What do Earnings Per Share tell potential shareholders?
Earnings per share is the company profit (or loss), divided by the number of outstanding shares. The number should always be compared to the share price, so for instance if the EPS is $1 and the share price is $10, the EPS is 10% of the share price. This means that if the company keeps up this earning you should expect to make 10% yearly on your investment, long term. The stock price may fluctuate, but if the company keeps on making money you will eventually do so too as investor. If the EPS is low it means that the market expects the earnings to rise in the future, either because the company has a low profit margin that can be vastly improved, or because the business is expected to grow. Especially the last case may be a risky investment as you will lose money if the company doesn't grow fast enough, even if it does make a healthy profit. Note that the listed EPS, like most key figures, is based on the last financial statement. Recent developments could mean that better or worse is generally expected. Also note that the earnings of some companies will fluctuate wildly, for instance companies that produce movies or video games will tend to have a huge income for a quarter or two following a new release, but may be in the negative in some periods. This is fine as long as they turn a profit long term, but you will have to look at data for a longer period in order to determine this.
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. Compensation information is available in the annual reports (10-k filings) which are available from the SEC EDGAR system or, generally, the company's website.  Additionally, insider transactions are reported to the SEC so you can see when an insider buys or sells stock or exercises options received as compensation. Background: Nowadays board and officers seem to secretly steal money from shareholders through options and other ways. The stock buybacks that people think should boost the earnings per stock is in reality issued back to the management of the company and is a more stealth way to take money from the company compared to take higher salaries. ... How do you know this is happening if you don't know where to go to get the data needed to determine whether or not this is happening?  Do you really think company share buybacks involve just the amount of shares to pay an executive?  Apple has bought back $117,000,000,000 worth of shares from the fourth quarter 2012 through the second quarter 2016, and paid a pretty substantial amount in dividends over the same period.  Do you really think these shares were simply handed to the executives?  The huge pension funds and other huge investors would not let this slide for very long if it were even close to being true. Don't come to an unfounded conclusion then seek data to prove your position.  Look at and analyze data THEN come to a conclusion. "In 2005, Apple announced a split on Feb 11... CUPERTINO, California — February 11, 2005 — Apple® announced today that its Board of Directors has approved a two-for-one split of the Company’s common stock and a proportional increase in the number of Apple common shares authorized from 900 million to 1.8 billion. Each shareholder of record at the close of business on February 18, 2005 will receive one additional share for every outstanding share held on the record date, and trading will begin on a split-adjusted basis on February 28, 2005. ...one month after announcing earnings. CUPERTINO, California—January 12, 2005—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2005 first quarter ended December 25, 2004. For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $295 million, or $.70 per diluted share. These results compare to a net profit of $63 million, or $.17 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Revenue for the quarter was $3.49 billion, up 74 percent from the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 28.5 percent, up from 26.7 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 41 percent of the quarter’s revenue. I wouldn't expect Apple to offer another split, as it's become somewhat fashionable among tech companies to have high stock prices (see GOOG or NFLX or even BRK-A/BRK-B).  Additionally, as a split does nothing to the underlying value of the company, it shouldn't affect your decision to purchase AAPL.  (That said, it may change the perception of a stock as ""cheap"" or ""expensive"" per human psychology). So, to answer your question: companies will usually announce a stock split after releasing their financial results for the preceding fiscal year. Regardless of results, though, splits happen when the board decides it is advantageous to the company to split its stocks." Shareholder's Equity consists of two main things: The initial capitalization of the company (when the shares were first sold, plus extra share issues) and retained earnings, which is the amount of money the company has made over and above capitalization, which has not been re-distributed back to shareholders. So yes, it is the firm's total equity financing-- the initial capitalization is the equity that was put into the company when it was founded plus subsequent increases in equity due to share issues, and retained earnings is the increase in equity that has occurred since then which has not yet been re-distributed to shareholders (though it belongs to them, as the residual claimants). Both accounts are credited when they increase, because they represent an increase in cash, that is debited, so in order to make credits = debits they must be credits. (It doesn't mean that the company has that much cash on hand, as the cash will likely be re-invested). Shareholder's Equity is neither an asset nor a liability: it is used to purchase assets and to reduce liabilities, and is simply a measure of assets minus liabilities that is necessary to make the accounting equation balance: Since the book value of stocks doesn't change that often (because it represents the price the company sold it for, not the current value on the stock market, and would therefore only change when there were new share issues), almost all changes in total assets or in total liabilities are reflected in Retained Earnings. "There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns.  The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :)  While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with ""best practices""... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it.  Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals.  Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%" Excellent question for a six year old! Actually, a good question for a 20 year old!  One explanation is a bit more complicated. Your son thinks that after the Christmas season the company is worth more. For example, they might have turned $10 million of goods into $20 million of cash, which increases their assets by $10 million and is surely a good thing. However, that's not the whole picture: Before the Christmas season, we have a company with $10 million of goods and the Christmas season just ahead, while afterwards we have a company with $20 million cash and nine months of slow sales ahead.  Let's say your son gets $10 pocket money every Sunday at 11am. Five minutes to 11 he has one dollar in his pocket. Five minutes past 11 he has 11 dollars in his pocket. Is he richer now? Not really, because every minute he gets a bit closer to his pocket money, and five past eleven he is again almost a week away from the next pocket money On the other hand... on Monday, he loses his wallet with $10 inside - he is now $10 poorer. Or his neighbour unexpectedly offers him to wash his car for $10 and he does it - he is now $10 richer.  So if the company got robbed in August with all stock gone, no insurance, but time to buy new stock for the season, they lose $10 million, the company is worth $10 million less, and the share price drops. If they get robbed just before Christmas sales start, they don't make the $20 million sales, so they are $10 million poorer, but they are $20 million behind where they should be - the company is worth $20 millions less, and the share price drops twice as much. On the other hand, if there is a totally unexpected craze for a new toy going on from April to June (and then it drops down), and they make $10 million unexpectedly, they are worth $10 million more. Expected $10 million profit = no increase in share price. Unexpected $10 million profit - increase in share price.  Now the second, totally different explanation. The share price is not based on the value of the company, but on what people are willing to pay. Say it's November and I own 100 shares worth $10. If everyone knew they are worth $20 in January, I would hold on to my shares and not sell them for $10! It would be very hard to convince me to sell them for $19!  If you could predict that the shares will be worth $20 in January, then they would be worth $20 now. The shareprice will not go up or down if something good or bad happens that everyone expects. It only goes up or down if something happens unexpectedly. "No, the stock market is not there for speculation on corporate memorabilia.  At its base, it is there for investing in a business, the point of the investment being, of course, to make money.  A (successful) business earns money, and that makes it valuable to its owners since that money can be distributed to them.  Shares of stock are pieces of business ownership, and so are valuable.   If you knew that the business would have profit of $10,000,000 every year, and would distribute that to the owners of each of its 10,000,000 shares each year, you would know to that each share would receive $1 each year.  How much would such a share be worth to you?  If you could instead put money in a bank and get 5% a year back, to get $1 a year back you would have to put $20 into the bank.  So maybe that share of stock is worth about $20 to you.  If somebody offers to sell you such a share for $18, you might buy it; for $23, maybe you pass up the offer. But business is uncertain, and how much profit the business will make is uncertain and will vary through time.  So how much is a share of a real business worth?  This is a much harder call, and people use many different ways to come up with how much they should pay for a share.  Some people probably just think something like ""Apple is a good company making money, I'll buy a share at whatever price it is being offered at right now.""  Others look at every number available, build models of the company and the economy and the risks, all to estimate what a share might be worth, more or less.  There is no indisputable value for a share of a successful business. So, what effect does a company's earnings have on the price of its stock?  You can only say that for some of the people who might buy or sell shares, higher earnings will, all other thing being equal, have them be willing to spend more to buy it or demand more when selling it.  But how much more is not quantifiable but depends on each person's approach to the problem.  Higher earnings would tend to raise the price of the stock.  Yet there are other factors, such as people who had expected even higher earnings, whose actions would tend to lower the price, and people who are OK with the earnings now, but suspect trouble for the business is appearing on the horizon, whose actions would also tend to lower the price. This is why people say that a stock's price is determined by supply and demand." Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop.