In India, what is the difference between Dividend and Growth mutual fund types?
"The difference between dividend and growth in mutual funds has to do with the types of stocks the mutual fund invests in. Typically a company in the early stages are considered growth investments. In this phase the company needs to keep most of its profits to reinvest in the business. Typically once a company gets a significant size the company's growth prospects are not as good so the company pays some of its profits in the form of a dividend to the shareholders.  As far as which is the best buy is totally a personal choice. There will be times when one is better then the other. Most likely you will want to ""diversify"" and invest in both types." After searching a bit and talking to some investment advisors in India I got below information. So thought of posting it so that others can get benefited. This is specific to indian mutual funds, not sure whether this is same for other markets. Even currency used for examples is also indian rupee. A mutual fund generally offers two schemes: dividend and growth. The dividend option does not re-invest the profits made by the fund though its investments. Instead, it is given to the investor from time to time. In the growth scheme, all profits made by the fund are ploughed back into the scheme. This causes the NAV to rise over time. The impact on the NAV The NAV of the growth option will always be higher than that of the dividend option because money is going back into the scheme and not given to investors.  How does this impact us? We don't gain or lose per se by selecting any one scheme. Either we make the choice to get the money regularly (dividend) or at one go (growth). If we choose the growth option, we can make money by selling the units at a high NAV at a later date. If we choose the dividend option, we will get the money time and again as well as avail of a higher NAV (though the NAV here is not as high as that of a growth option). Say there is a fund with an NAV of Rs 18. It declares a dividend of 20%. This means it will pay 20% of the face value. The face value of a mutual fund unit is 10 (its NAV in this case is 18). So it will give us Rs 2 per unit. If we own 1,000 units of the fund, we will get Rs 2,000. Since it has paid Rs 2 per unit, the NAV will fall from Rs 18 to Rs 16. If we invest in the growth option, we can sell the units for Rs 18. If we invest in the dividend option, we can sell the units for Rs 16, since we already made a profit of Rs 2 per unit earlier. What we must know about dividends The dividend is not guaranteed. If a fund declared dividends twice last year, it does not mean it will do so again this year. We could get a dividend just once or we might not even get it this year. Remember, though, declaring a dividend is solely at the fund's discretion; the periodicity is not certain nor is the amount fixed. I wrote about this a while back: http://blog.investraction.com/2006/10/mutual-funds-dividend-option-or-growth.html In short: Growth options of a mutual fund scheme don't pay out any money, they reinvest the dividend they receive. Dividend options pay out some money, at different intervals, based on the surplus they accumulate. In India, the options have very similar underlying portfolios, so HDFC Equity Fund (Growth) and HDFC Equity Fund (dividend) will have the same percentage allocation to each stock. Update: I also have a video you might want to see on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx8QtnccfZk "A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share.  These may also be called ""income"" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies.  So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds.  Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price.  So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks.   Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value.  If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees.  Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn.  Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn."
In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index. Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question.  Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products. "This has been answered countless times before: One example you may want to look at is DGRO.  It is an iShares ETF that many discount brokers trade for free.  This ETF:  offers ""exposure to U.S. stocks focused on dividend growth""." "Another factor to consider, beyond the fact that growth and volatility go together, is that the times when many people will need to liquidate their investments will correlate with the times that many other people need to liquidate their investments, and such correlation will push down the immediate value of those investments. While certificates of deposit have penalties for early withdrawal, one can establish up front what the worst-case penalty would be for cashing it in at the most inopportune time.  By contrast, stocks offer no such assurance.  Stocks sometimes have weird downward spikes that may be short-lived, but if life circumstances force one to liquidate stocks during such a downward spike the ""penalty"" can be much larger than on a CD." "There's another line of business based on the theory of perpetual incremental growth. It's called a ""pyramid scheme""  In the longlongago, there were two general types of stock: growth stocks and income stocks.   Growth stocks were generally smaller businesses that were still, well, growing. You didn't expect much of a dividend from them because they were reinvesting profits into growing into new markets. The focus was on capital growth.   Once a company got fairly large and mature, then the expectation of capital growth tapered off because back then reasonable investors recognized it's insane to expect that a company can grow forever. Then, while there may be some ongoing capital growth, the major focus was on dividend income - getting a piece of the profits a large, established company could pull in.   The dotcom (among other things) broke that. People got obsessed with capital growth and instant returns. The idea of a decent yield over time became laughable. Instead a company had to show a percentage year over year growth or they got filleted by Wall Street.   If you put one penny on the first square of a checkerboard, then two pennies on the next, then four pennies on the square after that... once you fill the entire checkerboard how much money do you have?" The highest growth for an investment has historically been in stocks. Investing in mature companies that offer dividends is great for you since it is compound growth. Many oil and gas companies provide dividends. A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays  dividends; a stock neither has nor does it  distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you  redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions  either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund.  All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund). The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading.  Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF.  For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps. "In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, ""recognition"". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash." Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated).  You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A.  However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way. "Someone (I forget who) did a study on classifying total return by the dividend profiles. In descending order by category, the results were as follows: 1) Growing dividends. These tend to be moderate yielders, say 2%-3% a year in today's markets. Because their dividends are starting from a low level, the growth of dividends is much higher than stocks in the next category. 2) ""Flat"" dividends. These tend to be higher yielders, 5% and up, but growing not at all, like interest on bonds, or very slowly (less than 2%-3% a year). 3) No dividends. A ""neutral"" posture. 4) Dividend cutters. Just ""bad news.""" "I think Fidelity has a very nice introduction to Growth vs Value investing that may give you the background you need.  People love to put stocks in categories however the distinction is more of a range and can change over time. JB King makes a good point that for most people the two stocks you mentioned would both be considered value right now as they are both stable companies with a significant dividend.  You are correct though Pfizer might be considered ""more growth."" A more drastic example would be the difference between Target and Amazon.  Both are retail companies that sell a wide variety of products.  Target is a value company: a established company with stable revenues that uses its income to give a fairly stable dividend.  Amazon is a growth company: that is reinvesting its revenues back into the corporation to grow itself as fast as possible.   The price of the Amazon stock reflects what people think will be future growth (future income) for the company.  Whereas Target's price appears to be based on the idea that future income will be similar to current income.  You can see why growth companies like Amazon might be more risky as that growth you paid a high price for may not be realized, but the payout may be much higher as well." At 19 years old you can and should be investing to see your money grow over the years. Reinvesting the dividends does get to be pretty significant because they compound over many years. Historically this dividend compounding accounts for about half of the total gains from stocks. At 70 years old I am not investing to see my money grow, although that's nice. I am investing to eat. I live on the dividends, and they tend to come in fairly reliably even as the market bounces up and down. For stocks selected with this in mind I get about 4% per year from the dividends. Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends).  A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio.  It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate.  When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock. The rental industry is seasonal. They purchase additional inventory (vehicles) for their busy seasons and sell the extra inventory afterwards.