Why do people buy stocks that pay no dividend?
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. people buy stocks because there is more to Return on Investment than whether dividends are issued or not. Some people want ownership and the ability to influence decisions by using the rights associated with their class of stock. Another reason would be to park capital in a place that would grow faster than the rate of inflation. these are only a few of many reasons why people would buy stock. There are many stocks that don't have dividends. Their revenue, growth, and reinvestment help these companies to grow, and my share of such companies represent say, one billionth of a growing company, and therefore worth more over time.  Look up the details of Berkshire Hathaway. No dividend, but a value of over $100,000. Not a typo, over one hundred thousand dollars per share. Nobody is going to buy a stock without returns.  However, returns are dividends + capital gains.  So long as there is enough of the latter it doesn't matter if there is none of the former. Consider:  Berkshire Hathaway--Warren Buffet's company.  It has never paid dividends.  It just keeps going up because Warren Buffet makes the money grow.  I would expect the price to crash if it ever paid dividends--that would be an indication that Warren Buffet couldn't find anything good to do with the money and thus an indication that the growth was going to stop. Shares in a company represent a portion of a company. If that company takes in money and doesn't pay it out as a dividend (e.g. Apple), the company is still more valuable because it has cold hard cash as an asset. Theoretically, it's all the same whether your share of the money is inside the company or outside the company; the only immediate difference is tax treatment.  Of course, for large bank accounts that means that an investment in the company is a mix of investment in the bank account and investment in the business-value of the company, which may stymie investors who aren't particularly interested in buying larve amounts of bank accounts (known for low returns) and would prefer to receive their share of the cash to invest elsewhere (or in the business portion of the company.) Companies like Apple have in fact taken criticism for this. Your company could also use that cash to invest in itself (growing the value of its profits) or buy other companies that are worth money, essentially doing the job for you. Of course, they can do the job well or they can do it poorly... A company could also be acquired by a larger company, or taken private, in exchange for cash or the stock of another company. This is another way that the company's value could be returned to its shareholders. "You can think of the situation as a kind of Nash equilibrium.  If ""the market"" values stock based on the value of the company, then from an individual point of view it makes sense to value stock the same way. As an illustration, imagine that stock prices were associated with the amount of precipitation at the company's location, rather than the assets of the company.  In this imaginary stock market, it would not benefit you to buy and sell stock according to the company's value.  Instead, you would profit most from buying and selling according to the weather, like everyone else.  (Whether this system — or the current one — would be stable in the long-term is another matter entirely.)" "I don't know why there is so much confusion on such a simple concept. The answer is very simple. A stock must eventually pay dividends or the whole stock market is just a cheap ponzi scheme. A company may temporarily decided to reinvest profits into R&D, company expansion, etc. but obviously if they promised to never pay dividends then you can never participate in the profits of the company and there is simply no intrinsic value to the stock. For all of you saying 'Yeah but the stock price will go up!', please people get a life. The only reason the price goes up is in anticipation of dividend yield otherwise WHY would the price go up?  ""But the company is worth more and the stock is worth more"" A stocks value is not set by the company but by people who buy and sell in the open market.  To think a stock's price can go up even if the company refuses to pay dividends is analogous to : Person A says ""Hey buy these paper clips for $10"". But those paper clips aren't worth that. ""It doesn't matter because some fool down the line will pay $15"". But why would they pay that? ""Because some fool after him will pay $20"" Ha Ha!"
IBM is famous for spending lots of money on stock buyback to keep the stock price higher. The technique works, and investors in growth stocks generally prefer a high market prices to a taxable dividend payment. Dividends are ways to return shareholder value when a company generates a lot of cash, but doesn't have alot of growth. Electric and gas companies are a classic example of high-dividend companies. I would say that the answer is yes.  Investors may move on purchasing a stock as a result of news that a stock is set to pay out their dividend.   It would be interesting to analyze the trend based on a company's dividend payouts over 10 or so years to see what/how this impacts the market value of a given company. Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits.  If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated.  There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value.  It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something.  Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value.  (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.) "Yes, I agree with you. Saying that the value of the stock will grow as the company grows and acquires more assets ... I don't see why. Okay, I'm a nice guy and I want to see other people do well, but what do I care how much money they're making if they're not giving any of it to ME?  Frankly I think it's like people who buy commemorative plates or beanie babies or other ""collectibles"" as an investment. As long as others are also buying them as an investment, and buying and reselling at a profit, the value will continue to go up. But one day people say, Wait, is this little stuffed toy really worth $10,000? and the balloon bursts. Confer Dutch tulips: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-dutch-tulip-bubble-of-1637/ As I see it, what gives a non-dividend-paying stock value is mostly the expectation that at some time in the future it will pay dividends. This is especially true of new start-up companies. As you mentioned, there's also the possibility of a takeover. It wouldn't have to be a hostile takeover, any takeover would do. At that point the buying company either buys the stock or exchanges it for shares of their own. In the first case you now have cash for your investment and in the second case you now have stock in a dividend-paying company -- or in another non-dividend-paying company and you start the cycle over." There's not usually a point to issuing new stock as a dividend, because if you issue new stock, it dilutes the existing shareholders by the exact same amount as the dividend: so now they have a few more shares, great, but they're worth the exact same amount. (This assumes that all stockholders are equal. If there are multiple share classes, or people whose rights to a stock are tied to the stock price in some manner - options, warrants, or something - then a properly structured stock dividend could serve to enrich one set of shareholders and other rights-holders at the expense of another. But this is usually illegal.) If this sort of dividends are popular in China, I suspect it is due to some freaky regulatory or tax-related circumstances which are not present in the United States markets. China is kind of notorious for having unusual capital controls, limitations on the exchange of currency, and markets which are not very transparent. If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains.  (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance).   However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens.  But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks.  (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway).   Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners.  As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can.  However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners).   Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business.  As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable.   It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends.  This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile. I would say the most important thing to consider is the quality of the company relative to the price you pay for it. No dividend also means that you will not pay taxes on dividends. "The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere.  They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a ""company"". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued.  A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future.  Berkshire Hathaway  does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example.  But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up.  Would it be worth anything?  Of course it would.  It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this ""promise to pay"" is much like a non-dividend paying stock.  Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up.  It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout." For XOM if you were lucky enough to purchase on 20 Jan 16, at 73.18/share and sold on 15 July at 94.95 you would achieve a 29% return in six months.  Awesome.  You'd also get a dividend payment or two adding another percentage point per to your returns.   The one year chart for FB shows it increasing from ~95/share to ~129.  Yet no dividend was paid.  However, the 35.7% YTD for 2016 should make anyone happy. Both of these require excellent timing, and those kind of returns are unsustainable over the long haul.  Many people simply hold stocks.  Having the dividend is a nice bonus to some growth.   Why to people buy stocks?  For profit.  Sometimes dividend payers offer the best option, sometimes not. It depends on your investment profile but basically, dividends increase your taxable income. Anyone making an income will effectively get 'lower returns' on their investments due to this effect. If you had the choice between identical shares that either give a dividend or don't, you'll find that stock that pays a dividend has a lower price, and increases in value more slowly than stock that doesn't. (all other things being equal)  There's a whole bunch of economic theory behind this but in short, the current stock price is a measure of how much the company is worth combined with an estimation of how much it will be worth in the future (NPV of all future dividends is the basic model). When the company makes profit, it can keep those profits, and invest in new projects or distribute a portion of those profits to shareholders (aka dividends). Distributing the value to shareholders reduces the value of the company somewhat, but the shareholders get the money now. If the company doesn't give dividends, it has a higher value which will be reflected in a higher stock price.  So basically, all other things being equal (which they rarely are, but I digress) the price and growth difference reflects the fact that dividends are paying out now. (In other words, if you wanted non-dividend shares you could get them by buying dividend shares and re-investing the dividend as new shares every time there was a payout, and you could get dividend-share like properties by selling a percentage of non-dividend shares periodically). Dividend income is taxable as part of your income right away, however taxes on capital gains only happen when you sell the asset in question, and also has a lower tax rate. If you buy and hold Berkshire Hatheway, you will not have to pay taxes on the gains you get until you decide to sell the shares, and even then the tax rate will be lower. If you are investing for retirement, this is great, since your income from other sources will be lower, so you can afford to be taxed then. In many jurisdictions, income from capital gains is subject to a different tax rate than the rest of your income, for example in the US for most people with money to invest it's either 15% or 20%, which will be lower than normal income tax would be (since most people with money to invest would be making enough to be in a higher bracket). Say, for example, your income now is within the 25% bracket. Any dividend you get will be taxed at that rate, so let's say that the dividend is about 2% and the growth of the stock is about 4%. So, your effective growth rate after taxation is 5.5% -- you lose 0.5% from the 25% tax on the dividend. If, instead, you had stock with the same growth but no dividend it would grow at a rate of 6%. If you never withdrew the money, after 20 years, $1 in the dividend stock would be worth ~$2.92 (1.055^20), whereas $1 in the non-dividend stock would be worth ~$3.21 (1.06^20). You're talking about a difference of 30 cents per dollar invested, which doesn't seem huge but multiply it by 100,000 and you've got yourself enough money to renovate your house purely out of money that would have gone to the government instead. The advantage here is if you are saving up for retirement, when you retire you won't have much income so the tax on the gains (even ignoring the capital gains effect above) will definitely be less then when you were working, however if you had a dividend stock you would have been paying taxes on the dividend, at a higher rate, throughout the lifetime of the investment.  So, there you go, that's what Mohnish Pabrai is talking about. There are some caveats to this. If the amount you are investing isn't large, and you are in a lower tax bracket, and the stock pays out relatively low dividends you won't really feel the difference much, even though it's there. Also, dividend vs. no dividend is hardly the highest priority when deciding what company to invest in, and you'll practically never be able to find identical companies that differ only on dividend/no dividend, so if you find a great buy you may not have a choice in the matter.  Also, there has been a trend in recent years to also make capital gains tax progressive, so people who have a higher income will also pay more in capital gains, which negates part of the benefit of non-dividend stocks (but doesn't change the growth rate effects before the sale).  There are also some theoretical arguments that dividend-paying companies should have stronger shareholders (since the company has less capital, it has to 'play nice' to get money either from new shares or from banks, which leads to less risky behavior) but it's not so cut-and-dried in real life. There are many reasons for buying stock for dividends.  You are right in the sense that in theory a stock's price will go down in value by the amount of the dividend. As the amount of dividend was adding to the value of the company, but now has been paid out to shareholder, so now the company is worth less by the value of the dividend. However, in real life this may or may not happen. Sometimes the price will drop by less than the value of the dividend. Sometimes the price will drop by more than the dividend. And other times the price will go up even though the stock has gone ex-dividend. We can say that if the price has dropped by exactly the amount of the dividend then there has been no change in the stockholders value, if the price has dropped by more than the value of the dividend then there has been a drop to the stockholder's value, and if the price has gone up or dropped by less than the value of the dividend then there has been a increase to the stockholder's value. Benefits of Buying Stocks with Good Dividends: What you shouldn't do however, is buy stocks solely due to the dividend. Be aware that if a company starts reducing its dividends, it could be an early warning sign that the company may be heading into financial troubles. That is why holding a stock that is dropping in price purely for its dividend can be a very dangerous practice. 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. "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." "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!)." The risk in a divident paying stock can come from 2 sources. The business of the company, or the valuation of the stock at the time you buy.  The business of the company relates to how they are running things, the risks they are taking with the company, innovations in their pipeline, and their competitive landscape. You can find all sorts of examples of companies that paid nice dividends but didn't end so well... Eastman Kodak, Enron, Lehman brothers, all used to pay very nice dividends at some point...  On the other hand you have the valuation. The company is running great, but the market has unrealistic expectations about it. Think Amazon and Yahoo back in 2001... the price was way too high for the company's worth. As the price of a stock goes up, the return that you get from its future cash flows (dividends) goes down (and viceversa).  If you want to go deep into the subject, check out this course from Chicago U they spend a lot of time talking about dividends, future returns from stocks and the risk rewards of finding stocks by methods such as these.