What would a stock be worth if dividends did not exist? [duplicate]
"Unrealistic assumption, but I'll play along. Ultimately, dividends would exist because some innovative shareholder of some company, at some time, would desire income from their investment and could propose the idea of sharing the profit. Like-minded investors also desiring income could vote for dividends to come into existence — or, rather, vote for a board of directors that supports enactment of the idea. (In your fictitious world, shareholders do still control the corporation, right?) In this world, though, dividends wouldn't be called ""dividends"", a terrible name that's too ""mathy"" for the inhabitants of that world. Rather, they would institute a quarterly or annual shareholder profit share. Governments would enact legislation to approve of—nay, encourage such an innovation because it becomes a new source of recurring income they can tax. Alternatively, even if the idea of a cash dividend didn't occur to anybody in that world, investors would realize the stock price is depressed and could propose and vote for the board to institute share buybacks. The company repurchasing some portion of shares periodically would provide income to shareholders participating in the buyback. If the buyback were oversubscribed, they could structure it fairly (pro-rata participation, etc.) Alternatively, shareholders would pressure the board (or fire them and vote in a new board) to put the company up for sale and find a larger buyer, who would purchase the shares for cash. This can't scale forever, though, so the pressure will increase for solutions like #1 and #2." "In the unlikely case that noone finds a way to extract resources from the company and distribute them to shareholders periodically in a way that's de facto equivalent to dividends, any company can be dissolved. The assets of the company would be sold for their market value, the liabilities would have to be settled, and the net result of all this (company cash + sale results - liabilities) would be distributed to shareholders proportionally to their shares. The 'liquidation value' is generally lower than the market value of a company as an ongoing concern that's making business and earning profit, but it does put a floor on it's value - if the stock price is too low, someone can buy enough stock to get control of the company, vote to dissolve it, and make a profit that way; and the mere fact that this can happen props up the stock price. Companies could even be created for a limited time period in the first hand (which has some historical precedent with shareholders of 'trading companies' with lifetime of a single trade voyage). Imagine that there is some company Megacorp2015 where shareholders want to receive $1M of its cash as ""dividends"". They can make appropriate contracts that will form a new company called Megacorp2016 that will take over all the ongoing business and assets except $1M in cash, and then liquidate Megacorp2015 and distribute it's assets (shares of Megacorp2016 and the ""dividend"") among themselves. The main difference from normal dividends is that in this process, you need cooperation from any lenders involved, so if the company has some long-term debts then they would need agreement from those banks in order to pay out ""dividends"". Oh, and everyone would have to pay a bunch more to lawyers simply to do ""dividends"" in this or some other convoluted way." As a thought experiment I suppose we can ask where dividends came from and what would be different if they never existed. The VOC or Dutch East India Companywas the first to IPO, sell shares and also have a dividend.   There had been trade entrepot before the VOC, the bulk cog (type of sea-going ship) trade in the Hanseatic League, but the VOC innovation was to pool capital to build giant spice freighters - more expensive than a merchant partnership could likely finance (and stand to lose at sea) on their own but more efficient than the cogs and focused on a trade good with more value.  The Dutch Republic became rich by this capital formed to pursue high value trade. Without dividends this wouldn't have been an innovation in seventeenth century Europe and enterprises would be only as large as say the contemporary merchant family networks of Venice could finance.  So there could be large partnerships, family businesses and debt financed ventures but no corporations as such. 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. This is how capital shares in split capital investment trusts work they never get any dividend they just get the capital when the company is wound up
Here is an example for you. We have a fictional company. It's called MoneyCorp. Its job is to own money, and that's all. Right now it owns $10,000. It doesn't do anything special with that $10,000 - it stores it in a bank account, and whenever it earns interest gives it to the shareholders as a dividend. Also, it doesn't have any expenses at all, and doesn't pay taxes, and is otherwise magic so that it doesn't have to worry about distractions from its mathematical perfection. There are 10,000 shares of MoneyCorp, each worth exactly $1. However, they may trade for more or less than $1 on the stock market, because it's a free market and people trading stock on the stock market can trade at whatever price two people agree on. Scenario 1. MoneyCorp wants to expand. They sell 90,000 shares for $1 each. The money goes in the same bank account at the same interest rate. Do the original shareholders see a change? No. 100,000 shares, $100,000, still $1/share. No problem. This is the ideal situation. Scenario 2: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for less than the current price, $0.50 each. Do the original shareholders lose out? YES. It now has something like $55,000 and 100,000 shares. Each share is now worth $0.55. The company has given away valuable equity to new shareholders. That's bad. Why didn't they get more money from those guys? Scenario 3: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for more than the current price, $2 each, because there's a lot of hype about its business. MoneyCorp now owns $190,000 in 100,000 shares and each share is worth $1.90. Existing shareholders win big! This is why a company would like to make its share offering at the highest price possible (think, Facebook IPO). Of course, the new shareholders may be disappointed. MoneyCorp is actually a lot like a real business! Actually, if you want to get down to it, MoneyCorp works very much like a money-market fund. The main difference between MoneyCorp and a random company on the stock market is that we know exactly how much money MoneyCorp is worth. You don't know that with a real business: sales may grow, sales may drop, input prices may rise and fall, and there's room for disagreement - that's why stock markets are as unpredictable as they are, so there's room for doubt when a company sells their stock at a price existing shareholders think is too cheap (or buys it at a price that is too expensive). Most companies raising capital will end up doing something close to scenario 1, the fair-prices-for-everyone scenario. Legally, if you own part of a company and they do something a Scenario-2 on you... you may be out of luck. Consider also: the other owners are probably hurt as much as you are. Only the new shareholders win. And unless the management approving the deal is somehow giving themselves a sweetheart deal, it'll be hard to demonstrate any malfeasance. As an individual, you probably won't file a lawsuit either, unless you own a very large stake in the company. Lawsuits are expensive. A big institutional investor or activist investor of some sort may file a suit if millions of dollars are at stake, but it'll be ugly at best. If there's nothing evil going on with the management, this is just one way that a company loses money from bad management. It's probably not the most important one to worry about. "I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that.  :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly ""enter"" the stock market.  Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors.  The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say ""I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone."" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company.  No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors.  But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor.  The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme.  The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be ""worth"" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399.  But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it.  You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing.  But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets.  The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets.  In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money.  However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues.  This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable.  I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend.  Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company." "This answer is applicable to the US.  Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well.   The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the ""market"" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of  the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on  the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all.  If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and  the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will  be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too.  So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income),  what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on  just $1375-$1200 =$175  (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up ""buying a dividend"".  If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share  on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded,  and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously." "The dividend reinvestment won't change whether the dividends themselves are qualified or not for US income tax purposes.  It's still the holding period on the stock that matters.  If you bought stock in different lots, then you could have a situation where some of the dividends paid are qualified and some are not, but: For completeness, it's worth noting that some dividends cannot be ""qualified"" no matter how long you hold them, but if you've got an investment in a common corporate stock (vs. something more ""exotic""), then what's above should apply." Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it Depends on if the stock pays a dividend or not. Some companies in their early years may choose to not pay dividends. Your calculations are off as the dividend stated is annual that you'd have to divide by 4 to get what the quarterly amount would be and there can be variances as Ellison's compensation package may well include options so that the number of shares he owns could fluctuate over the course of a year. "Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the ""growth versus income"" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically.  To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)" "The stock should fall by approximately the amount of the dividend as that is what is paid out. If you have a stock trading at $10/share and it pays a $1/share dividend, the price should drop to $9 as what was trading before the dividend was paid would be both the dividend and the stock itself. If the person bought just for the dividend then it would likely be neutral as there isn't anything extra to be gained. Consider if this wasn't the case. Wouldn't one be able to buy a stock a few days before the dividend and sell just after for a nice profit? That doesn't make sense and is the reason for the drop in price. Similarly, if a stock has a split or spin-off there may be changes in the price to reflect that adjustment in value of the company. If I give you 2 nickels for a dime, the overall value is still 10 cents though this would be 2 coins instead of one. Some charts may show a ""Dividend adjusted"" price to factor out these transactions so be careful of what prices are quoted."