Paying myself a dividend from ltd company
In a simple case as the sole UK resident director/shareholder of a company, with that company as your only income, you are usually best paying yourself a salary of the maximum tax free amount allowed under your tax code (~£11k for most people at present).  On this you will have to pay some employer and employee National Insurance (NI) contributions (totalling around £1000). Your salary/employer NI counts as an expense, so that is taken off the company profits.  You then pay corporation tax on the remainder (20%).  The first £5k you take as dividends is tax free, the remainder at a lower tax rate than the equivalent combined income tax/NI (starting at 7.5% instead of 20% tax plus employee plus employer NI), giving a significant saving compared to salaried income even after corporation tax. To declare and pay the tax, you would need to complete a self-assessment tax return.  Your company will also need to file a return. The Contractor UK website, although aimed at IT contractors, has some very useful information on operating Ltd companies. That said, finances are rarely that simple so I would concur with the recommendation you engage an accountant, which is a tax-deductible expense. manage the company properly. If you aren't much aware about company rules and regulation or tax matters, get an accountant so that you don't mess up later. better off paying my self a dividend of 100% profit or as an employee? That depends on how much salary you intend to pay yourself, your dividend or how much business expenses you will incur while running the business.  Generally speaking you are better off paying your self a minimum salary and pay the rest as dividends. But check out the dividend tax and the income tax you might need to pay and compare which situation you are better off. If you have a partner, using the dividend way will reduce your NI outgoes. ethical and legal? Ethically the dividend way might burn your conscience but it is perfectly legal way of doing things. Adding to webdevduck's answer: Before you calculate your profits, you can pay money tax-free into a pension fund for the company director (that is you). Then if you pay yourself dividends, if you made lots of profit you don't have to pay it all as dividends. You can take some where the taxes are low, and then pay more money in later years.   What you must NOT do is just take the money. The company may be yours, but the money isn't. It has to be paid as salary or dividend. (You can give the company director a loan, but that loan has to be repaid. Especially if a limited company goes bankrupt, the creditors would insist that loans from the company are repaid).  After a bit more checking, here's the optimal approach, perfectly legal, expected and ethical:  You pay yourself a salary of £676 per month. That's the point where you get all the advantages of national insurance without having to pay; above that you would have to pay 13.8% employers NI contributions and 12% employee's NI contributions, so for £100 salary the company has to pay £113.80 and you receive £88.00. Below £676 you pay nothing.  You deduct the salary from your revenue, then you deduct all the deductible business costs (be wise in what you try to deduct), then you pay whatever you want into a pension fund. Well, up to I think £25,000 per year.  The rest is profit. The company pays 19% corporation tax on profits. Then you pay yourself dividends. Any dividends until your income is £11,500 per year are tax free. Then the next £5,000 per year are tax free. Then any dividends until income + dividends = £45,000 per year is taxed at 7.5%. It's illegal to pay so much in dividends that the company can't pay its bills.  Above £45,000 you decide if you want your money now and pay more tax, or wait and get it tax free. Every pound of dividend above £45,000 a year you pay 32.5% tax, but there is nobody forcing you to take the money. You can wait until business is bad, or you want a loooong holiday, or you retire. So at that time you will stay below £45,000 per year and pay only 7.5% tax.
"It is important to first understand that true causation of share price may not relate to historical correlation. Just like with scientific experiments, correlation does not imply causation. But we use stock price correlation to attempt to infer causation, where it is reasonable to do so. And to do that you need to understand that prices change for many reasons; some company specific, some industry specific, some market specific. Companies in the same industry may correlate when that industry goes up or down; companies with the same market may correlate when that market goes up or down. In general, in most industries, it is reasonable to assume that competitor companies have stocks which strongly correlate (positively) with each-other to the extent that they do the same thing.  For a simple example, consider three resource companies: ""Oil Ltd."" [100% of its assets relate to Oil]; ""Oil and Iron Inc."" [50% of its value relates to Oil, 50% to Iron]; and ""Iron and Copper Ltd."" [50% of its value relates to Iron, 50% to Copper]. For each of these companies, there are many things which affect value, but one could naively simplify things by saying ""value of a resource company is defined by the expected future volume of goods mined/drilled * the expected resource price, less all fixed and variable costs"". So, one major thing that impacts resource companies is simply the current & projected price of those resources. This means that if the price of Oil goes up or down, it will partially affect the value of the two Oil companies above - but how much it affects each company will depend on the volume of Oil it drills, and the timeline that it expects to get that Oil. For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years.  In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market.  In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple." The missing money is not money that was invested in MF Global Holdings Ltd. for an ownership share of that company, but money in accounts for which that company was responsible.  And yes, if you take money from customer accounts and use it as if it's your own, then as I understand it you are guilty of a crime. "You probably know that the answer is, ""it depends"".  If this is truly a pin money type of operation, then perhaps sole trader is for you. I incline to using a limited company for two reasons, one optimistic and one pessimistic.  You are looking at a business to make some money with your talents.  If your business takes off, it's much easier to expand a LTD than a sole trader. Getting credit, dealing with suppliers, hiring people, all much easier.  And if things go well, you will be expanding.   The negative reason is that as a sole trader  (you) have unlimited liability for the debts of your enterprise. If you get sued, say your skincare line makes someone's face into a rash, you are on the hook for the whole amount. You don't want to torpedo your family if it goes bad. Being a limited company protects you from that. I can tell you that the overhead of running a small LTD is pretty light so long as you are meticulous about your record keeping. I had an LTD with two toddlers under my feet and it was perfectly doable to handle the paperwork." I feel dividends are better for shareholders. The idea behind buy backs is that future profits are split between fewer shares, thereby increasing the value (not necessarily price -- that's a market function) of the remaining shares. This presupposes that the company then retires the shares it repurchases. But quite often buybacks simply offset dilution from stock option compensation programs. In my opinion, some stock option compensation is acceptable, but overuse of this becomes a form of wealth transfer -- from the shareholder to management. The opposite of shareholder friendly! But let's assume the shares are being retired. That's good, but at what cost? The company must use cashflow (cash) to pay for the shares. The buyback is only a positive for shareholders if the shares are undervalued. Managers can be very astute in their own sphere: running their business. Estimating a reasonable range of intrinsic value for their shares is a difficult, and very subjective task, requiring many assumptions about future revenue and margins. A few managers, like Warren Buffett, are very competent capital allocators. But most managers aren't that good in this area. And being so close to the company, they're often overly optimistic. So they end up overpaying. If a company's shares are worth, say, $30, it's not unreasonable to assume they may trade all around that number, maybe as low as $15, and as high as $50. This is overly simplistic, but assuming the value doesn't change -- that the company is in steady-state mode, then the $30 point, the intrinsic value estimate, will act as a magnet for the market price. Eventually it regresses toward the value point. Well, if management doesn't understand this, they could easily pay $50 for the repurchased stock (heck, companies routinely just continue buying stock, with no apparent regard for the price they're paying). This is one of the quickest ways to vaporize shareholder capital (overpaying for dubious acquisitions is another). Dividends, on the other hand, require no estimates. They can't mask other activities, other agendas. They don't transfer wealth from shareholders to management. US companies traditionally pay quarterly, and they try very hard not to cut the dividend. Many companies grow the dividend steadily, at a rate several times that of inflation. The dividend is an actual cash expenditure. There's no GAAP reporting constructs to get in the way of what's really going on. The company must be fiscally conservative and responsible, or risk not having the cash when they need to pay it out. The shareholder gets the cash, and can then reinvest as he/she sees fit with available opportunities at the time, including buying more shares of the company, if undervalued. But if overvalued, the money can be invested in a better, safer opportunity. Check out the NASDAQ and NYSE websites(the exchange in which the stock is listed) for detailed information. Most of the websites which collate dividend payments generally have cash payments history only e.g. Dividata. And because a company has given stock dividends in the past doesn't guarantee such in the future, I believe you already know that. Your investment is probably in a Collective Investment Trust. These are not mutual funds, and are not publicly traded. I.e. they are private to plan participants in your company. Because of this, they are not required* to distribute dividends like mutual funds. Instead, they will reinvest dividends automatically, increasing the value of the fund, rather than number of shares, as with dividend reinvestment. Sine you mention the S&P 500 fund you have tracks closely to the S&P Index, keep in mind there's two indexes you could be looking at: Without any new contributions, your fund should closely track the Total Return version for periods 3 months or longer, minus the expense ratio. If you are adding contributions to the fund, you can't just look at the start and end balances. The comparison is trickier and you'll need to use the Internal Rate of Return (look into the XIRR function in Excel/Google Sheets). *MFs are not strictly required to pay dividends, but are strongly tax-incentivized to do so, and essentially all do. I wrote about this in another answer: You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash dividend). Since you haven't sold the shares in the market yet, you haven't earned any income on the shares. You don't owe taxes on the scrip until you sell the shares and earn capital gains on them. HMRC is very explicit about this, in CG33800: It is quite common for a company, particularly a quoted company, to offer its shareholders the option of receiving additional shares instead of a cash dividend. The expression `stock or scrip dividend' is used to describe shares issued in such circumstances. The basic position under tax law is that when a company makes a bonus issue of shares no distribution arises, and the bonus issue of shares is not income for tax purposes in the hands of the recipient. Obviously, if this is an issue for you, talk to a tax professional to make sure you get it right. "Dividends telegraph that management has a longer term focus than just the end of quarter share price.  There is a committment to at least maintain (if not periodically increase) the dividend payout year over year.  Management understands that cutting or pausing dividends will cause dividend investors in market to dump shares driving down the stock price.   Dividends can have preferential tax treatment in some jurisdictions, either for an individual compared to capital gains or compared to the corporation paying taxes themselves.  For example, REITs (real estate investment trusts) are a type of corporation that in order to not pay corporate income tax are required to pay out 95% of income as dividends each year.  These are not the only type, MLP (master limited partnerships) and other ""Partnership"" structures will always have high dividend rates by design. Dividends provide cash flow and trade market volatility for actual cash.  Not every investor needs cash flow, but for certain investors, it reduces the risks of a liquidity crisis, such as in retirement.  The alternative for an investor who seeks to use the sale of shares would be to maintain a sufficient cash reserve for typical market recessions."