Why is a stock dividend considered a dividend? What makes it different from a stock split?
"The key difference I've found between a stock split and a stock dividend – of the exact same stock and class, as opposed to a spin-off – seems to be from the company's own accounting perspective.  There doesn't appear to be any actual transfer of value to the shareholder with either kind of transaction; i.e. in theory, each transaction would be immaterial to the value of your holdings. With respect to the company's accounting, a stock split affects the par value of the shares, whereas a stock dividend reduces the retained earnings account in order to increase paid-in or contributed capital. I found a good online source which explains the history behind this accounting difference: McGraw-Hill - Intermediate Accounting eBook, 6/e - Chapter 18 - Stock Dividends and Splits. Small quote: [...]   Besides being based on fallacious reasoning, accounting for stock   dividends by artificially reclassifying “earned” capital as “invested”   capital conflicts with the reporting objective of reporting   shareholders' equity by source. Despite these limitations, this   outdated accounting standard still applies. Since neither the corporation nor its shareholders apparently benefits   from stock dividends, why do companies declare them?23 Occasionally, a   company tries to give shareholders the illusion that they are   receiving a real dividend. Another reason is merely to enable the corporation to take advantage   of the accepted accounting practice of capitalizing retained earnings.   Specifically, a company might wish to reduce an existing balance in   retained earnings—otherwise available for cash dividends—so it can   reinvest the earned assets represented by that balance without   carrying a large balance in retained earnings. [...] There's a lot more on that page, before and after, worth reading. From another book: Google Books - Comparative Income Taxation, a Structural Analysis - page 314 - Stock Dividends. Small quote: The distribution of dividends in the form of stock or ""bonus"" shares   to existing shareholders typically involves a transfer for corporate   law purposes of retained earnings into stated capital.   It can been [sic] viewed as a deemed distribution of a cash   dividend to the shareholders followed by a corresponding contribution   to capital or as solely as an event at the corporate level which has   no effect on the shareholders whose economic interest in the   corporation is unchanged by the receipt of additional shares. The   systems have taken varied approaches to the stock dividend problem.    The treatment is in part a function of the rules dealing with   distributions of stated capital. [emphases above are mine] [... continues w/descriptions of different countries' tax treatments of the kinds of stock dividends. Includes U.S., Sweden, Japan,   Netherlands, Canada, Australia, U.K., France, Germany. ...] As far as why a corporation might want to capitalize earnings and reduce the equity otherwise available for dividends, I can only imagine that, ignoring taxes for a moment, that it may have something to do with capital ratios that need to be maintained for financing or regulatory purposes?  Yet, I remain curious. If I discover more on this then I'll update my answer. Additional resources:" A stock dividend isn't exactly a split. Example: You have 100 shares of stock worth $5 a share (total value $500). The company wants to distribute a dividend worth 1%. You could expect a check for $5. But If they wanted to do a stock dividend they could send you 0.01 shares for every share you own, in your case you will be given a single share worth $5. Now you own 101 shares. Why a share dividend? It doesn't take cash to give the dividend. It keeps the money invested in the company. Some investors re-invest a cash dividend, some don't.  A cash dividend is generally taxable income for the investor; a stock dividend isn't. Some investors prefer one over the other, but it depends on their specific financial picture. Neither a stock dividend, a cash dividend or split changes anything.  The split changes the price to meet a goal. The cash dividend lowers the price by sending excess cash to the investors. The stock dividend lowers the price by creating new shares and retaining cash.  It company picks the message and the method. depending on their goals and situation. Remember that a company may want to give a dividend because they have a history of doing so, but not have the cash to do so. It is like a split because the number of shares you own will go up, and the price per share will go down. But a split is generally done to bring the price of a share to within a specific range. The company sees a benefit to having a stock mid priced, instead of very high or very low. You can argue that cash dividend is a kind of split as well by this logic. The stock price on ex-dividend gets a hit coincidental with the dividend to be paid, so one can argue that the investor has the same cash value on the day the dividend was paid as if it wouldn't be paid at all. However, for the company to distribute stocks instead of cash may be advantageous if they have low cash reserves but significant amount of treasury stocks, and the stocks are of high liquidity.  It is also a way for the company to release treasury stocks without diluting the current shareholders and creating taxable income to the company, that's an important factor to consider. This is in fact the real answer to your question. The main difference between split and stock dividend is that in split, the stock distributions proportions don't change. With stock dividend - they do. While the outstanding share proportions do not change, total proportions do, because of the treasury stocks being distributed. So company has less stocks in its vaults, but everyone else still has the same proportions of ownership. Compare this to split: company's treasury stocks would be split as well, and it would continue essentially sitting on the same proportion of stocks. That shift of treasury stocks to the outside shareholders - this is what makes it a dividend. A stock dividend converts some of the reserves and surplus on the company's balance sheet into paid-up capital and securities premium account without involving any actual cash outflow to the shareholders. While cash dividends are eyed by the investors due to their cash yield, issuance of stock dividends are indicators of growing confidence of the management and the shareholders in the company.  The fact that shareholders want to convert free cash sitting on the balance sheet (which can ideally be taken out as dividends) into blocked money in exchange for shares is symbolic to their confidence in the company. This in turn is expected to lead to an increase in market price of the stock.
Actually, total return is the most important which isn't necessarily just price change as this doesn't account for dividends that may be re-invested.  Thus, the price change isn't necessarily that useful in terms of knowing what you end up with as an ending balance for an investment. Secondly, the price change itself may be deceptively large as if the stock initial price was low, e.g. a few dollars or less adjusting for stock splits as most big companies will split the stock once the price is high enough, then the percentages can be quite large years later. Something else to consider is the percentage change would be based on what as the initial base.  The price at the start of the chart or something else?  Carefully consider what you want the initial starting point to be in determining price shifts here as one could take either end and claim a rationale for using it. Most people want to look at the price to get an idea of what would X shares cost to purchase rather than look at the percentage change from day to day. I'm guessing you're conflating bonus share issuance with stock split.  That seems very common to me, from a quick search; there's even some issues of terminology between the US and Europe, I think - it seems some Europeans may use Bonus Shares to mean Stock Split, as opposed to the more common meaning in the US of Stock Dividend. Sometimes a bonus share issuance is (incorrectly) called a stock split, like in this public announcement from STADA in 2004.  It is a 1:1 bonus share issuance (meaning they issue one bonus share to everyone who has one share now), but it is in essence the same thing as a stock split (a 2:1 stock split, namely).  They combined the 1:1 from bonus share with the wording 'split', causing the confusion. Bonus share issuance, also known as a stock dividend, is covered well in this question/answer on this site, or from a search online.  It has no obvious effect initially - both involve doubling shares out there and halving the price - but it has a substantially different treatment in terms of accounting, both to the company and to your tax accountant. "Here are a few things that you could try. But note that they are all capable of failing. They will just reduce the chance of you personally having a lost decade. First a quibble: John Bogle advocates a total stock market index (something like Vanguard's VTSMX) instead of an S&P fund, as the latter represents ""only"" 85% or so of the US market's total capitalization. Smaller companies behave slightly differently than members of the S&P, so this might provide a small help. Bogle also advocates holding some bonds in addition to equities. I'll expand on that below. Account for dividends. Just because the value of the index is the same as its value 10 or 20 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that decade was lost. The companies in the S&P are currently paying out an annualized dividend of about 2%. Even if the actual value of the index doesn't change, you're still getting that 2% per year.  Include bonds.  As I mentioned above, Bogle recommends holding some bonds. I have seen two common rules. One is to never have less than 20% of your total holdings in bonds, and never have more than 80% of your total holdings in bonds. The other popular rule is to hold your age in bonds. For example, I'm about 30, so I should keep about 30% of my holdings in bonds. Regardless of the split, rebalance periodically to keep yourself at that split. What effect would holding bonds have on a lost decade? To make the math easy, let's say you split your holdings evenly between an S&P fund and 10 year Treasuries. Coincidentally, 10 year T-notes have the same 2% yield as the S&P dividends. If you're getting that on half your holdings, and nothing on the other half, you're netting 1% per year. Not great, but not totally lost. To illustrate the effect of rebalancing, use my example of a 70/30 stock/bond split. The S&P lost about 50% of its value from its peak to the bottom of the market in early 2008. If you only held stock, you would need the market to increase in value by 100% in order for you to recover that value. If 30% of your holdings are in bonds, and you rebalance at exactly the bottom of the stock market, you only need the stock index to increase in value by about 80% from the bottom in order to make you whole again. I mention those two to emphasize that your investment return is not just a function of the price of a stock index. Dollar cost average. It's rare that you will actually face the situation of putting (say) $100,000 into the market all at once, let it sit for 10-20 years, then take it all out at once. The situation you face is closer to putting about $1000 into the market every month for 100 months. If you do that, then you're getting a different price for each purchase you make. Your actual return will be a weighted average of the return from each of those purchases. But note that this could help or hurt you. Using the chart Victor showed in his answer, if your lost decade is from one peak to the next peak, your average price will be below the price you would have entered and left at. So this helps. But if your lost decade is from trough to trough, then your average price is higher than the start and end price, so this has hurt you. Those are the two extreme cases, and the general case will be somewhere in between. And you can use these regular purchases to help you carry out your regular rebalancing. Foreign equities. Since you mention the S&P500 specifically, I assume that you are in the United States. The US equities is approximately 45% of the world equities market. So even if the S&P500 has a lost decade, it's unlikely that the rest of the world will also have a lost decade at the same time. For comparison, the Tokyo Stock Exchange is the third largest in the world (behind the US's NYSE and NASDAQ); the market cap of the TSE is less than 20% that of the combined market cap of the NYSE and the NASDAQ, which puts it at about 10% of the world's market cap. When the Nikkei had its lost decades, no one else had a lost decade. Note that buying foreign equities is more expensive than buying domestic, and it exposes you to fluctuations in the exchange rate of the currencies. But the benefit of diversification probably outweighs those downsides. And obviously it's easier to diversify away from Japan than it is to diversify away from the United States. But there are people who advocate holding exactly the market weight of every country in the world." Investopedia has a good definition. Stock dividends are similar to cash dividends; however, instead of cash, a company pays out stock. Stock splits occur when a company perceives that its stock price may be too high. Stock splits are usually done to increase the liquidity of the stock (more shares outstanding) and to make it more affordable for investors to buy regular lots (a regular lot = 100 shares). "Dividend paying stocks are not ""better""  In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations.  The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares.   Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field.  IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money." "Isn't it true that on the ex-dividend date, the price of the stock goes down roughly the amount of the dividend? That is, what you gain in dividend, you lose in price drop. Yes and No. It Depends! Generally stocks move up and down during the market, and become more volatile on some news. So One can't truly measure if the stock has gone down by the extent of dividend as one cannot isolate other factors for what is a normal share movement. There are time when the prices infact moves up. Now would it have moved more if there was no dividend is speculative. Secondly the dividends are very small percentage compared to the shares trading price. Generally even if 100% dividend are announced, they are on the share capital. On share prices dividends would be less than 1%. Hence it becomes more difficult to measure the movement of stock. Note if the dividend is greater than a said percentage, there are rules that give guidelines to factor this in options and other area etc. Lets not mix these exceptions. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the amount that companies pay in dividends then? Why do some people call themselves ""dividend investors""? It doesn't seem to make much sense. There are some set of investors who are passive. i.e. they want to invest in good stock, but don't want to sell it; i.e. more like keep it for long time. At the same time they want some cash potentially to spend; similar to interest received on Bank Deposits. This class of share holders, it makes sense to invest into companies that give dividends, as year on year they keep receiving some money. If they on the other hand has invested into a company that does not give dividends, they would have to sell some units to get the same money back. This is the catch. They have to sell in whole units, there is brokerage, fees, etc, there are tax events. Some countries have taxes that are more friendly to dividends than capital gains. Thus its an individual choice whether to invest into companies that give good dividends or into companies that don't give dividends.  Giving or not giving dividends does not make a company good or bad." You buy stocks for dividends over the long term.  If a share of stock pays $1.00 in dividends every quarter, that's four dollars a year.  If you bought it for $40, it pays out $4 in a year, and it's still worth roughly $40 at the end of the year, you're $4 richer.  People will often invest large amounts of money in stable stocks not planning to sell it, but only collect the dividends which are either re-invested or pulled out as income. "If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable.  Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. ""But wait,"" you say, ""that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!"" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, ""no we're not done, we're still building our business!"". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market."