What is the point of owning a stock without dividends if it cannot be resold?
Shares often come associated with a set of rights, such as ability to vote in the outcome of the company. Some shares do not have this right, however. With your ability to vote in the outcome of the company, you could help dictate that the company paid dividends at a point in time. Or many other varieties of outcomes. Also, if there were any liquidity events due to demand of the shares, this is typically at a much higher price than the shares are now when the company is private/closely held. If that condition is permanent -- the stock will NEVER pay dividends and you will NEVER be able to sell it -- then yes, it sounds to me like this is a worthless piece of paper. If there is some possibility that the stock will pay dividends in the future, or that a market will exist to sell it, then you are making a long-term investment. It all depends on how likely it is that the situation will change. If the investment is small, maybe it's worth it.
"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas.   The stock market is not like a supermarket.  With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding.  When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives.  The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company.   ""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."" The statement does have backing.  It's backed by the US Judicial system.  But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company.  You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets.  Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue).  Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism.  The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies.  Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise.   Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity.  You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock.  You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer.  You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell.  You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer.   Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands.  Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after.  You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc.  Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are)." "Yes, the price of a stock is what investors think the value of a stock is, which is not tied to profits or dividends by any rigid formula. But to say that therefore the price could be high even though the company is doing very poorly is hypothetically true, but unlikely in practice. Consider any other product. There is no fixed formula for the value of a used car, either. If everyone agreed that a rusting, 20-year old car that doesn't run is worth $100,000, then that's what it would sell for. But that's a pretty big ""if"" at the beginning of that sentence.  If the car had been used in some hit TV show 20 years ago, or if it was owned by a celebrity, or some such special case, maybe a rusting old car really would sell for $100,000. Likewise, a stock might have a price higher than what one would predict from its dividends if some rich person wanted to buy that company because the brand name brings back nostalgic memories from his youth and so he drives the price up, etc. But the normal case is that, in the long term, the price of a stock tends to settle on a value proportional to the dividends that it pays. Or rather, and this is a big caveat, the dividends that investors expect it to pay in the future. And then adjusted for all sorts of other factors and special situations, like the value of the company if it was to be liquidated, etc." 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. "&gt; Lol. Americas are two continents. How many times do I have to educate you?   No, you said America is continents. You are just being weirdly semantic and also failing to distinguish between North and South America. They are not both collectively called America. Nobody groups 2 continents together like that. It's like trying to group Europe and Africa together.  There is nobody who says this. You cannot ""educate"" me on this because literally zero people aside from you think this way.   &gt;Beside that you still have not presented any data. All your points have been invalidated and best you can do is change topics over and over.  What data would you like? America being increasingly protectionist and the stock market being at an all time high?   https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/26/us-stocks-boeing-earnings-fed.html  I already used your own data against you so in a way that is me using data and you've presented none.  &gt;Still could not address my points about Argentina, Canada, US and etc.  What point? I said Canada was protectionist and Canada is in the top to protectionist countries in the list *you provided.* We have a heavy investment in our own companies, a lot of my tax dollars go to that in fact. Canada is one of the most protectionist countries on the planet. Against my wishes, by the way, but it is the way it is.  &gt;Btw love your fake data and facts. I guess that's how you get cucked so hard to begin with  Cucked? By what? My own facts? What? You sound retarded right now.  &gt;LOL. Chart says tarrif of 10 big countries. Not 10 highest Tarrif. LOLOLOL.  Okay so provide a graph that shows the 10 highest tariffs.  You know what this weird edit of yours tells me?   **YOU DID NOT EVEN LOOK AT YOUR OWN LINK WHEN YOU SENT IT.**   You are just reading it now. So which one is it? Either the graph proves me right or it proves nothing at all. Either way, you fucked up. This is really, really funny.  &gt;Best to stay in your safe space and keep getting cucked.  Ugh, you don't see how embarrassing you sound, do you? Why would someone be cucked in a safe space? Are you saying *this* is a safe space? This sub is very clearly anti-Trump. You don't know what these words or phrases mean.  &gt;I wasn't being homophobic. I called you for what you are. That's your choice. No shame. Keep doing what you do and be Putins holster  Why do you think about cocksucking so much?" Berkshire Hathaway would be a good example of a company that has yet to pay dividends, yet is a highly valued stock. A couple of key points here to note is how on the first hand you have that the dividend policy will never change, yet couldn't one argue that there will always be new investors wanting more shares and thus the price keeps going up until someone gains control and decides to issue dividends?  I'm just pointing out how on the one hand you are claiming a never changing and yet on the other thinking there will be a termination when the reality is that unless there is a zombie apocalypse of some form, life will continue and there will be new people to want to buy the stock and some people be willing to sell at the new prices. I just read the article and I'm not sure if the calculation is flawed. When they look at the single stocks. Do they always reinvest the dividends to the same stock? That would be quite unusual behaviour I think.  An investor who uses the buy and hold strategy  might have a bunch of companies which won't exist anymore in 20 or 30 years e.g. coal plants.  While many stocks are a good investment now. Reinvesting all the dividends for decades is obviously a bad decision for a large portion of the stocks.  Maybe I misunderstood the article. But what do you guys think? "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." It seems to me that your main question here is about why a stock is worth anything at all, why it has any intrinsic value, and that the only way you could imagine a stock having value is if it pays a dividend, as though that's what you're buying in that case.  Others have answered why a company may or may not pay a dividend, but I think glossed over the central question.  A stock has value because it is ownership of a piece of the company. The company itself has value, in the form of: You get the idea. A company's value is based on things it owns or things that can be monetized.  By extension, a share is a piece of all that. Some of these things don't have clear cut values, and this can result in differing opinions on what a company is worth.  Share price also varies for many other reasons that are covered by other answers, but there is (almost) always some intrinsic value to a stock because part of its value represents real assets.