What does dividends passed mean in terms of stock?
"A ""covenant"" is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action. Every company must do a balancing act while declaring the dividends in terms of companies interest (can it use the surplus cash to generate more revenue) to shareholders' interests, giving back to them the profits that due. Many countries have regulations governing as to when and how much the dividends may be given. It also lays out the policy about declaring dividends to protect everyones' interest. For example if the company has a huge suit pending against it, the company is not supposed to distribute the surplus cash as dividends and when the suit goes against it, its left when no money to pay ... or other such examples where the interests of one or the other party is compromised. The company law board ensures that all this is adhered to in a fair manner. So essentially ""these covenants include provisions about passing dividends"", means that due diligence has be exercised by the company in order to arrive at the dividends that are to be paid out."
"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (""ownership"") to people who buy stocks from it.  It's not ""ownership"" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way.  You own part of the company.  If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner.  In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing).  After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company.  The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock.  The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership.  If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings.  Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future.   What do the prospects look like for this industry?  A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific.  Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate?  Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive?  If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced.   So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a ""part owner"".  Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future." "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." &gt; “The economy, as measured by gross domestic product, can be expected to grow at an annual rate of about 3 percent over the long term, and inflation of 2 percent would push nominal GDP growth to 5 percent, Buffett said. Stocks will probably rise at about that rate and dividend payments will boost total returns to 6 percent to 7 percent, he said.”  [Warren Buffett](https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Simple-Dollar/2013/0506/What-Warren-Buffett-s-stock-market-math-means-for-your-retirement)  This isn't the whole picture, but it's a start. I think that author does a disservice by writing such seemingly sensible articles without actually knowing how things work. If I didn’t know better, I would think this guy was teaching me something. It’s a shame he did not do research before he started writing.  Let’s say you buy a classic car. You take super good care of it, all original, mint condition. You paid cash for it out of your savings. This is a balance sheet transaction that has nothing to do with income. You traded your cash asset for a classic car asset.  Now let’s say this car is so rare and you keep it in such good condition that it gains value every year. Maybe it was worth $15k when you bought it, but this year it’s already worth $17k. Great job on making a great purchase! But is that $2k gain counted as income to you? No, it is not. The value of that asset on your balance sheet went up, but you did not make anything off of that increase in value because you have not sold it.  If you had to pay taxes on the increase in value every year, those taxes would essentially force you to sell that car to pay the taxes just because you took care of it. Additionally, in the long term, no one would want to own anything, so this would destroy the value of everyone’s stuff, but I digress.  In this example, amazon stock is the car. The author is seeing the increase in stock value adding to the balance sheets of the investors who bought the stock and confusing that with income.  Back to our example, let’s say your car increased in value $2k a year for two years and you decide to sell it for $19k - now we are about to realize some income! Since you bought it for $15k and sold for $19k, you earned an income of the difference, or $4k.   Your income wasn’t $19k, because you originally put $15k in cash into the car. That cash was already saved from income you made in the past, and it is not counted again as income in this sale.  Because you did not work for this new car sale income, but it was derived from asset growth, the income is called capital gains. You invested your capital ($15k) into the asset (car), and that asset appreciated. When you sold it, you received capital (money) back in exchange for that asset. The capital you received is more than what you invested, which is to say you gained $4k of capital by investing in and then selling your  asset (car).  Because you held the car for two years, you qualify for lower long term capital gains tax rate on that $4k. Had you sold it after year 1, you would’ve paid your regular normal income tax rate on those capital gains. Either way, you owe the tax when you sell the asset, not when it appreciates.  I’m sure you realize this already, but if we change the car to amazon stock in my story, this is exactly how it works with investors.  The author gets several things wrong   1 - amazon profits are not passed through to shareholders for income tax purposes. If amazon paid dividends, those dividends would be taxed at payout at the long term capital gains rate, and they would be paid out of cash amazon has left after it already paid corporate taxes on profits.   Amazon has decided they can add more value to investors by using cash to grow instead of paying dividends. When the investors sell the stock, they will owe capital gains on the growth of that stock. If amazon is correct that using cash to grow, then investors will effectively pay more when they sell the stock than they would pay today if dividends were paid.  2 - asset appreciation is not income. Those investors will realize the income when they sell the stock, and they will pay the tax then.   3 - he is missing the point entirely on why amazon runs a low profit or how business strategy translates into financials. Low prices are not a function of low profitability. Low profitability could be an adverse result of low pricing, but being low profit in order to be low price is a ridiculous and failing strategy. Amazon’s low pricing is a function of their unparalleled buying power, unparalleled consumer and product data, amazing logistics prowess, clever loyalty programs like amazon prime, and many other brilliant things they’ve done. Their low profitability is a function of their investment in things like amazon fresh, amazon Alexa, drone delivery, automated convenience stores, building out cloud computing infrastructure, and many other R&amp;D projects, $4 billion in original content spending for amazon prime video, and all kinds of expenditures years ahead of when they become profitable. By the time consumers want it, amazon already built it three years ago - this is the power of amazon. Sometimes multi billion dollar experiments fail, and all that money was for nothing. Sometimes they lose money for a few years and then become the infrastructure that runs a third of the internet. Amazon does not let fear of failure stop them, they invest in growth with their cash. This is how Bezos thinks - how do we build the future, not how can I avoid tax    I do need to make a disclaimer here - there could be special tax treatment of classic cars that makes my example not work. Also classic cars may not appreciate in value. I don’t know anything about classic cars, I just picked a politically neutral thing to put in my story and made some assumptions to illustrate how capital gains work. My story is definitely how stocks work, and probably cars, but I just want to point out that I don’t know shit about car collecting. As mentioned, dividends are a way of returning value to shareholders. It is a conduit of profit as companies don't legitimately control upward appreciation in their share prices. If you can't wrap your head around the risk to the reward, then this simply means you partially fit the description for a greater investment risk profile, so you need to put down Warren Buffett's books and Rich Dad Poor Dad and get an investment book that fits your risk profile. Yes, the stock price drops on official listing. But what gonna happen on first trade after the dividend date, is up to the market. The market is the market, the rules are the rules. I saw prices going up more than once just after the dividend date, exactly because people think will be cheaper. Market doesn't always follow rules. There have been many interesting and correct answers but to give a direct answer to your first question, dividend yield is simply dividend over current share price. So, if the share price drops, your dividend yield increases proportionately. Dividend yield is not something one should use as the only source of information of whether a stock is a good/bad buy. It does not show many important factors: the riskiness of the company business, its financial position, profitability, ability to generate cash. Furthermore, dividend yield is just a snapshot of an income gain at a given point in time. It does not mean that this very dividend policy is going to continue in the future (especially not so if the company finances this dividend payments using not its own cash reserves but outside capital by issuing debt securities, which is unsustainable). Unless you suffer from the illusion that you can time the market, it honestly doesn't matter much; the difference is lost in the noise. That may be true even if you do suffer from that illusion.  Also, as discussed here previously, the drop in a stock's price right after the dividend has been paid just reflects the fact that you aren't about to get an immediate refund in the form of a dividend. If you look at the real cost per share, it's meaningless and can/should be ignored. Buying after the dividend is paid may save you a tiny fraction of a cent of short-term income tax, but that's meaningless in real terms.