Question about dividends and giant companies [duplicate]
"Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it ""wasting money"" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701)." I see a false assumption that you are making.  (Almost always) When you buy stock the cash you spend does not go to the company. Instead it goes to someone else who is selling their shares.  The exception to this is when you buy shares in an IPO.  Those of us who have saved all our lives for retirement want income producing investments once we retire. (Hopefully) We have saved up quite a bit of money. To have us purchase their stock companies have to offer us dividends.
"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences.  This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life.  For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a  good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying ""dividend paying""/""growth stock"" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies ""long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business"". Likewise ""growth stocks"" [/ non-dividend paying] implies ""new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk"". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case.  Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance." The short answer: it depends. The long answer.. Off the top of my head, there are quite a number of factors that an analyst may look at when analyzing a stock, to come up with a recommendation.  Some example factors to look at include: The list goes on.  Quite literally, any and all factors are fair game for a recommendation.  So, the question isn't really what analysts do with financial data, it is what do analysts do with financial data that meets your investment needs? As an example, if you have two analysts, one who is focused on growth stocks, and one who is focused on dividend growth, they may have completely different views on a company.  If both analysts were to analyze Apple (AAPL) 5 years ago, the dividend analyst would likely say SELL or at the most HOLD, because back then Apple did not have a dividend.  However, an analyst focused on growth would likely have said BUY, because Apple appeared to be on a clear upward trend in terms of growth.  Likewise, if you have analysts who are focused on shorting stocks, and ones who are focused on deep value investing, the sell analyst may be selling SELL because they are confident the stock will go down in price, so you can make money on the short position.  Conversely, the deep value investor may be saying BUY, because they believe that based on the companies strong balance sheet, and recent shake-ups in management the stock will eventually turn around.  Two completely different views for the same company: the analyst focused on shorting is looking to make money by capitalizing on falling share price, while the analyst focused on deep value is looking for unloved companies in a tailspin whom s/he believe will turn around, the thesis being that if you dollar-cost-average as the price drops, when it corrects, you'll reap the rewards. That all said, to answer the question about what analysts look for: So really, you should be looking for analysts who align with your investment style, and use those recommendations as a starting point for your own purchases.  Personally, I am a dividend investor, so I have passed many BUY recommendations from analysts and my former broker because those were based on growth stories.  That does not mean that the analysts, my former broker, or myself, are wrong.  But we were all incorrect given the context of how I invest, and what they recommend. "Actually that statistic (whether it is 9/10 or 95% or 99%) is often VERY misquoted AND it is both overstated AND extremely misleading.  * First of all the ratio/percentage of even the ""urban myth"" that ""everyone knows"" is purportedly **over a 5 year period of time** not a single year.  * Secondly, just because a business has closed down or ceased to exist sometime prior to the 5 year mark, does NOT necessarily mean that it was a ""failure"" (and definitely not necessarily a ""bankruptcy"").  * Third, it does not mean that all of the initial investment went ""poof"" -- **that may be true for high-tech startups** (especially the dot-com/dot-bomb con operations whose business ""plan"" resembles the [South Park Underpants Gnomes ""plan""](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Gnomes_plan.png) more than anything else) -- but that is NOT necessarily true of the rest of the business world.  Consider by contrast how many EMPLOYEES are still in the same JOB five years later (per data [the *average* job tenure in the US is now 4.6 years](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-less-likely-to-change-jobs-now-than-in-1980s-2014-01-10), which is actually UP from 3.7 years in 2002, and 3.5 years in circa 1983).  The vast majority of small businesses (and the sheer volume\* skews the totals) are essentially that: they are job *replacement* (or even job *supplement*) businesses, which chiefly consist of the owner/operator being ""self-employed"" (or part-time self-employed ""on the side"") for a year, two years, and possibly longer.  Occasionally they will then (often temporarily) employ others as well; but the primary goal is to provide a simple ""income"" for the owner/operator.  **And there is nothing WRONG with that.**  Nor is there anything wrong with the person then ENDING that ""business"" and moving on... to another (different name, different field) business... or taking a job with some company (which they may have previously worked for on a contract basis with the ""business"", etc).  The idea that ALL businesses somehow *should* ""endure forever"" and continue to grow forever (as if they were all destined to be Giant Sequoia trees) is actually *rather warped and delusional...* it ignores the real world, and the fact that most flora is NOT ""giant trees"" but rather small bushes and plants -- and for small businesses, being ""nimble"" (and profitable) often means the opposite: knowing when to get OUT of a market or business is just as important (indeed can be MORE important) than knowing when to get INTO it.  \*EDIT: As a further note on the ""volume"" you have to also add in the large number of *business ""ideas"" that spawn an LLC, but then went nowhere* companies (especially these days when starting an LLC in many states is simply filling out a form online and paying a filing fee) -- IOW the ""business"" may have had a temporary ""legal"" existence (name, probably a reserved domain name, maybe even a logo, etc.), but when it comes to reality -- actual investment in assets and conducting business operations (of any type) -- well, a lot of the ""horses"" never even make it past the gate... and that too skews the numbers in many studies.  ---  Note that here is another take on the point:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/27/do-9-out-of-10-new-businesses-fail-as-rand-paul-claims/  &gt;As far as we can tell, **there is no statistical basis for the assertion that nine out of 10 businesses fail.** It appears to be one of those nonsense facts that people repeat without thinking too clearly about it. Here are some basic questions to ask when assessing such a factoid:  &gt;1. What’s the time frame? Two years, five years, 10 years? That can make a big difference. &gt;2. Does “fail” mean that it goes out of business because it was not financially viable? Or does that also include data about successful enterprises that merge with another company? &gt;3. Wouldn’t failure rates be different for some industries than others? Does it make sense to lump all businesses together?  &gt;There have been a number of studies that have looked at this issue. This chart, from Web site designer smallbusinessplanned.com, summarizes the results of three different studies. Basically, after four years, 50 percent of the businesses are open. As time goes on, the success rate decreases, but it never gets to a failure rate of “nine out of 10.”  &gt;[...]  &gt;Even this does not show the whole picture. As Brian Headd, an economist at the Small Business Administration, demonstrated in a 2002 study for Small Business Economics, **about one–third of closed business were actually successful when they “failed.”**  &gt;“The significant proportion of businesses that closed while successful calls into question the use of ‘business closure’ as a meaningful measure of business outcome,” the study says. “It appears that **many owners may have executed a planned exit strategy,** closed a business without excess debt, sold a viable business, or retired from the work force.”  Now that doesn't necessarily mean that Rand Paul's point is WRONG (he is chiefly talking about government investing in HIGHLY LEVERAGED, HIGH-RISK, HIGH-TECH businesses, which are a different story) -- but it does mean that the statistic he is citing (general business failure rate) is an urban-myth-falsehood, however commonly-believed, or commonly-restated." 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! Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X. "Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the ""growth versus income"" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically.  To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)" I own a few MLPs that operate oil/gas pipelines (TSE:IPL-UN, NYSE:BPT, NYSE:APL), and I'm very happy with their performance. Because they don't pay corporate tax MLPs tend to pay higher dividends than most regular stocks. I pay H&R Block to do my taxes, and they sort out all the arcane details. "In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences.  This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life.  For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a  good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying ""dividend paying""/""growth stock"" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies ""long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business"". Likewise ""growth stocks"" [/ non-dividend paying] implies ""new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk"". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case.  Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance."