Capital gains on no-dividend stocks - a theoretical question
Stock prices are set by the market - supply and demand. See Apple for example, which is exactly the company you described: tons of earnings, zero dividends. The stock price goes up and down depending on what happens with the company and how investors feel about it, and it can happen that the total value of the outstanding stock shares will be less than the value of the underlying assets of the company (including the cash resulted from the retained earnings). It can happen, also, that if the investors feel that the stock is not going to appreciate significantly, they will vote to distribute dividends. Its not the company's decision, its the board's. The board is appointed by the shareholders, which is exactly why the voting rights are important. "A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the ""future value"" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the ""present value"" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the ""end"", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest." Berkshire Hathaway would be a good example of a company that has yet to pay dividends, yet is a highly valued stock. A couple of key points here to note is how on the first hand you have that the dividend policy will never change, yet couldn't one argue that there will always be new investors wanting more shares and thus the price keeps going up until someone gains control and decides to issue dividends?  I'm just pointing out how on the one hand you are claiming a never changing and yet on the other thinking there will be a termination when the reality is that unless there is a zombie apocalypse of some form, life will continue and there will be new people to want to buy the stock and some people be willing to sell at the new prices. "You are overlooking the fact that it is not only supply & demand from investors that determines the share price:  The company itself can buy and sell its own shares. If company X is profitable over the long haul but pays 0 dividends then either Option (2) is pretty ridiculous, so (1) will hold except in an extreme ""man bites dog"" kind of fluke. This is connected with the well-known ""dividend paradox"", which I discussed already in another answer."
To follow up on Quid's comment, the share classes themselves will define what level of dividends are expected. Note that the terms 'common shares' and 'preferred shares' are generally understood terms, but are not as precise as you might believe.  There are dozens/hundreds of different characteristics that could be written into share classes in the company's articles of incorporation [as long as those characteristics are legal in corporate law in the company's jurisdiction]. So in answering your question there's a bit of an assumption that things are working 'as usual'. Note that private companies often have odd quirks to their share classes, things like weird small classes of shares that have most of the voting rights, or shares with 'shotgun buyback clauses'. As long as they are legal clauses, they can be used to help control how the business is run between various shareholders with competing interests. Things like parents anticipating future family infighting and trying to prevent familial struggle. You are unlikely to see such weird quirks in public companies, where the company will have additional regulatory requirements and where the public won't want any shock at unexpected share clauses. In your case, you suggested having a non-cumulative preferred share [with no voting rights, but that doesn't impact dividend payment]: There are two salient points left related to payout that the articles of incorporation will need to define for the share classes: (1) What is the redemption value for the shares? [This is usually equal to the cost of subscribing for the shares in the first place; it represents how much the business will need to pay the shareholder in the event of redemption / recall] (2) What is the stated dividend amount? This is usually defined at a rate that's at or a little above a reasonable interest rate at the time the shares are created, but defined as $ / share. For example, the shares could have $1 / share dividend payment, where the shares originally cost $50 each to subscribe [this would reflect a rate of payment of about 2%]. Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares. So if $10k in dividends is to be paid, and total preferred shares require $15k of non-cumulative dividends each year, then $0 will be paid to the common shares. The following year, $15k of dividends will once again need to be paid to the preferred shares, before any can be paid to the common shares. "Has anyone ever proposed significantly lowering the US corporate tax while simultaneously raising dividend taxes for high income earners? Hell, many economists believe that corporate income should be taxed at 0%. If you do this but are worried about ""teh evil corporations"" becoming too big and powerful, that's what a high tax on dividend income is for. You can't personally become rich from a corporation without earning dividend or salary income from a corporation's coffers." "A share of stock is a share of the underlying business. If one believes the underlying business will grow in value, then one would expect the stock price to increase commensurately. Participants in the stock market, in theory, assign value based on some combination of factors like capital assets, cash on hand, revenue, cash flow, profits, dividends paid, and a bunch of other things, including ""intangibles"" like customer loyalty. A dividend stream may be more important to one investor than another. But, essentially, non-dividend paying companies (and, thus, their shares) are expected by their owners to become more valuable over time, at which point they may be sold for a profit. EDIT TO ADD: Let's take an extremely simple example of company valuation: book value, or the sum of assets (capital, cash, etc) and liabilities (debt, etc). Suppose our company has a book value of $1M today, and has 1 million shares outstanding, and so each share is priced at $1. Now, suppose the company, over the next year, puts another $1M in the bank through its profitable operation. Now, the book value is $2/share. Suppose further that the stock price did not go up, so the market capitalization is still $1M, but the underlying asset is worth $2M. Some extremely rational market participant should then immediately use his $1M to buy up all the shares of the company for $1M and sell the underlying assets for their $2M value, for an instant profit of 100%. But this rarely happens, because the existing shareholders are also rational, can read the balance sheet, and refuse to sell their shares unless they get something a lot closer to $2--likely even more if they expect the company to keep getting bigger. In reality, the valuation of shares is obviously much more complicated, but this is the essence of it. This is how one makes money from growth (as opposed to income) stocks. You are correct that you get no income stream while you hold the asset. But you do get money from selling, eventually." You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates.  If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer.   In a comment, you proposed:   Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought  Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true.  And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs.   Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs.  So this isn't exactly a free lunch either.  But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held.  Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever.  Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax.   This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact. 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. "I was just going by [this](http://evonomics.com/amazon-accounting-corporate-profits-rich-peoples-income-invisible-bezos/) source and many like it.  They might not be reffering to _literal_ dividends but increased stock value.  Ultimately, I was responding to that idiot who said ""But a business making no profits to avoid tax is the worst tax planning advice I have ever seen!""..." "This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be ""worth"" something.  However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that ""something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it."" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a  stock might have some ""inherent value"" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder.  If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them ""worth something"" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not." The owner of a long futures contract does not receive dividends, hence this is a disadvantage compared to owning the underlying stock. If the dividend is increased, and the future price would not change, there is an arbitrage possibility. For the sake of simplicity, assume that the stock suddenly starts paying a dividend, and that the risk free rate is zero (so interest does not play a role). One can expect that the future price is (rougly) equal to the stock price before the dividend announcment. If the future price would not change, an investor could buy the stock, and short a futures contract on the stock. At expiration he has to deliver the stock for the price set in the contract, which is under the assumptions here equal to the price he bought the stock for. But because he owned the stock, he receives the announced dividend. Hence he can make a risk-free profit consisting of the divivends. If interest do play a role, the argument is similar. You didn't identify the fund but here is the most obvious way: Some of the stocks they owned could had dividends. Therefore they would have had to pass them on to the investors. If the fund sold shares of stocks, they could have capital gains. They would have sold stocks to pay investors who sold shares. They also could have sold shares of stock to lock in gains, or to get out of positions they no longer wanted.  Therefore a fund could have dividends, and capital gains, but not have an increase in value for the year. Some investors look at how tax efficient a fund is, before investing. The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html "The other two folks here are right with the math and such, so I'll just throw some intuition out there for you.  The basis for this valuation model is really just tacking the Gordon growth model (which is really just a form of valuing a perpetuity) onto a couple of finite discounted cash flows. So that ending part is the Gordon growth model *at the future point* discounted back to the present.  The Gordon growth model uses a ""next period"" dividend for the very simple reason that it's the next one you'd get if you bought the stock.  Is that explanation clear enough, or were some of these points not adequately explained in your class? I'll help a bit more, if I can." The issue for you seems to be the sequence of events. Presumably, there will be a gain in the fund. In one year, you have a fund worth $100,000 and the $8500 your netted from the $10,000 dividend. (Dividends are taxed at 15% for most of us. If your taxable income is under $38K single, it's $0) An $8500 net return for the year. Now, if there were no initial dividend, and at the end of a full year, your $100K grew to $110K, and then gave you the $10K dividend, you might not be so unhappy. Even on day 2, you now have a fund worth $90K with a basis of $100K, and the promise of future dividends or cap gains. When you sell, the first $10K of gain from this point will effectively be tax free due to this quick drop.  To directly answer the last few sentences, dividends and cap gains are different. And different still, for the way a fund processes them. "New SEC rules also now allow brokers to collect fees on non-dividend bearing accounts as an ""ADR Pass-Through Fee"". Since BP (and BP ADR) is not currently paying dividends, this is probably going to be the case here. According to the Schwab brokerage firm, the fee is usually 1-3 cents per share. I did an EDGAR search for BP's documents and came up with too many to read through (due to the oil spill and all of it's related SEC filings) but you can start here: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/m/q207/adr.html" "One way to value companies is to use a Dividend discount model. In substance, it consists in estimating future dividends and calculating their present value. So it is a methodology which considers that an equity is similar to a bond and estimates its current value based on future cash flows. A company may not be paying dividends now, but because its future earnings prospects are good may pay some in the future. In that case the DDM model will give a non-zero value to that stock. If on the other hand you think a company won't ever make any profits and therefore never pay any dividends, then it's probably worth 0! Take Microsoft as an example - it currently pays ~3% dividend per annum. The stock has been listed since 1986 and yet it did not pay any dividends until 2003. But the stock has been rising regularly since the beginning because people had ""priced in"" the fact that there was a high chance that the company would become very profitable - which proved true in the long term (+60,000% including dividends since the IPO!)." "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."