Why is it rational to pay out a dividend?
The main reason, as far as I can see, is that the dividends are payments with which the shareholders may do what they want. Capital that the company has no use for does not make a significant positive return on investment, as you pointed out, yes the company could accrue interest, but that is not going to make the company large sums of cash. While the company may be great at making shoes - maybe even the best in the world - doesn't mean they are good investors. Sure they could dabble at using their capital to invest in other equities, but they don't, because they just want to focus on making shoes. If the dividend goes to the investors, they can do what they wish, be it reinvest in the company, or invest elsewhere. Other companies that may make good use of the capital, and create significant returns on it are one such example. That is the rational answer, beyond that, one of the main reasons is that people like the feeling of receiving dividends - it might not be the answer you are looking for, but many people prefer companies that pay dividends for no rational reason over companies which grow their asset value. First, you need to understand that not  every investor's goals are the same. Some investors are investing for income. They want to invest in a profitable company and use the profit from the company as income. If that investor invests only in stocks that do not pay a dividend, the only way he can realize income is to sell his investment. But he can invest in companies that pay a regular dividend and use that income while keeping his investment intact.  Imagine this: Let's say I own a profitable company, and I offer to sell you part ownership in that company. However, I tell you this upfront: no matter how much profit our company makes, you will never get a penny from me. You will be getting a stock certificate - a piece of paper - and that's it. You can watch the company grow, and you can tell yourself you own it, but the only way you will personally benefit from your investment would be to sell your piece to someone else, who would also never see a penny in profit. Does that sound like a good investment? The fact of the matter is, stocks in companies that do not distribute dividends do have value, but this value is largely based on the potential of profits/dividends at some point in the future. If a company vows never ever to pay dividends, why would anyone invest?  An investment would be more of a donation (like Kickstarter) at that point.  A company that pays dividends is possibly past their growth stage. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have stopped growing altogether, but remember that an expansion project for any company does not automatically yield a good result. If a company does not have a good opportunity currently for a growth project, I as an investor would rather get a dividend than have the company blow all the profit on a ill-fated gamble. Actually, share holder value is is better maximised by borrowing, and paying dividends is fairly irrelevant but a natural phase on a mature and stable company. Company finance is generally a balance between borrowing, and money raised from shares. It should be self evident with a little thought that if not now, then in the future, a company should be able to create earnings in excess of the cost of borrowing, or it's not a very valuable company to invest in! In fact what's the point of borrowing if the cost of the interest is greater than whatever wealth is being generated? The important thing about this is that money raised from shares is more expensive than borrowing. If a company doesn't pay dividends, and its share price goes up because of the increasing value of the business, and in your example the company is not borrowing more because of this, then the proportion of the value of the company that is based on the borrowing goes down. So, this means a higher and higher proportion of the finance of a company is provided by the more expensive share holders than the less expensive borrowing, and thus the company is actually providing LESS value to share holders than it might. Of course, if a company doesn't pay a dividend AND borrows more, this is not true, but that's not the scenario in your question, and generally mature companies with mature earnings may as well pay dividends as they aren't on a massive expansion drive in the same way. Now, this relative expense of share holders and borrowing is MORE true for a mature company with stable earnings, as they are less of a risk and can borrow at more favourable rates, AND such a company is LIKELY to be expanding less rapidly than a small new innovative company, so for both these reasons returning money to share holders and borrowing (or maintaining existing lending facilities) maintains a relatively more efficient financing ratio. Of course all this means that in theory, a company should be more efficient if it has no share holders at all and borrows ALL of the money it needs. Yes. In practise though, lenders aren't so keen on that scenario, they would rather have shareholders sharing the risk, and lending a less than 100% proportion of the total of a companies finance means they are much more likely to get their money back if things go horribly wrong. To take a small start up company by comparison, lenders will be leary of lending at all, and will certainly impose high rates if they do, or ask for guarantors, or demand security (and security is only available if there is other investment besides the loan). So this is why a small start up is likely to be much more heavily or exclusively funded by share holders. Also the start up is likely not to pay a dividend, because for a start it's probably not making any profit, but even if it is and could pay a dividend, in this situation borrowing is unavailable or very expensive and this is a rapidly growing business that wants to keep its hands on all the cash it can to accelerate itself. Once it starts making money of course a start up is on its way to making the transition, it becomes able to borrow money at sensible rates, it becomes bigger and more valuable on the back of the borrowing. Another important point is that dividend income is more stable, at least for the mature companies with stable earnings of your scenario, and investors like stability. If all the income from a portfolio has to be generated by sales, what happens when there is a market crash? Suddenly the investor has to pay, where as with dividends, the company pays, at least for a while. If a company's earnings are hit by market conditions of course it's likely the dividend will eventually be cut, but short term volatility should be largely eliminated. 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. The real value of a share of stock is the current cash value of all dividends the owner will receive, plus the current cash value of the final liquidation if any.  Since people with different needs may judge the current cash value of an income stream differently, there would be a market basis for people to buy and sell stocks even if everyone could predict all future payouts perfectly. If shareholders knew that a company wouldn't pay any dividends until it was liquidated in the year 2066, whereupon it would pay $2000/share, then each share would in 2016 effectively be a fifty-year zero-coupon bond with a $2000 maturity value.  While some investors would be willing to trade in such an instrument, the amount of money a company could charge for such an instrument would be far lower than the money it could charge for one with payouts that were more evenly distributed through time. Since the founders of most companies want their companies to be around for a long time, that would mean that shareholders would have no expectation of their shares ever yielding anything of value within any foreseeable timeframe.  Even those who would be more interested in share-price appreciation than dividends wouldn't be able to see share prices rise if there wasn't any likelihood of the stock being bought by someone who wanted the dividends. Firstly, investors love dividend paying company as dividends are proof of making profit (sometimes dividend can be paid out of past profits too)   Secondly, investor cash in hand is better than potential earnings by the company by way of interest. Investor feels good to redeploy received cash (dividend) on their own   Thirdly, in some countries dividend are tax free income as tax on dividends has already been paid. As average tax on dividend is lower than maximum marginal tax; for some investor it generates extra post tax income   Fourthly, dividend pay out ratio of most companies don't exceed 30% of available fund for paying (surplus cash) so it is seen as best of both the world Lastly, I trust by instinct a regular dividend paying company more than not paying one in same sector of industry Paying out dividends and financing new projects with debt also lessens the agency problem. The consequences of a failed project are greater when debt is used, so the manager now has a greater incentive to see that the project is a success. This, in addition to the paid divided is a benefit to the shareholder. If equity wasn't paid out and instead used for the project then the manager may not be so interested in its success. And if it's a failure then the shareholders are worse off.
manage the company properly. If you aren't much aware about company rules and regulation or tax matters, get an accountant so that you don't mess up later. better off paying my self a dividend of 100% profit or as an employee? That depends on how much salary you intend to pay yourself, your dividend or how much business expenses you will incur while running the business.  Generally speaking you are better off paying your self a minimum salary and pay the rest as dividends. But check out the dividend tax and the income tax you might need to pay and compare which situation you are better off. If you have a partner, using the dividend way will reduce your NI outgoes. ethical and legal? Ethically the dividend way might burn your conscience but it is perfectly legal way of doing things. "It has little to do with money or finance.  It's basic neuroscience.  When we get money, our brains release dopamine (read Your Money and Your Brain), and receiving dividends is ""getting money.""  It feels good, so we're more likely to do it again. What you often see are rationalizations because the above explanation sounds ... irrational, so many people want to make their behavior look more rational.  Ceteris paribus a solid growth stock is as good as a solid company that pays dividends. In value-investing terms, dividend paying stocks may appear to give you an advantage in that you can keep the dividends in cash and buy when the price of the security is low (""underpriced"").  However, as you realize, you could just sell the growth stock at certain prices and the effect would be the same, assuming you're using a free brokerage like Robin Hood. You can easily sell just a portion of the shares periodically to get a   ""stream of cash"" like dividends. That presents no problem whatsoever,   so this cannot be the explanation to why some people think it is   ""smart"" to be a dividend investor. Yes, if you're using a brokerage like Robin Hood (there may be others, but I think this is the only one right now), then you are right on." "If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable.  Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. ""But wait,"" you say, ""that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!"" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, ""no we're not done, we're still building our business!"". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market." The CBOE had a great article on this. I will search for it and edit. The normal dividends are not adjusted. Which is why you see early exercise of just out of the money options sometimes. To get that dividend. A special dividend, say a $50 stock with $1/yr dividend but now has a $3 one time dividend would likely result in an option strike adjustment. There are strategies based on yields. Dogs of the Dow being a specific example while Miller Howard has a few studies around dividends that may be of use if you additional material. Selling off a portion of the holding can run into problems as how could one hold 10 shares, selling a non-zero whole number every year for over 20 years if the stock doesn't ever pay a dividend in additional shares or cash? Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units.  So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares.   The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash.  An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend.      However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares.   The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend.  (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers.   It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself. "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." Best as i can tell, the simple answer is: the smartest approach to investing for dividends is to pick a company that is, has, and will continue to make a solid profits. there are lots of them out there. specifically, companies with no debt, a history of long-term and steady growth and a stable market share will, almost always recoup any drop in stock valuation due to a dividend payout...and usually in short order. this is why dividends were created...as a mechanism for distributing profits back to investor without diminishing thier stake in the company. the trick then, is to find such companies with the best ratio between stock price and dividend payout. and again, there are a lot of good options out there.  All the trepidation is justified however, as many unscrupulous companies will try to pull investors in with high dividends as a means to simply generate capital. these companies have few of the quality attributes mentioned above. instead, High debt, fluctuating or negative profits, minimal market share or diminishing growth present a very risky long term play and will be avoided by this conservative investor.