2

When a company starts off, 100% of shares are owned by cofounders. By the time a company is considering IPO, the shares are owned like 70% by cofounders and 30% by options-holders (like employees) (I don't know - please, just go with the example).

So, when an IPO happens...Doesn't the company need to purchase the shares from the cofounders? But isn't that like selling to yourself?

Only after purchasing the shares from the cofounders, can the company sell its shares to the public in a secondary offering? Am I right? What is this first process called.

None of the articles about IPO cover this step. They assume that the company already owns its own shares. But this is not true, right? It's the confounders and option-holders that own it... right? It has to go from primary share holders -> company -> secondary share holders...Right?

Unfortunately, finance literature always assumes you understand some assumptions. Please clarify this detail, it will help alot. Thanks :)

  • so the company creates shares for its employee option holders, but cant do the same thing for the general public? – CQM Jul 26 '17 at 14:22
  • maybe you didn't notice, but why assume a double standard? – CQM Jul 26 '17 at 14:34
  • the issue is preservation of value. How do the cofounders get commensurately compensated for creating a profitable company. – Calicoder Jul 27 '17 at 16:41
7

A company typically goes public in order to bring in additional capital.

In an IPO, the company (through its officials) will typically do so by issuing additional shares, and offering to sell those to investors. If they did not do that, then there would be no net capital gain for the company; if person A sells share in company C to person B, then company C does not benefit directly from the exchange. By issuing and selling additional shares, the total value of all stock in the company can increase. Being publicly traded also greatly increases the confidence in the valuation of the company, as a consequence of the perfect market theory.

There is nothing in this that says that initial investors (cofounders, employees, etc.) need to sell their shares in the process. They might choose to do so, or they might not; or they might be prevented from doing so by terms of any agreements that they have signed or by insider trading laws. Compare What happens to internal stock when a company goes public?

Depending on specifics, it might be reasonable for the company to perform a share split prior to the initial public offering. That, however, doesn't affect the total value of the shares, only the price per share.

  • I was about to write a post talking about the (in)famous company that consists of $100 of gold but you beat me to it and covered basically everything I was going to +1 but :( – MD-Tech Jul 25 '17 at 13:02
  • @MD-Tech there's nothing wrong with posting additional answers. A concrete example might actually be helpful to OP. – 0xFEE1DEAD Jul 25 '17 at 13:44
  • @0xFEE1DEAD meh my answer would have been a bloated piece of ephemera compared with this masterful answer. – MD-Tech Jul 25 '17 at 13:45
  • what's missing in your answer is how a company comes to be in possession of shares. For example: if person A has 100% of the shares in company C. Company C is worth $100. Then when C issues shares, person A now owns 80% of the company, worth $80. That's not fair! person A has lost money. Person A founded the company and worked so hard for it to get to this point, just to lose money because the board of directors realized they need more capital? How does C acquire its own shares from Person A? I don't believe C can just generate "shares" out of thin air. Can it? I mean how would that work. – Calicoder Jul 25 '17 at 20:06
  • 1
    The company issues new shares and sells them to investors. Now it's worth $200 (the original $100, plus a new $100 that investors paid for the shares). But remember, before the IPO, there was no liquid market for the shares, so the value of Person A's shares was very hypothetical to begin with. She might agree to a valuation at the IPO that makes her shares worth only $80, because she thinks the company can use the new investor's money to increase the company's value until A's shares increase in value above $100 again. – The Photon Jul 26 '17 at 2:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.