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.
Small companies need not pay out heft dividends. It makes much more sense to invest it directly in to the company to build  a stronger company and produce future results. For example just say Mike see's a company called Milk Inc.  Milk inc is doing very well and for the last three year's the amount the profits are increasing by has been going up by 10% the company is still small and doesn't do dividends. Mike see's opportunity and snatches up 1000 at 2.20 , He knows this company does not pay dividends. 10 years pass and this company is absolutely booming  profits are still going up the company has decided to start paying hefty dividends as it no longer needs as much money to invest in it's growth. Shares are now valued at 6.80 . Mike banks. This comment makes zero sense. No one values equities from the balance sheet, unless you're trying to justify why you'd invest in sears or something (i.e. b/s vastly understates market value of real estate holdings and you're hoping for a liquidity event). Certainly not a tech company or really anything as a going concern. "It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what ""the market"" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is ""earnings per share"", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the ""price-earnings ratio"" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected ""yield"" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets.  Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a ""book value"" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers." "With debts exceeding assets by a billion dollars, this activity likely comes from penny stock speculators and ""pump and dump"" schemers. There is no rational expectation that the stock is even worth multiple pennies when the company is that far upside-down on its debts. Even if the debts could be restructured in a chapter 11, the equity shares would likely lose all of their value in the bankruptcy proceedings. Shareholders are at the bottom of the totem-pole when debts are being adjusted by the courts." "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.)" The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its   expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or   two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can   sell it and make more money than dividends. Stephen's answer is the 100% correct one made with the common Economics assumption, that people are rational. A company that never has paid dividends, is still worth something to people because of its potential to start paying dividends later and it is often better to grow now and payoff later. However, the actual answer is much more disapointing, because people are not rational and the stock market is no longer about investing in companies or earning dividends. Most of the value of a stock is for the same reason that gold, stamps, coins and bitcoins, and Australian houses are worth anything, that is, because enough people say it is worth something*. Even stocks that pay dividends, very few people buy it for dividends. They buy it because they believe someone else will be willing to buy it for slightly more, shortly after. Different traders have different timeframes, ranging from seconds to months. *Houses and stock are of course partially valuable due to the fundamentals, but the major reason they are purchased is just to resell at a profit. Firstly, investors love dividend paying company as dividends are proof of making profit (sometimes dividend can be paid out of past profits too)   Secondly, investor cash in hand is better than potential earnings by the company by way of interest. Investor feels good to redeploy received cash (dividend) on their own   Thirdly, in some countries dividend are tax free income as tax on dividends has already been paid. As average tax on dividend is lower than maximum marginal tax; for some investor it generates extra post tax income   Fourthly, dividend pay out ratio of most companies don't exceed 30% of available fund for paying (surplus cash) so it is seen as best of both the world Lastly, I trust by instinct a regular dividend paying company more than not paying one in same sector of industry the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street 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. "A dividend is one method of returning value to shareholders, some companies pay richer dividends than others; some companies don't typically pay a dividend.  Understand that shareholders are owners of a company.  When you buy a stock you now own a portion (albeit an extremely small portion) of that company. It is up to you to determine whether holding stock in a company is worth the risk inherent to equity investing over simply holding treasury notes or some other comparable no risk investment like bank savings or CDs.   Investing isn't really intended to change your current life.  A common phrase is ""investing in tomorrow.""  It's about holding on to money so you'll have it for tomorrow.  It's about putting your money to work for you today, so you'll have it tomorrow.  It's all about the future, not your current life." "The basic theoretical reason for a company to return money to shareholders is that the company doesn't need the money for its own purposes (e.g. investment or working capital). So instead of the company just keeping it in the bank, it hands it back so that shareholders can do what they think fit, e.g. investing it elsewhere. In some cases, particularly ""private equity"" deals, you see companies actively borrowing money to payout to shareholders, on the grounds that they can do so cheaply enough that it will improve overall shareholder returns. The trade-off with this kind of ""leveraging up"" is that it usually makes the business more risky and every so often you see it go wrong, e.g. after an economic downturn. It may still be a rational thing to do, but I'd look at that kind of proposal very carefully. In this case I think things are quite different: the company has sold a valuable asset and has spare cash. It's already going to use some of the money to reduce debt so it doesn't seem like the company is becoming more risky. Overall if the management is recommending it, I would support it. As you say, the share consolidation seems like just a technical measure and you might as well also support that. I think they want to make their share price seem stable over time to people who are looking at it casually and won't be aware of the payout - otherwise it'd suddenly drop by 60p and might give the impression the company had some bad news. The plan is to essentially cancel one share worth ~960p for every payout they make on 16 shares - since 16x60p = 960p payout this should leave the share price broadly unchanged." Why? Balance sheet is balance sheet, why is it complicated? Bank shareholders get dividends in exactly the same way as any other company shareholders do: the company ends up with net profits, which the board of directors decides to distribute to shareholders based on certain amount per share. If at all. Not all the profits are distributed, and in fact - there are companies who don't distribute dividends at all. Apple, for example, hasn't ever distributed dividends until very very recently. 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. To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings.