Why would a company with a bad balance sheet be paying dividends?
"A simple response is that it's a good political/strategic move. Ford have effectively said, ""We know we still have debt, but we think the long term future is so good we can go back to paying dividends."" It builds investor confidence and attracts new money. It can also be seen as a way of Ford indicating that they believe the type of debt (regardless of the amount) is okay for them to carry." Ford paid off a tremendous amount of debt prior to reinstating the dividend. While they still have a sizable amount of debt on the balance sheet, they've been able to refinance this debt to a much more affordable point. Their free cash flow + cash on the balance could enable them to pay it off in the very near future (12 - 16 months). Most auto companies have debt on their balance sheet if they choose to offer financial services.  Their overall credit rating (if you really think such things are valid) has also improved. Generally speaking, I agree its a poor idea to give money back to shareholders if you have high-interest bearing debt. One reason a company might choose to pay a dividend is because of the desire of influential stockholders to receive the dividend.   In the case of Ford, for example, there are 70 million shares of Class B stock which receive the same dividend per share as do the common stock holders.  Even though there are 3.8 billion shares of common stock, the Class B owners (which are Ford family) hold 40% of the voting power and so their desires are given much weight.   The Class B owners prefer regular dividends because if enough were to sell their Class B shares, all Class B shares (as a block) would have their voting power drop from 40% to 30%, and with further sales all special voting would be lost and each Class B share would be equivalent to a common share in voting power. Hence the Class B owners, both for themselves and for all of the family members holding Class B, avoid selling shares and prefer receiving dividends. While Ford and the other auto makers have a bad few years, some companies want to have a cash dividend. It appeals to certain investors. Others have tried to avoid dividends: Microsoft didn't start until ~2003; Apple only from mid 80's until mid 90's.; Google never has had a cash dividend. The desire to keep the dividend, or even to increase it, make some companies continue the practice; even when it doesn't make complete sense. Here is a list of stocks that have INCREASED their dividend for the last 25+ years: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/25-year-dividend-increasing-stocks.php Some have had good years, others bad years, in the last 25+ years. Having a debt on a balance sheet does impact the capability and willingness of the company to pay dividend. But more than this it depends on the profitability of the company.  If the company is profitable, there is no reasons why it's share holders should not be rewarded. If the company does not have debt, lot of money and no profit, normally no or a symbolic dividend is paid. It is a good move by Fort. Dividend is the effective way of paying something back to the shareholders.
"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.)" From my memory of CFA Level 2 accounting:  * If Company A buys 50% or more of company B, they must consolidate 100% of Company B on their financial statements. The % of the business they don't own is multiplied by net income every year, and the resulting number is added to minority interest on the balance sheet. * If Company A buys more than 20% but less than 50%, use the equity method of accounting. This involves creating an asset for the purchase price paid for the stake in Company B. The asset increases in value by dividends received, that's it. * If Company A buys 20% or less, the investment is held in Marketable securities or something similar on the balance, and is marked-to-market. A combination of market research and tax law would likely be the combination used to set the salary. An elaboration of each: Taxes - In Canada and the US there can be differences in how payments are treated if they are salary,e.g. payroll taxes such as CPP, Social Security and others may apply in this case as well as personal income tax rates, or dividends, which may have different treatments in some jurisdictions I believe. If salary above $250,000 is taxed at 40% and dividends are taxed at 15%, which rate would you rather pay? (This is hypothetical as no jurisdiction has been noted here yet.) Most provinces and states in North America will tax the first few dollars at rather low rates and so it isn't bad to take a nominal rate of $1 or so in salary as usually the higher rates exist for higher salaries. Executive Compensation has come under scrutiny in recent years though it is usually a mix of salary, bonuses, and stock either restricted or options. Market Research - Some companies may research what other small public companies would pay executives as the salary may have to be approved by a board of directors in some cases. At least this would be how I remember things being decided in small companies I worked for in Washington State and the province of Alberta. In a lot of company cases, excess earnings are stored and if there is enough of a pile then a special dividend may be given out though some corporate structures like REITs force dividends to maintain their tax status. Note the payment in dividend here requires that the President be able to dictate what happens with the cash in the bank of a company which isn't going to be the case for the regular employee. Also, the dividends here would go to all the shareholders and thus if there are people besides the President owning shares they would also get their portion based on what they own. A stock dividend converts some of the reserves and surplus on the company's balance sheet into paid-up capital and securities premium account without involving any actual cash outflow to the shareholders. While cash dividends are eyed by the investors due to their cash yield, issuance of stock dividends are indicators of growing confidence of the management and the shareholders in the company.  The fact that shareholders want to convert free cash sitting on the balance sheet (which can ideally be taken out as dividends) into blocked money in exchange for shares is symbolic to their confidence in the company. This in turn is expected to lead to an increase in market price of the stock. Some banks are bankrupt, or so close to it that they can only pretend to give real dividends in a desperate attempt to keep investors from fleeing and driving their stock price (and thus credit rating) down into a pit of despair.   Other banks (like jpmc) are not in  bad shape, have cash, and are quite happy to disburse it. Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company.  Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market. Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains. "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."