new shares under whatever label such as IPO, secondary offering, share repurchase, etc, but the corporation's volume from such activity would still be far below the activity of the third parties: shares are trading almost exclusively between third parties. These share sales and purchases will only be seen on the income statement under earnings per share (EPS), as EPS will rise and fall with stock repurchases and sales assuming income is held constant.  While not technically part of the income statement but printed with it, the ""basic weighted average"" and ""diluted weighted average"" number of shares are also printed which are the weighted average over the reporting period of shares actually issued and expected if all promises to issue shares with employee stock options, grants, convertibles were made kept. The income statement is the accrual accounts of the operations of the company.  It has little detail on investing (depreciation & appreciation) or financing (interest expenses & preferred dividends)." For the case of spinoffs it reflects the market as activities as the specific steps that have to be followed take place. For example the spinoff of Leidos from SAIC in 2013. (I picked this one becasue I knew some of the details) On September 9, 2013, the Board of Directors of SAIC, Inc.(Ticker   Symbol (NYSE):SAI) approved the following:  The separation of its technical, engineering and enterprise information technology services business through the distribution of   shares of SAIC  Gemini, Inc. to stockholders.  Each stockholder of   record of SAIC, Inc. as of  September 19, 2013 (Record Date) will   receive one (1) share of SAIC Gemini, Inc. common stock for every   seven (7) shares of SAIC, Inc. common stock  held by such stockholder   as of the Record Date.   This distribution will be effective after   market close on September 27, 2013 (Distribution Date).  After the   Distribution Date, SAIC Gemini, Inc. will be renamed Science   Applications International Corporation (New SAIC). A one (1) for four (4) reverse stock split of the SAIC, Inc. common stock effective as of Distribution Date. After the Distribution Date,   SAIC, Inc. will be renamed Leidos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos). Q 11: What are the different trading markets that may occur between   Record Date and Distribution Date? A: Beginning two days prior to the Record Date of September 19, 2013   through the Distribution Date on September 27, 2013, there may be   three different trading markets available with respect to SAIC, Inc.   and the separation. Stock Ticker – SAI (Regular Way Trading with Due Bills): Shares of SAI common stock that trade on the regular-way market will trade with   an entitlement to shares of the New SAIC common stock distributed on   the Distribution Date.  Purchasers in this market are purchasing both   the shares of Leidos and New SAIC common stock. Form of Stock Ticker –SAIC (When Issued Trading): Shares of New SAIC common stock may be traded on a “when-issued” basis.  These   transactions are made conditionally because the security has been   authorized, but not yet issued.  Purchasers in this market are only   purchasing the shares of  New SAIC common stock distributed on the   Distribution Date. Form of Stock Ticker – LDOS (Ex-Distribution Trading): Shares that trade on the ex-distribution market will trade without an entitlement   to shares of New SAIC common stock distributed on the Distribution   Date.  Purchasers in this market are only purchasing the shares of   Leidos common stock. So the stock price for New SAIC starts a few days before the record date of 19 September 2013, while LDOS (new name for the old SAIC) goes back much earlier. But the company didn't split until after the close of business on 27 September 2013. http://investors.saic.com/sites/saic.investorhq.businesswire.com/files/doc_library/file/GeneralStockholder-QuestionsandAnswers.pdf ChelseaFC rocked number 2, so before I try to answer number 1, I'll just mention that academics generally ignored negative *real* interest rates, and have always admitted that negative *nominal* rates were perfectly possible.  There's nothing in his explanation that I think is controversial at this point though.  As for number 1, a drop in a company's share price affects the company's ability to raise cash in the present and future.  In a closely related issue, that drop can affect the company's ability to compensate its employees through options and restricted stock grants.  In the long run (and I suspect you already know this), and drop in the share price affects the shareholders' wealth, and can lead them to demand that changes be made to be firm's operations (usually, changes made to who's running the firm).  If a firm doesn't need more financing, and it doesn't pay any employees with stock or derivatives on its stock, then changes to its stock price won't affect the firm's operations in the slightest.  Naturally, this assuming that the change in stock prices isn't indicative of changes to the economy, but that's a causal relationship in the other direction (the stock price reflects changes in operations, not the other way around). If a company is valued correctly, then paying dividends should lower the share price, and buying back shares should leave the share price unchanged.  If the share price is $100, and the company pays a $10 dividend, then either its cash goes down by $10 per share, it is has to borrow money for the same amount, or some mixture. Either way, the value of the company has gone down by $10 per share.  If the share price is $100, and the company buys back 10 percent of its shares, then it also has to find the money, just as for the dividend, and the value of the company goes down by 10 percent. However, the number of shares also goes down by 10 percent, so the amount of value per share is the same, and the share price should stay unchanged.  Now there are psychological effects. Many people like getting paid dividends, so they will want to own shares of a company paying dividends, so the share price goes up. Similar with a share buyback; the fact that someone buys huge amounts of shares drives the price up. Both effects are purely psychological.  A buyback has another effect if the shares are not valued correctly. If the company is worth $100 per share but for some reason the shareprice is down to $50, then after the buyback the value per share has even gone up. Basically the company buys from stupid investors, which increases the value for clever investors holding on to their shares. If the shareprice were $200, then buying back shares would be a stupid move for the company. "When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the ""60-day window"" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company." If you want to see a more academic version of this look up Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC).   It's a formula that tells you how much it costs for a company to raise $1 of capital whether it be through issuing bonds or stocks.   One thing you learn is that there are times that if you take on loans (even if you don't need it) you can raise shareholder value and therefore the total company netvalue. The thought process is (as it states in the article above) that a company can issue debt for cheaper than issue shares and it will have extra cash which it can use to get a better return than its net effective interest rate.   I tried to give an example but I only ended up rehashing what it says in the article. Anyhow look up WACC and you'll understand the fundamentals. Well like a lot of stuff on money.stackexchange there is not a simple answer, but generally it is not a good thing. Take a look at the wikipedia entry on Net Operating Loss. Basically the company is commenting that when they do make money they will receive preferential tax treatment on that income.    So whether or not this is a positive or a negative depends on a couple of things: NOL doesn't directly impact book value other than how the actual assets of the company changed over the previous quarter. I believe there is a 1:1 correspondence to how the assets change and NOL, but I am sure someone could clarify that for me in another answer or as a comment. Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm.   Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase.