Where can publicly traded profits go but to shareholders via dividends?
"If a company earns $1 Million in net profit (let's say all cash, which is not entirely realistic), it can do one of three things with it: On the balance sheet - profits that have not been distributed show up as ""retained earnings"".  When dividends are paid, Retained Earnings and cash are reduced. None of the other options change the fact that it is still ""profit"" - they all just affect the balance sheet, not the income statement: Note that when a company issues dividends, it reduces its per-share value since cash is leaving the door with nothing in return.   In Apple's case, since a significant amount of its profit was earned in other countries (where it was not taxed by the US), it would pay a significant amount in US corporate tax by bringing it back to the US by investing it or paying dividends. They are betting that at some point, the US will change the rules to make it more favorable to ""repatriate"" the money and reduce their tax significantly." Apart from investing in their own infrastructure, profits can be spent purchasing other companies, (Mergers and Acquisitions) investing in other securities, and frankly whatever they please. The idea here is that publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make as much money as they can with the resources (including cash, but including so much more than that) available to the company. It happens that the majority of huge companies eventually stopped growing and figured out that they weren't good at making money outside their core discipline and started giving the money back through dividends, but that norm has been eroded by tech companies that have figured out how to keep growing and driving up share prices even after they become giants. Shareholders will pressure management to issue dividends if share prices don't keep going up, but until the growth slows down, most investors hang on and don't rock the boat. Where can publicly traded profits go but to shareholders via dividends? They can be retained by the company.
Great answers. Here's my two cents: First, don't forget to look at the overall picture, not just the dividend. Study the company's income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the last few years. Make sure they have good earnings potential, and are not carrying too much debt. I know it's dull, but it's better to miss an opportunity than to buy a turkey and watch the dividends and the share price tank. I went through this with BAC (Bank of America) a couple of years ago. They had a 38-year history of rising dividends when I bought them, and the yield was about 8%. Then the banking crisis happened and the dividend went from $2.56/share to $0.04, and the price fell from $40 to $5. (I stuck with it, continuing to buy at lower and lower prices, and eventually sold them all at $12 and managed to break even, but it was not a pleasant experience) Do your homework. :) Still, one of the most reliable ways to judge a company's dividend-paying ability is to look at its dividend history. Once a company has started paying a dividend there is a strong expectation from shareholders that these payments will continue, and the company's management will try very hard to maintain them. (Though sometimes this doesn't work out, e.g. BAC) You should see an uninterrupted stream of non-decreasing payments over a period of at least 5 years (this timeframe is just a rule of thumb). Well-established, profitable companies also tend to increase their dividends over time, which has the added benefit of pushing up their share price. So you're getting increasing dividends and capital gains. Next, look at the company's payout ratio over time, and the actual cost of the dividend. Can the projected earnings cover the dividend cost without going above the payout ratio? If not, then the dividend is likely to get reduced. In the case of CIM, the dividend history is short and erratic. The earnings are also all over the place, so it's hard to predict what will happen next year. The company is up to its eyeballs debt (current ratio is .2), and its earnings have dropped by 20% in the last quarter. They have lost money in two of the last three years, even though earning have jumped dramatically. This is a very young company, and in my opinion it is too early for them to be paying dividends. A very speculative stock, and you are more likely to make money from capital gains than dividends. AAE is a different story. They are profitable, and have a long dividend history, although the dividend was cut in half recently. This may be a good to buy them hoping the dividend comes back once the economy recovers. However, they are trading at over 40 times earnings, which seems expensive, considering their low profit margins. Before investing your money, invest in your education. :) Get some books on interpretation of financial staments, and learn how to read the numbers. It's sort of like looking at the codes in The Matrix, and seeing the blonde in the red dress (or whatever it was). Good luck! "I seem not to be able to comment on the first answer due to reputation, so I'll aim to enhanced the first answer which is generally good but with these caveats: 1) Dividends are not ""guaranteed"" to preferred shareholders.  Rather, preferred shareholders are normally in line ahead (i.e. in preference to or ""preferred"") of common shareholders in terms of dividend payment.  This is an extremely important distinction, because unlike investments that we generally consider ""guaranteed"" such as CDs (known as GICs in Canada), a company's board can suspend the dividend at anytime for long periods of time without significant repercussions -- whereas a missed payment to a bank or secured bondholder can often push a company into bankruptcy very quickly. 2) Due to point 1), it is extremely important to know the ""convenants"" or rules sorrounding both the preferred shares you are buying and the other more senior creditors of that issuing company (i.e. taxes (almost always come first), banks loans, leases, bonds etc.).  It is also important to know if a particular preferred share has ""cumulative"" dividends.  You generally only want to buy preferred's that have ""cumulative"" dividends, since that means that anytime the company misses a payment, they must pay those dividends first before any other dividends at the same or lower priority in the future. 3) Unlike a common stock, your upside on a preferred stock is relatively fixed: you get a fixed share of the company's profit and that's it, whereas a common shareholder gets everything that's left over after interest and preferred dividends are paid. So if the company does really well you will theoretically do much better with common stock over time. For the above reasons, it is generally advisable to think of preferred shares as being more similar to really risky bonds in the same company, rather than similar to common stock.   Of course, if you are an advanced investor there are a lot more variables in play such as tax considerations and whether the preferred have special options attached to them such conversion into common shares." "I agree with all the people cautioning against working for free, but I'll also have a go at answering the question: When do I see money related to that 5%? Is it only when they get   bought, or is there some sort of quarterly payout of profits? It's up to the shareholders of the company whether and when it pays dividends. A new startup will typically have a small number of people, perhaps 1-3, who between them control any shareholder vote (the founder(s) and an investor). If they're offering you 5%, chances are they've made sure your vote will not matter, but some companies (an equity partnership springs to mind) might be structured such that control is genuinely distributed. You would want to check what the particular situation is in this company. Assuming the founders/main investors have control, those people (or that person) will decide whether to pay dividends, so you can ask them their plans to realise money from the company. It is very rare for startups to pay any dividends. This is firstly because they're rarely profitable, but even when they are profitable the whole point of a startup is to grow, so there are plenty of things to spend cash on other than payouts to shareholders. Paying anything out to shareholders is the opposite of receiving investment. So unless you're in the very unusual position of a startup that will quickly make so much money that it doesn't need investment, and is planning to pay out to shareholders rather than spend on growth, then no, it will not pay out. One way for a shareholder to exit is to be bought out by other shareholders. For example if they want to get rid of you then they might make you an offer for your 5%. This can be any amount they think you'll take, given the situation at the time. If you don't take it, there may be things they can do in future to reduce its value to you (see below). If you do take it then your 5% would pay you once, when you leave. If the company succeeds, commonly it will be wholly or partly sold (either privately or by IPO). At this point, if it's wholly sold then the soon-to-be-ex-shareholders at the time will receive the proceeds of the sale. If it's partly sold then as with an investment round it's up for negotiation what happens. For example I believe the cash from an IPO of X% of the company could be taken into the company, leaving the shareholders with no immediate direct payout but (100-X)% of shares in their names that they're more-or-less free to sell, or retain and receive future dividends. Alternatively, if the company settles down as a small private business that's no longer in startup mode, it might start paying out without a sale. If the company fails, as most startups do, it will never pay anything. It's very important to remember that it's the shareholders at the time who receive money in proportion to their holding (or as defined by the company articles, if there are different classes of share). Just because you have 5% now doesn't mean you'll have 5% by that time, because any new investment into the company in the mean time will ""dilute"" your shareholding. It works like this: Note that I've assumed for simplicity that the new investment comes in at equal value to the old investment. This isn't necessarily the case, it can be more or less according to the terms of the new investment voted for by the shareholders, so the first line really is ""nominal value"", not necessarily the actual cash the founders put in. Therefore, you should not think of your 5% as 5% of what you imagine a company like yours might eventually exit for. At best, think of it as 5% of what a company like yours might exit for, if it receives no further investment whatsoever. Ah, but won't the founders also have their holdings diluted and lose control of the company, so they wouldn't do that? Well, not necessarily. Look carefully at whether you're being offered the same class of shares as the founders. If not consider whether they can dilute your shares without diluting their own. Look also at whether a new investor could use the founders' executive positions to give them new equity in the same way they gave you old equity, without giving you any new equity. Look at whether the founders will themselves participate in future investment rounds using sacks of cash that they own from other ventures, when you can't afford to keep up. Look at whether new investors will receive a priority class of share that's guaranteed at exit to pay out a certain multiple of the money invested before the older, inferior classes of shares receive anything (VCs like to do this, at least in the UK). Look at any other tricks they can legally pull: even if the founders aren't inclined to be tricky, they may eventually be forced to consider pulling them by a future new investor. And when I say ""look"", I mean get your lawyer to look. If your shareholding survives until exit, then it will pay out at exit. But repeated dilutions and investors with priority classes of shares could mean that your holding doesn't survive to exit even if the company does. Your 5% could turn into a nominal holding that hasn't really ""survived"", that entitles you to 0.5% of any sale value over $100 million. Then if the company sells for $50 million you get $0, while other investors are getting a good return. All of this is why you should not work for equity unless you can afford to work for free. And even then you need to lawyer up, now and during any future investment, so your lawyer can explain to you what your investment actually is, which almost certainly is different from what it looks like at a casual uninformed glance." "The primary reason a scandal like this hurts the company is the ""bottom line.""  Any legal action means defense costs.  In this case the potential of massive fines became reality.  And a buyback program.   So, if any publicly traded company stacked up $10B in assets, doused it in diesel and set it on fire, their stock would take a dip too. Billions in revenue directed to the expense side of the ledger instead of the profit side.  That money should have gone to building the company and dividends." "From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity   stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company   that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims   such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be   withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental   to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders,   usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a   profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called   retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a   dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash   (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a   dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of   further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer   to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the   holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to   pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a   later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable   at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often   the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be   transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer   agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on   the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under ""Employee Stock Purchase Plans"" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt   (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10   years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified   number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of   equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like   features.  It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by   early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter   market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by   companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential." "You are correct that a share of stock in a company has zero intrinsic value.  Even if the company typically pays dividends, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so.  A share's only worth comes from: So that's one step better than a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme there's not actually any value present behind the scenes, making option (2) literally impossible. In this way company stock is similar to paper money.  It's only worth something because people believe it's worth something. Slightly better than company stock is company bonds.  Since a bond is a contract between you and the company, if the company should go out of business then bondholders at least get to stand near the front of the line when the company's assets are liquidated. I work in finance, and the vast majority of my colleagues agree that the secondary stock market (what the average citizen simply calls ""the stock market"") is a giant confidence game.  And yet it's so profitable to believe in the value of equities the way everyone else does, that we all happily pretend these ones and zeroes we move around have actual value." Is my understanding correct? It's actually higher than that - he exercised options for 94,564 shares at $204.16 and sold them for $252.17 for a gain of about $4.5 Million.  There's another transaction that's not in your screenshot where he sold the other 7,954 shares for another $2 Million. What do executive directors usually do with such profit?  It's part of his compensation - it's anyone's guess what he decided to do with it. Is it understood that such trade profits should be re-invested back to the company? No - that is purely compensation for his position (I'm assuming the stock options were compensation rather then him buying options in the open market).  There generally is no expectation that trading profits need to go back into the company.  If the company wanted the profits reinvested they wouldn't have distributed the compensation in the first place. It comes down to the practical value of paying dividends. The investor can continually receive a stream of income without selling shares of the stock. If the stock did not pay a dividend and wanted continual income, the investor would have to continually sell shares to gain this stream of income, incurring transaction costs and increased time and effort involved with making these transactions.