Why is a stock that pays a dividend preferrable to one that doesn't?
Check out the questions about why stock prices are what they are. In a nutshell, a stock's value is based on the future prospects of the company. Generally speaking, if a growth company is paying a dividend, that payment is going to negatively affect the growth of the business. The smart move is to re-invest that capital and make more money. As a shareholder, you are compensated by a rising stock price. When a stock isn't growing quickly, a dividend is a better way for a stockholder to realize value. If a gas and electric company makes a billion dollars, investing that money back into the company is not going to yield a large return. And since those types of companies don't really grow too much, the stocks typically trade in a range and don't see the type of appreciation that a growth stock will. So it makes sense to pay out the dividend to the shareholders. The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets. One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends.  For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income. "Dividend paying stocks are not ""better""  In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations.  The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares.   Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field.  IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money."
There are many reasons, which other answers have already discussed. I want to emphasize and elaborate on just one of the reasons, which is that it avoids double taxation, especially on corporate earnings.  Generally, for corporations, its earnings are already taxed at around 40% (for the US - including State income taxes). When dividends are distributed out, it is taxed again at the individual level. The effect is the same when equity is sold and the distribution is captured as a capital gain. (I believe this is why the dividend and capital gain rates are the same in the US.) For a simplistic example, say there is a C Corporation with a single owner. The company earns $1,000,000 before income taxes. It pays 400,000 in taxes, and has retained earnings of $600,000. To get the money out, the owner can either distribute a dividend to herself, or sell her stake to another person. Either choice leads to $600,000 getting taxed at another 20%~30% or so at the individual level (depending on the State). If we calculate the effective rate, it is above 50%! Many people invest in stock, including mutual funds, and the dividends and capital gains are taxed at lower rates. Individual tax returns that contain no wage income often have very low average tax rates for this reason. However, the investments themselves are continuously paying out their own taxes, or accruing taxes in the form of future tax liability. Facebook is non dividend paying. It's up over 300%. Berkshire is non dividend paying.  The only thing it's stopping is that stock from gaining 10% more because more stock isn't being bought with those sweet sweet payments. And that stock price doesn't create jobs, and neither did lowering taxes on stocks. You know what creates jobs? That money being taxed and put back into the economy. "A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share.  These may also be called ""income"" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies.  So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds.  Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price.  So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks.   Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value.  If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees.  Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn.  Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn." "To answer your question: yes, it's often ""worth it"" to have investments that produce income. Do a Google search for ""income vs growth investing"" and you'll get a sense for two different approaches to investing in equities. In a nutshell: ""growth"" stocks (think Netflix, etc) don't pay dividends but are poised to appreciate in price more than ""income"" stocks (think banks, utilities, etc) that tend to have less volatile prices but pay a consistent dividend. In the long run (decades), growth stocks tend to outperform income stocks. That's why younger investors tend to pick growth stocks while those closer to retirement tend to stick with more stable income-producing portfolio. But there's nothing wrong with a mixed approach, either. I agree with Pete's answer, too." The stock will slowly gain that $1 during the year. Suppose we have the highly theoretical situation that a company's stock is worth exactly $10 right after it paid its dividend, its dividend is always $1 per stock, and the company and everything else is so stable that its value never changes. Then the stock value right before the next dividend is paid will be close to $11 -- after all, it's worth a certain $1 dividend the next day, plus the $10 stock. And in between, half a year after the dividend was paid, it will be in between, say $10.50, or actually slightly less than that (because people like to buy in late so they can make money some other way with the money first). But the point holds -- the price decrease on the day that dividend is paid had been building up the whole period before that decrease. So stock dividends do make you money. Yes. Companies increase, decrease, start paying and stop paying dividends when they think it appropriate.  If a company has been going through some problems and makes a loss, or even a large decrease in profits, they can choose to stop paying dividends until things improve. Many companies did this during the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08. "None of that is filtered my way as a ""part owner"". Sure it is, it's just not always obvious. When a company makes money it either: Other then the fourth option, the first three all increase the total value of the company.  If you owned 1% of a company that was worth X, and is now worth X+1, the value of that 1% ownership should go up as well. One model of the value of a share of stock is the present value of all future cash flows that the company produces for its shareholders, which would be either through dividends, earnings (provided that they are invested back into the company) or through liquidation (sale).  So as earnings increase (or more accurately as projected future earnings increase), so does the value of a share of the company. Also note that the payment of dividends causes the price of a stock to go down when the dividend is paid, since that's equity (cash) that's leaving the company, reducing the value of the company by an equivalent amount. Of course, there's also something to be said for the behavioral aspect of investing, meaning that people sometimes invest in companies that they like, and sell stock of companies that they don't like or disagree with (e.g. Nordstrom's)." Dividends are not fixed. A profitable company which is rapidly expanding, and thus cash-strapped may very well skip dividends, yet that same fast growth makes it valuable. When markets saturate, and expansion stops, the same company may now have a large free cash flow so it can pay dividends.