Fund equalisation / dividend
"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder.  The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units.  In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says ""yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.""  By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not ""falsely exaggerate the investment return"", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately.  Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy." Do all/most unit trusts have equalisation policy? It is really that some value of the fund is given to the investor, so the fund value goes down by that much per unit. It depends on the type of mutual funds. For example, there are growth type mutual funds that do not give any dividend and the total value of the fund is reflected in its price. Do the companies whose stocks we owned directly apply equalisation policy on their dividends as well? Why not? As far a stock price is concerned, it usually decrease by the same amount of the dividend payout at ex-date, so in effect, the market in a way does the equalization, the company directly does not do it.
I think you are mixing up forward looking statements with the actual results. The funds objective   The fund invests primarily in stocks that tend to offer current dividends. It focuses on high-quality companies that have prospects for long-term total returns as a result of their ability to grow earnings and their willingness to increase dividends over time Obviously in 1993 quite a few companies paid the dividends and hence VDIGX was able to give dividends. Over the period of years in some years its given more and in some years less. For example the Year 2000 it gave $ 1.26, 1999 it gave $ 1.71 and in 1998 it gave $ 1.87 The current economic conditions are such that companies are not making huge profts and the one's that are making prefer not to distribute dividends and hold on to cash as it would help survive the current economic conditions. So just to clarify this particular funds objective is to invest in companies that would give dividends which is then passed on to fund holders. This fund does not sell appreciated stocks to convert it into dividends. No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different   ways. Stock funds collect dividends  (as well as any capital gains   that are realized) from the underlying stocks  and incorporates these   into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a   stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution –   the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different:  Dividends   accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or   quarter.  Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and   keep it in a separate internal “bucket.”  A bond fund calculates a   daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only   earn income for the days they actually hold the fund.  For example, if   you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution,   you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month.  On the   other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will   still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month,   pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source  Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily.   Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income   (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized   from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue   daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense   means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day,   just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the   money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a   liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the   fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net   asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities   decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of   your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as   proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares   times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued   income dividends.] With a long enough time horizon, no matter when you buy, equities almost always outperform cash and bonds. There's an article here with some info: http://www.fool.co.uk/investing-basics/how-when-and-where-to-invest/ Holding period where shares have beaten cash  There was a similar study done which showed if you picked any day in the last 100 years, no matter if the market was at a high or low, after 1 year your probability of being in profit was only 0.5, but after 10-20 years it was almost certainly 1.0.  Equities compound dividends too, and the best place to invest is in diversified stock indices such as the S&P500, FTSE100, DOW30 or indices/funds which pay dividends. The best way to capture returns is to dollar cost average (e.g. place a lump sum, then add $x every month), to re-invest dividends, and oh, to forget about it in an IRA or SIPP (Self invested pension) or other vehicle which discourages tampering with your investment.  Yes, values rise and fall but we humans are so short sighted, if we had bought the S&P in 2007 and sold in 2009 in fear, we would have missed out on the 25% gain (excluding dividends) from 2007-2014. That's about 3% a year gain even if you bought the 2007 high -beating cash or bonds even after the financial crisis. Now imagine had you dollar cost averaged the entire period from 2007-2014 where your gain would be. Your equity curve would have the same shape as the S&P (with its drastic dip in 2009) but an accelerated growth after. There are studies if you dig that demonstrate the above. From experience I can tell you timing the market is nigh impossible and most fund managers are unable to beat the indices. Far better to DCA and re-invest dividends and not care about market gyrations! .. Dividends are normally paid in cash, so don't generally affect your portfolio aside from a slight increase to 'cash'.  You get a check for them, or your broker would deposit the funds into a money-market account for you.  There is sometimes an option to re-invest dividends, See Westyfresh's answer regarding Dividend Re-Investment Plans. As Tom Au described, the dividends are set by the board of directors and announced.  Also as he indicated just before the 'record' date, a stock which pays dividends is worth slightly more (reflecting the value of the dividend that will be paid to anyone holding the stock on the record date) and goes down by the dividend amount immediately after that date (since you'd now have to hold the stock till the next record date to get a dividend)  In general unless there's a big change in the landscape (such as in late 2008) most companies pay out about the same dividend each time, and changes to this are sometimes seen by some as 'indicators' of company health and such news can result in movement in the stock price. When you look at a basic quote on a ticker symbol there is usually a line for Div/yeild which gives the amount of dividend paid per share, and the relative yeild (as a percentage of the stock price).  If a company has been paying dividends, this field will have values in it, if a company does not pay a dividend it will be blank or say NA (depending on where you get the quote).  This is the easiest way to see if a company pays a dividend or not.  for example if you look at this quote for Google, you can see it pays no dividend  Now, in terms of telling when and how much of a dividend has been paid, most financial sites have the option when viewing a stock chart to show the dividend payments.  If you expand the chart to show at least a year, you can see when and how much was paid in terms of dividends.  For example you can see from this chart that MSFT pays dividends once a quarter, and used to pay out 13 cents, but recently changed to 16 cents.   if you were to float your mouse over one of those icons it would also give the date the dividend was paid. "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." gnasher729, was able to see my problem here. It was a silly oversight. It's not 50p a share, its 0.5p a share. @Bezzzo: The dividend is not 50p per share, it is 0.50p per share -   half a penny per share. Thanks! Milliondollarjourney.com has a couple of articles on this topic. How Investing Taxes Work part 1 and part 2. The following is a summary of that article. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at a preferred rate, while interest tax is taxed at your regular rate. Interest is taxed at your marginal rate, but capital gains are taxed at only 50% of your marginal rate. That means that it makes sense to place the interest bearing account inside the RRSP but keep stocks outside. Additionally, you can claim your losses on your capital appreciating stocks against your gains if they are outside of your RRSP. Hopefully, your stocks will never go down but that's not very realistic. Dividends from Canadian companies are eligible for a dividend tax credit, but not dividends from foreign companies. [I actually understood that dividends from U.S. companies are treated as a special case] It's not clear to me from reading the article how much of this applies to mutual funds. The summary is as follows: This is what is called a Structured Product.  The linked page gives an overview of the relative pros and cons.  They tend to hold the bulk of funds in bonds and then used equity index futures and other derivatives to match returns on the S&P, or other indices tracked.  All combine to provide the downside protection. Note that your mother did not receive the dividends paid by the constituent companies.  She only received the capital return. Here is a link to Citigroup (Europe) current structured product offerings. Here is a link to Fidelity's current offerings of structured products. Here is Investopedia's article detailing the pitfalls. The popularity of these products appears to be on the wane, having been heavily promoted and sold by the providers at the time your mother invested.  Most of these products only provide 100% protection of capital if the market does not fall by a specified amount, either in successive reporting periods or over the life of the product.  There are almost as many terms and conditions imposed on the protection as there are structured products available.  I have no personal experience buying this type of product, preferring to have the option to trade and receive dividend income.