Are founders of a company paid dividends?
Depends on if the stock pays a dividend or not. Some companies in their early years may choose to not pay dividends. Your calculations are off as the dividend stated is annual that you'd have to divide by 4 to get what the quarterly amount would be and there can be variances as Ellison's compensation package may well include options so that the number of shares he owns could fluctuate over the course of a year.
I guess. I just think it's stupid to think there's no difference between a corporation and it's owners. Once an organization of any kind reaches a certain size it becomes bigger than any shareholders, and consumes different types of public goods than any individual would. Kleenex uses different public goods than if all the shareholders just owned paper mills and paper stores in local towns, so it has a different kind of public contribution obligation.  I understand that principle that corporate income and dividends are theoretically the same thing, so shouldn't be taxed twice. I get the concept. But it just seems like another excuse to shift more income to people who own, rather than people who work. I support more money going to people who work for a living, not invest. "Yes, you would pay no taxes at the time of purchase. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many early employees of startup companies are offered stock options that can be ""early-exercised"" (exercised before they vest). In such a case, an employee who exercises immediately upon grant (and assuming the exercise price of the option is the FMV at the time of grant) purchases the stock at FMV, and there no no tax paid when filing 83(b) election." If a company is public, and they record a 2016 profit of 100mil. Say there is shareholder A and shareholder B who are both wealthy and own 25% each of the company. Say the remaining 50% of shares are owned by a number of funds/small time investors.   So 2016 profits are 100mil, lets say there is a dividend. Can the company still award a larger share of profits to the two big shareholders? I.e. say 50 mil of the profits go into dividend payments and another 20 mil as retained earnings to be reinvested into future projects, can the remaining 30 mil of profits be split and given to shareholders A and B? Dividends are not fixed. A profitable company which is rapidly expanding, and thus cash-strapped may very well skip dividends, yet that same fast growth makes it valuable. When markets saturate, and expansion stops, the same company may now have a large free cash flow so it can pay dividends. "Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company.  A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by ""dividend yield traps.""  If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay.  There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare.  Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future.  If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends.  These companies may have ""unusually"" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure.    Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty.  Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis.  So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the ""unusually"" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders." 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. No, just as the profits from the bank do not go to their personal accounts and instead go to the banks coffers, where they are paid out as a dividend.   If your company makes a mistake and loses money, do they draw it from your account? "It's called ""dilution"". Usually it is done to attract more investors, and yes - the existing share holders will get diluted and their share of ownership shrinks. As a shareholder you can affect the board decisions (depends on your stake of ownership), but usually you'll want to attract more investors to keep the company running, so not much you can do to avoid it. The initial investors/employees in a startup company are almost always diluted out. Look at what happened to Steve Jobs at Apple, as an example." Specifically I was wondering, how can the founder determine an appropriate valuation and distribution of shares; ie- the amount of equity to make available for public vs how much to reserve for him/herself. This is an art more than science. If markets believe it to be worth x; one will get. This is not a direct correlation of the revenue a start up makes. It is more an estimated revenue it would make in some point in time in future. There are investment firms that can size up the opportunity and advise; however it is based on their experience and may not always be true reflection of value. Dividends are a form of passive income. "There are no dividends from S-Corp. There are distributions. Big difference. S-Corps fill form 1120S and schedule K-1 per shareholder. In the schedule all the income of your S-Corp will be assigned to various categories that you will later copy to your personal tax return as your personal income. It is not dividend income. The reason people prefer to take distributions from their S-Corps instead of salary is because you don't pay SE taxes on the distributions. That is also the reason why the IRS forces you to pay yourself a reasonable salary. But the tax rate on the income, all of it, is your regular income tax rate, unless the S-Corp income is categorized in a preferred category. The fact that its an S-Corp income doesn't, by itself, allow any preferential treatment. If you're learning the stuff as you go - you should probably get in touch with a tax professional to advise you. All the S-Corp income must be distributed. Its not a matter of ""avoiding paying the tax"", its the matter of ""you must do it"". Not a choice. My answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer (circ 230 disclaimer)." Yes the company can still pay dividends even if they aren't making a profit. 1) If the firm has been around, it might have made profits in the past years, which it might be still carrying (check for retained earnings in the financial statements). 2) Some firms in the past have had taken up debt to return the money to shareholders as dividends. 3) It might sell a part of it's assets and return the gain as dividends. 4) They might be bought by some other firm, which returns cash to shareholders to keep them happy. It pays to keep an eye on the financial statements of the company to check how much liquid money they might be carrying around to pay shareholders as dividends. They can stop paying dividends whenever they want. Apple didn't pay a dividend while Steve Jobs was around, even though they were making billions in profits. Many companies don't pay dividends because they find it more beneficial to continue investing in their business rather than returning money to shareholders. "Not normally, for a limited liability company anyway. In extreme circumstances a court may ""lift the veil"" of incorporation and treat shareholders as if they were partners. If you are an office bearer or a director that is found to have breached duties/responsibiities then that is another matter. Dim views can be taken of shonky arrangents for companies formed for activites not of a bona fide business nature too." What do you think of the argument that corporations shouldn't pay any tax, since investors pay tax on the dividends, and if the corporations paid too, that would be double taxation?  Of course, not all corporate income goes to pay dividends. Much of the rest is deducted as business expense.  Is there some corporate income which should properly be taxed? An employee can still be fired.   A founder, in a company which took investment unwisely (which sadly is most of them, because it's so freaking complicated), can also be fired.  A founder in a company which took no investment or took investment EXCEEDINGLY carefully, cannot be fired.  That is the difference.